Buy that Great Farnham Newspaper and read it!
Here at the Waverley Web we want the whole borough to be aware of the Balls Up Of Blightwells – about to be built on Flood Zone 3 in East Street, Farnham.
Tag: Farnham
Farnham residents have given a resounding vote of no confidence in ‘Your Waverley’ – could it be the East’s turn next?
Sadly, unlike Farnham, there was no Residents’ Group standing in the recent county council elections in the East of Waverley.
Despite one of the most acrimonious internal fights being played within the Guildford Conservative Association to oust the sitting councillor – Alan Young, there was no Independent voice to capitalise on the opportunity this presented.
The mutter in the Ewhurst gutter confirms that it was Matron Milton , and friends, who worked to kick out the ‘popular’ Mr Young, (one of his supporter’s words, not ours!) He wanted to continue representing the Eastern villages along with his wife Victoria, known locally as Queen Vic. Who incidentally was voted back in the Eastern villages, by opposing development at Dunsfold and supporting development in Cranleigh and Ewhurst!
However, after blood was spent and venom disgorged in bucket loads the chosen one – Andrew Povey – a former Leader of Surrey County Council, romped home after trousering 2,098 votes, a thousand more than his nearest rival Lib Dem Richard Cole. He now sits among many of the colleagues who took a vote of no confidence in his leadership six years ago and threw him out!
Ah well! All’s fair in the world of backstabbing POLITICS, and who better to get to grips with SCC’s Leader Hodge the bodge than his old adversary? Do we see blood spilled at County Towers?
However in Farnham it was a very different story. The Residents’ Group had plenty to smile about. Having pushed the voting fodder around for years, the townsfolk bit back at “Your Waverley” and “Your County Council’ and threw out two Tory councillors, and only narrowly avoided bagging a third seat.
`Now, we hear on the Waverley grapevine that the rumblings in the East at the way townsfolk there have, and continue to be, treated by ‘YW’ has reached a roar!
When folk turn out for the a public meeting called by the Civic Society on Thursday 25th May there may be another residents army preparing to march into the 2018 Waverley Borough Council elections.
WHY? Because voters feel they can no longer influence decisions, and are fed up with being patronised and ignored.
But in Farnham – they have already voted with their feet and they won!
Will Farnham soon have an alien in its midst?
A SIX LEVEL MULTI-SOREY CAR PARK IN FARNHAM’S ONCE LOVELY MARKET TOWN? BUT DO ITS RESIDENTS GIVE A DAMN?
Another nice little earner for Waverley Borough Council?
Listen to Pottymouth, no we didn’t say Portsmouth!
Here’s a letter we have received at the Waverley Web from Jim Duffy a local architect about… yes you guessed! “The slow motion car crash” about to happen with the ‘Brightwells, Farnham -Retail Investment Risk Assessment’ Not that the one sitting in the Giant Chamber pot will take any notice!
And… listen very carefully to the interview with the BBC!
We have! And, Pottymouth says, quite clearly, that they have just had a Judicial Review and were successful. .. Let us assure everyone in the borough of Waverley.
There has not been a JR and so she lies – and lies!
Dear Surrey County Councillors
Please see this link for an interview yesterday with me on BBC Radio Surrey, including a response by Waverley Councillor Julia Potts and a statement by SCC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04tllk1 BBC Surrey – Breakfast on BBC Surrey, 17/03/201
Click on the picture of the presenters and a slider appears. Move slider to 1.39:40
In the interview you can hear how narrow but important the focus of my critique is. It is all about the unit shops rather than the restaurants, cinema, food store or housing. These other uses are much less location-sensitive and should be fine. These are my two main concerns:
1.Off-Pitch location
My contention, based on considerable experience and market knowledge, is that this location is completely “off-pitch” for mainstream retail and it can’t be fixed. Ms Potts doesn’t respond at all to this point.
This isn’t true for retailers who have no re-generation agenda. They simply want the best available shop in the position of highest footfall. This isn’t East Street and never will be. Despite Ms Potts claims, a new Cinema, restaurants and food store will not provide sufficient new daytime footfall to “anchor” the new comparison-goods unit shops. A smallish scheme, such as this, would only work as a well-connected extension to the existing “prime pitch”. The reality is that the Brightwells site suffers badly from being across a busy traffic junction and in the middle of a secondary shopping area with an existing high vacancy rate.
2. SCC’s high-risk gamble with public money
Surrey County Council has chosen to invest in a scheme that has been passed over for 15 years by all the top industry investors. Doesn’t this fact alone tell you this is unwise and carries a very high risk? Its desire to invest in Surrey towns is laudable but not by taking on an un-viable scheme that the market has so firmly rejected?
It seems that over 70% of the rent that is required to support the £30m commercial investment is dependent on letting the unit shops to leading multiples at very high rental levels, relative to the adjacent East Street pitch. When this doesn’t happen the value of the investment will plummet by at least this percentage.
The normal practice for such investments is for the developer to take the up-front risk. He does need to secure the end investor in principle. This enables the developer to obtain bank finance to build and let the scheme. However,the long-term investor gets a ready-made income on long leases – at or close to 100% let . The investor has a monitoring role during construction but doesn’t pay anything until letting is finalized.
According to press reports, only 30% of the space needs to be let before the investment goes final. Apparently this threshold has already been reached with the Cinema, Restaurants and Food Store. This strongly suggests that SCC will have to make a full commitment to the investment with not a single unit shop let. Its development partners will be relatively secure but SCC is therefore taking a huge gamble with public money!
With a new retail development, where retailers “hunt in packs”, it is pretty well all or nothing. I think the chances of leading retailers agreeing en-mass to go here are close to zero. My prediction is that it will open with twenty-two empty units with hoardings. This is going to be a big problem.
Councillors. Please pause now until you have a full understanding of these issues. You seem to be sleep-walking into a financial disaster. Nothing can now stop you but your own good judgement.
I’ve sent a similar e-mail to Waverley Borough Councillors.
Kind regards
Jim Duffy
Director
jduffy@addarchitects.co.uk
It’s finally happened – She’s Gone to Potts!
WE’RE GOING SLIGHTLY MAD – BUT WE ARE NOT THE ONLY ONES!
What exactly is our disingenuous Leader of ‘Your Waverley’ on about? – She speaks triumphantly of the recent High Court’s judgement on the Farnham Five’s Fight as if it were some sort of endorsement of ‘YW’s toxic partnership with Crest Nicholson and the merit of redeveloping Blightwells/ East Street Farnham.
We here at the Waverley Web thought we had gone – slightly mad when we heard her gloating about their success. She actually had the bare faced cheek to speak publicly of a judge who, she said, had made the ‘right decision for Farnham! For God’s sake woman, what does the judge know, or even want to know about redeveloping Farnham? His ruling was not about ” development in Farnham” it was about HIS, yes HIS, interpretation of the law. And we don’t want to say too much about his interpretation do we as he might stamp on us!!! UGH!!
“If you want to live and thrive let a spider run alive!!
YOU CHALLENGED THE FARNHAM FIVE RIGHT TO HAVE THEIR CASE HEARD? GOT IT!
Your gloating just continues to alienate, even those Farnham residents, who actually support the scheme, by your preposterous, and ever more cynical misrepresentation of the facts.
It is quite simple – the judge, accepted Waverley’s argument that the claimants had no standing in law to have their case heard. Got it! – he ruled out their request to HAVE THE CASE HEARD. Why? Because – “they had no direct commercial or financial interest in the matter.” That’s WHY! The fact that another judge had come to a different conclusion in a Wincheser issue just goes to show- different Judge – different decision – the Law is an Ass!
So let’s face it Councillor Potts all you and Your Council have achieved is to evade any possibility of your shenanigans (we will call them that rather any stronger accusations) being examined in the cold harsh light of day in public at a Judicial Review. So all your nasty little secrets remain just that… unless of course… the WW knows different!
- To retain some credibility, honesty and transparency in the eyes of the public. Produce the letter that was handed over to the Inspector at the Compulsory purchase Inquiry on the Marlborough Head? You know the letter that you prevented your democratically elected councillors from seeing? The one that gave the name of the funder – that you didn’t have in place – did you?
But the facts remain – You have given away Farnham land that was assigned a minimum value for ‘Your Waverley’ of £8.76million in 2003 but which is worth only £3.19m now!
What a great shame for Farnham residents and the rest of the Waverley borough that you were not given an opportunity to explain Why? at a Judicial Review?