Mike Causey – Wrecclesham and Rowledge
Waverley Borough CouncillorArchive for East Street
East Street – reality and reasonableness
When is a deadline not a deadline? When it’s not ‘reasonable’.
How do I know this? Because it appears that planning permission is a law unto itself, and I continue (against my better judgment) to be surprised the twists and turns that represent the saga of the East Street planning permission.
Challenged by a very good question a few months ago, I set about asking why the planning permission granted for East Street wouldn’t expire at the end of August, as a consequence of the developers CNS having failed to submit a planning application for access to the site via a bridge from the A31.
Well, it appears that “by exchange of correspondence [the parties] agreed an extension of the period to submit by one month to the end of September 2010. To do otherwise would have been unreasonable.” My understanding of what is ‘reasonable’ or not is certainly not extensive, but I’m told that if the developers were to appeal against a one month delay, they’d most certainly win.
Hence, we’ve seen the application from CNS received on 30th September.
My opinion and gut feel? I’m uncomfortable with such an extension being offered without the Joint Planning Committee (JPC) being formally consulted. In my view this is the most critical development proposal that Farnham has faced, poised to materially change the economic, cultural and environmental face of the town. To extend (albeit under delegated powers) a deadline for a condition specifically articulated by the JPC as a pivotal requirement of the permission, seems to me to be at least incognisant of the significance of such a move.
In addition, I discern a not inconsiderate disinterest (and sometimes disdain) on the part of various players in the process, towards vocal opponents of the scheme, who mostly address passionate, pointed and primed questions, to only receive a mixture of impatience, annoyance and dismissal in return. I’l readily agree that the form and attitude with which these questions are directed can too readily elicit irritation, but I will forever defend the questioner’s right to do so, and, will hold on to the belief that such a right to free speech (criticism included) is essential for the strength of our local as well as national democracy.
I do not believe that the pursuit of such questions asked by the public has been vexatious or a waste of public money.
Dear Jerry…
Dear Jerry,
Apologies. I absolutely owe you a response on your very good questions about East Street planning permission, and in particular the deadline for CnS to submit an application for a bridge from the A31 into the development site.
I’m in the course of doing this, but am manning a stall at re Godalming Food Market today, so it won’t be posted until later.
Using a blog post to say this is in order that my other readers – who have seen my previous posts, and your own comments – will also know that I’ll be writing at length in the matter.
Rediscovering Farnham
Today was a wonderful re-discovery of some areas of Farnham. I parked the car near Farnham Baptist Church, and then walked to and between the various meetings and shopping that I had to do.
During my perambulation, I looked anew at the amazing buildings around me; the picturesque and quiet Lower, Middle and Upper Church Lane; the lovely walk Downing Street to the Maltings; young boys netting crayfish in the River Wey; Borelli’s Yard; the view up Castle Street; the simple joys and nature of Gostrey Meadows.
And as I saw once more what a wonderful town we live in, it renewed my desire not to see just an ‘okay’ development take place, but an excellent one, which offered much greater sympathy to the history and architecture of the town, and offered hope to those who believe that the East Street planning permission as given is not right.
I may not blog about everything I do as a councillor, but please know that I’m continuing to work on different fronts to challenge the received wisdom of the present scheme.
Better later than never
Some further thoughts with regard to East Street, this time with particular consideration of what constitutes an expert opinion.
In my blog on Monday I noted that 61% of respondents to the survey in 2007, which referred to the plan for which permission was subsequently given, indicated their favour for the scheme. That’s a good majority, and when taken in conjunction with a further 10% that had some concerns but were generally supportive, it becomes fairly clear cut.
But, I am open to the argument that individuals and groups may well have good reason to question both the detail and the generality of the plan, bringing to bear their expert opinion on the matter.
And that brings me to the Farnham Society, the Farnham Theatre Association, and some individuals who have with great diligence and perseverance fought their case for a different scheme, with critical changes to scale and scope. Is it right to consider these groups and people ‘experts’? How should a councillor or the council as a whole measure expertise? Does it all come down to the most votes or positive survey responses, or does that risk resulting in the mediocrity of the majority? And indeed, if the majority was always right, surely we’d decide all government (both local and national) decisions by referenda?
As councillors we are advised on the legality of our actions and options by the council officers, and qualified legal counsel. And as councillors we receive regular and lengthy communications from Waverley residents who believe the officers are deliberately misleading us. Having investigated a number of those claims, I’ve not found this to be the case, but would recognise instead that there are measures of interpretation to be considered. Even decisions by the European courts contain subjective statements that note the need to take into account local circumstances when determining a course of action or response.
Hence, I return to my question: what constitutes expert opinion? Expert on legal matters? Expert on planning for community regeneration? Expert on the arts and culture?
I believe it requires a listening ear, and an independent yet meek mind. Even when ‘qualified’ I sitll sometimes hold that foolishness can be masqueraded behind letters after one’s name.
There can be an attractiveness to being the odd-one out, but there’s equally a temptation to play it easy and stick with the majority opinion. I’d like to think that I’ve done my best to avoid these polarities, but know that it won’t always come across that way.
So in summary, let me say this: the opinion I hear about the Farnham Society is that it’s essentially a Liberal Democrat group. Frankly, I couldn’t care less. I see the society performing a critical role in Farnham and am always grateful to read the latest newsletter.
And the Farnham Theatre Association: I’d love to see the Redgrave brought back to life. I wouldn’t say I’m a regular theatre-goer, but I do value what local art can bring to a community, and believe that creativity is in our human dna.
Individual contributions? To be honest, it gets very hard to read the latest 12 page missive sometimes. It may come across as lazy, but I assure you that no councillor whether working full-time (as I do) or not, has time to read every single piece of paper that crosses the desk / email. The burden is never just on the hearer or reader, but also on the speaker or writer, to ensure that the message is not obscured by the form.
Better late than never
A sense of my lateness to post my full views on East Street is pervading my thoughts as I write, as well as the vast array of comment I could make. What particular concerns do I raise, and how do I ensure that I fairly represent Waverley, my colleagues, my constituents, and most importantly all those who in the past years have passed judgement on the East Street development saga by way of responding to surveys (most recently in 2007) or perhaps writing in to the planning department? This is a large number of people!
Let’s start with my opinion on the present scheme : I think it’s inappropriately large, especially with respect to residential units, and removes too much green space along with the Redgrave Theatre. I’m an aspirational politician and believe that if there is a will, there is most usually a way, and in this instance, the promise of income (both short and long-term) made the importance of aspiration diminish away.
I’ve held this opinion since I objected to the application at the Joint Planning Committee in 2007 (on which I do not sit, and therefore was (and am) able to openly speak on the issue without causing any prejudicial or code of conduct concerns). And I continue to hold this opinion even though I supported an extension of the contract with CNS at the most recent Council meeting. And at this point I hear many of you go “Uh?” and “What!” and “Nonsense!”. Let me explain.
Having committed to a contractual relationship with CNS, Waverley is under an obligation to hold up its end of the deal. Even in the face of the bare cheek of CNS applying to overturn a condition to build a bridge into the site from the A31 and instead, seek to route all construction traffic through the town, I believe that Waverley should do its best to hold up its own integrity and show that it is committed to remaining faithful to its written word.
However, I continue to stand in opposition a part of the land assembly obligations of Waverley – that of potentially utilising Compulsory Purchase Orders to obtain the remaining land not yet in Waverley Borough Council ownership. I’ve often found it one of the peculiarities of the planning system that permission can be sought for planning on land that one does not own. However, in this case, I find it even more objectionable: that the plan should have been fully founded on the belief that land could be forcibly extracted from owners of businesses in the belief that the council plans were definitely of greater value to the local community. For that’s what it comes down to.
Let me turn to traffic. There is no doubt in my mind that the teeming roads of Farnham will become even more of a scrum than they currently are. That the pollution effects on the residents, shoppers and buildings of the town, will become more pronounced. That the public perception of Farnham will not be of a thriving town of local businesses, both retail and otherwise, and a population committed to continued regeneration of its heritage. But, will be of yet another clone town: that of retail brands, night life, car parks and litter.
Let my summarise now, by pointing out that in 2007, 61% of respondents to the public survey were in favour of the scheme that was then given planning permission. Let me say that we must, must, regenerate this site, and including a cinema and restaurants and offices, as well as some new homes, and appropriate green space, is essential: essential to an appropriate mixed development that avoids creating a public space that becomes devoid of life outside shopping and work hours and thus an attraction to anti-social behaviour, and, essential to providing true community that combines day-to-day living, with creative and retail and work opportunities, and community space for the building of relational ties in the town.
Finally, let me say that I wish to engage in conversation on this. I’m open to all views, and will try and respond to each. However, I don’t have hours and hours at my disposal, and so sometimes my answers / contributions may not be as comprehensive as might be wished. My apologies up front.
Simple solution?
As a further contribution to the East Street debate, councillors last night received the following email from Max Lyons, and the attached drawing:
Dear Councillor
I urge you not to renew the crest Nicholson contract.
I believe in principle a more appropriate approach should be as in the enclosed sketch.
This sketch shows The Woolmead demolished and replaced with up to date shopping units, 150 apartments and parking. The sketch shows development south of East St consisting of cinema, shops and approximately 30 apartments. Most importantly the scale of the development south of East St allows the retention of all trees, tennis courts, Bowling Green and the open green areas but does extend the Dogflud car park.
Yours sincerely
Max Lyons
Simple questions
On Friday I posted that there are no simple answers to some of them more challenging aspects of the ongoing East Street development / regeneration.
Today I publish in full, a letter from the Farnham Society‘s chairman Alan Gavaghan, to all Waverley Councillors. In it he lays out the key reasons why he believes that there is no rush to determine a new long-stop date for the contract between CNS and Waverley Borough Council and further to that, includes positive reasons to delay determining such a date as circumstances may change to mean we need the date to expire sooner rather than later. See what you think. Tell me what you think!
–
Dear Waverley Councillor,
Residents of Farnham, local organisations and those Farnham Councillors who have been contacted, are deeply concerned by the inclusion of the Crest Nicholson contract renewal as an agenda item for the meeting of Waverley’s Executive on the 29th June 2010.
Consideration of the renewal appears to be several months earlier than might have been anticipated or needed and begs a number of questions:
‘Why now?’ and ‘What is the point of rushing?’
‘Will this haste preclude an opportunity to renegotiate certain aspects of the contract?’
‘What is the benefit to Waverley/Farnham residents of pre-empting the December deadline?’
‘Is this being rushed through because Crest Nicholson is about to default against a s.106 requirement?’ This possibility has been brought to our attention.
‘Is Crest Nicholson seeking to sell its position and or plans and would an extension would add significant value?’ Is Waverley being pushed into an early decision to serve CN’s commercial interests?
We are not asking the councillors to refuse to renew the contract merely to delay making a decision now as there is plenty of time left under the existing contractual agreement.
Councillors might consider it prudent to delay making a decision now, as new information will shortly become available on issues that will affect the town, development and viability of the scheme. For instance:
We understand that the survey of contamination on the Riverside site has been undertaken to assess known and other potential contamination of the development site and the surrounding area, this report has not been published and further testing, analysis and remedial work may be required that could impact on consented plans.
The recent unanimous refusal of the application to route site traffic through the town, against officers’ recommendations, must raise questions over the design of the traffic scheme. Ironically, this is virtually the same traffic scheme that Councillors previously gave planning consent. We suspect that Councillors attending the recent Planning Meeting were surprised when Greg Vincent of CNS admitted that they had not taken the A31 Access Bridge seriously until after they received planning permission and it became a s.106 requirement. The traffic scheme’s viability must be questionable and should be reviewed along with the CNS’s inflexible contractual commitment in the s.106 on this matter and other flaws in the scheme.
We are still awaiting an Air Quality report for parts of Farnham that are heavily polluted and an area Action Plan for dealing with the problem.
We do not know what recommendations will emerge from discussions between the Surrey, Waverley and Farnham LA’s regarding future proposals for traffic in and around the town.
We await publication of the Farnham Design Statement.
We urge that a proper Traffic Survey of Farnham should be undertaken by a truly independent consultant. It is four years since the CNS survey was completed during the last World Cup (when there were reduced traffic movements): since then bordering authorities have given consent to massive developments that will impact on congestion in and around Farnham.
Crest Nicholson has not enjoyed a positive reputation in the press as a developer and partner. Indeed the financial viability of both the scheme and the company appears dubious. A delay now may also provide a better indication as to whether CNS can and will honour their obligations.
We look to Councillors to make decisions in the best interests of the of our town; they should certainly expect any discussions on the extension to the conditional contract to wait until after the questions, reports and issues outlined above are resolved. These are all major matters for legitimate public concern and putting back the renewal decision for several months would be eminently reasonable and responsible in the circumstances.
Yours sincerely
Alan Gavaghan
Chairman
