Split decision
The fight is on to save a town once praised for its local-led regeneration from becoming the latest victim of clone town Britain. Mark Gould uncovers allegations of secret deals and councillors not listening to residents
Mark Gould
Wed 28 Feb 2007 18.45 EST
Last modified on Tue 27 Feb 2007 18.45 EST
The Battle of Farnham is soon to claim is first casualty. On March 10, after 82 years, Brightwell bowls club closes and the steel jaws of the JCBs will begin biting into its slightly frayed lawns to lay the foundations for an underground car park that few residents seem to want.
Farnham, in Surrey, was founded in 1170 by the Bishop of Winchester. It is the archetypal home counties' market town, with a 12th-century castle, plenty of Georgian and Tudor buildings, and a few 1960s' nonentities. The town's website claims that Castle Street is "one of the finest streets in England".
But it is not some heritage theme park preserved in aspic. Waverley borough council, residents and community groups have been praised for showing how a town can thrive without becoming a brand name-dominated clone town.
The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's December 2000 report, Urban Renaissance in the South-east, which followed on the heels of Lord [Richard] Rogers' Urban Taskforce, concludes: "Farnham is a good example of how a concerned local community can retain and enhance its heritage and special character while developing and diversifying its centre, so as to keep it vital and viable."
But many residents fear that the march of the clones will now cover a quarter of the town centre. It comes in the shape of a £100m shopping development, 194 flats, underground parking, and an eight-screen cinema, all centred on the council-owned Brightwell House - with bowls and tennis clubs in its grounds - and East Street.
Joan Cassaignon, a resident of Castle Street, accuses the borough council and the developers, Crest Nicholson/Sainsbury's, of "attempting to drop a mini-Basingstoke right into our midst". She says that 10,000 of Farnham's 25,000 residents formally objected to the plans.
Jeremy Hunt, the local MP, told the Farnham Herald he was worried on aesthetic and practical grounds: "If the new development is to be a success, how will it cope with all the extra traffic?"
Save Britain's Heritage says Farnham is a low-rise town of two or three storeys, and the development, which reaches four storeys, just does not fit the character of the place.
Cassaignon and fellow members of the East Street Action Group accuse the Liberal Democrat-run council, based 13 miles away in Godalming, of paying no heed to grassroots opinion, thus making a nonsense of communities and local government secretary Ruth Kelly's assertion that councillors "are the bridge between communities and local government, providing accountability and leadership". Cassaignon says: "The council wears blindfolds and has wax in its ears to our objections. Ruth Kelly lives in the realms of fantasy."
Adam Wilkinson, secretary of Save Britain's Heritage, fears that Farnham could go the way of other market towns, whose fate has in the past been highlighted in Society Guardian. "Farnham is still an elegant, Georgian market town that has been largely unspoiled," he says. "We need a development that respects the weft and weave of the place."
Another campaigner, Brian Davey, Farnham born and bred, says much of the local anger stems from the feeling that deals are done in secret, that the council and developers refuse to divulge financial and other legal aspects of the contract that was signed four years ago when the council was Tory run. "The plans were always discussed in exempt parts of council meetings where they would kick out the public and press," he says.
Davey claims that the listed, early 19th-century Brightwell House was bought by the old Farnham urban council in 1924 for residents' leisure use, but all the original documents transferring the land to the people of Farnham are now missing. He says: "This could be used by the people of Farnham to object to the planning application. At the moment, the people have no documentary basis for objection. Waverley council holds all the levers of power."
A mass complaint by 140 residents to the local government ombudsman, asking why the plans were discussed in exempt parts of council meetings, failed on a technicality. The ombudsman's office explained that it could only take up grievances on behalf of individuals. But after a two-year wait, Davey's Freedom of Information Act request for contract details may bear fruit. Last week, the Information Commissioner's Office said it had received all the relevant papers and was deliberating as to whether they could be released.
Davey feels the council is already on shaky ground going forward without a full public mandate and now planners have been given a major headache by a collision of recent events.
Changes in English planning law and a European court decision on protected bird habitats that directly affects housing and planning have already led to independent inspectors' rulings that core plans put forward by Lichfield district council and Stafford borough council are "unsound". The Government Office for the South-east (Gose) now says that following the Lichfield and Stafford decisions it has decided that in reassessing the Waverley proposals it has identified "perceived weaknesses".
At present the council is in planning limbo as Gose may have no alternative but to ask Kelly to withdraw the plans for Farnham town centre - including the proposals for East Street.
Meanwhile, councillor Chris Mansell, who holds the council brief for the East Street development, points out that the local authority has won European awards for transparency. "All our council meetings are available as a webcast," he says. And he argues that the development is vital and that "people are calling out for the project. We have a university college of 2,000 students - they can't believe Farnham hasn't got a cinema."
Mansell refutes the accusation that the plans are aesthetically unsuitable. He describes East Street/Brightwell House as a "transitional area" - between the historic Georgian centre and the river and railway line. "This is absolutely not a mini-Basingstoke," he says. "I know Basingstoke, and this is nothing like."
He argues that opponents are being unrealistic in their demands for information. "We have a contract we have to respect," he says. "We cannot reveal certain legal and financial aspects of the deal." He says there is already plenty of information available for the public to make a measured decision, although he concedes that documentation is "hugely detailed" and has been subject to alteration and amendment over four years.
The argument that the development will not be to scale with existing buildings is "factually wrong", he argues. "We are largely a two- to three-storey town, with four storeys out of the centre," he says. "The development brief goes to four storeys. We work to a maximum 13-metre build height anyway."
But what about the charge that councillors simply ignore grassroots opinion? "In the end, elected members will have to make a decision based on contributions from all sides," Mansell says. "We have to have our own opinions, rather than just be mouthpieces for the electorate," he says.
On Saturday morning, Brightwell bowls club's secretary, Bob Nockles, will be auctioning off the club's catering equipment and furniture. He is far from happy. "The whole of Farnham is against this scheme," he insists.