Good news? Bad news?

I'm not sure that this FT story is entirely good news for Farnham. Whilst restructuring of the debt and equity of Crest Nicholson is bound to be designed to some extent to allow some cash to flow, and existing schemes to progress to completion, it may not necessarily allow new schemes to start, perhaps not this year, perhaps not for a number of years.

Just my own opinion.

Leeks and leaks

Today I realised our leeks needed picking. Rach used one in our meal last night - took me a while to realise it had come from our own garden - the giveaway being when she asked me what I thought of the leek!

And then the East Street leak today - that from Crest Nicholson: or I presume from them, as I'm not sure who else I can think would give such information on the contract with Waverley to Property Week, and thus cause the Farnham Herald to quote a periodical that wouldn't look totally out of place as the guest publication on Have I Got News For You.

Anyway, I'm sure most of the details will soon be out, and, with another joint planning committee and council meeting not so far away, decisions on compulsory purchase orders and long-stop (who on earth invented that term by the way?) dates to be made.

Thinking

Well, I'm sat at my desk in Stockley Park near Heathrow, with 8 minutes until my next meeting. I don't have anything particular to post, so thought I'd simply dump a list of things that are going through my head:

(1) I sometimes feel impotent as a borough councillor. Whilst I want to hear things that need fixing locally, it seems like once I get into it, there are simply too many layers of bureacracy to go through, and then no one person who feels empowered to make a decision, and, often, to spend money. Good control over finances and other resources of local government is absolutely right, but just sometimes, I wish for a small fund to help things move along locally. Maybe I should be a County Councillor!

(2) East Street - contract considerations will come along soon. Now that planning permission has been given (with many conditions to be met), the contract now has to be considered and the viability test reviewed. Watch this space...

(3) A couple of tree preservation orders need some attention. One is longstanding, and I simply can't see a way forward. Another is fairly new, and I need to get my head around it for the first time. The key thing is understanding the phrase 'amenity' and wondering how best to define it.

Thank you Mr Chairman

I should begin by declaring three matters of personal interest, of which I have been reminded by various members of the public who have spoken this evening.

Firstly, that I am a member of the Farnham Theatre Association (FTA), which Mr Nicholls reminded me about. Secondly, that I drive a car, pertinent to the traffic issues that Mr Hyman brought to our attention. And thirdly, that I work for big oil, meaning that I am very aware of the energy challenges mentioned by Mr Lancaster when he spoke about the Farnham Transition Town initiative.

May I preface my main comments by quoting from today's blog by Daniel Hannan, a local MEP: "There is no dishounour in a politician reflecting public opinion. Eurocrats call it populism. I call it democracy." The challenge incumbent on all councillors as community representatives is to balance the responsibility to lead, with the accountability to represent.

I have seen this kind of development being successful eleswhere around the world. I could cope with working and shopping in this environment. But, presenting 'regeneration' as the reason that this application is right, is misleading. Indeed, including the word 'regeneration' in the name of the company can mislead also.

As an aside, pointing to rundown buildings as the reason for this regeneration is a bit like the government's policy towards Post Offices. Take all the business away from them so that they become unviable, and then say that need to be close because they are unviable!

Section 11.3(a) of tonight's report describes that the planning brief stipulates that the solution must "positively contribute". The key question is who measures this? I believe that we on behalf of our residents must measure this.

I am sure that potentially, if not already in reality, in some perspectives, this proposal could 'comply' with regulations in every aspect. However, compliant is not the same as right, not the same as aspired. I believe that Farnham residents have demonstrated that this plan is not their ambition. It may be the council's ambitions, but are these the same as the residents' ambitions? I cannot in good conscience claim that the slient majority thinks they are.

We should demonstrate responsible, accountable, and aspirational leadership.

Mr Chairman, if I were a member of the planning committee, I would vote to reject the recommendation to grant planning permission, and seek to create a formal group comprising of some councillors, key representatives of Crest Nicholson, and some of the Farnham residents represented here this evening, to work on a better solution.

Thank you.

(Click here to view the webcast)

It's late

Late, both in the evening, and 'in the day' with regard to East Street. However, I've been ploughing through my Waverley email inbox, and reading many emails with extra information from objectors to the planning application. Virtually all of them have been sent to all councillors, and focus on three main areas of traffic, theatre, and flooding.

One gentleman quite obviously puts a phenomenal amount of work into his research, and quite possibly gets more into the detail that Waverley's planning department. I'm not saying this to annoy any council planners, but to point out that between them, the objectors have a significant amount of knowledge and expertise, which they've brought to bear on all facets of the East Street proposals.

The quandry for councillors on the planning committee, is that on some particular issues (flooding and traffic for example), there are statutory consultees (Environment Agency and Surrey County Highwas respectively), and as such, their response is quite properly critical. A key question is therefore, is it possible for members of the public to draw councillors' attention to matters of material consideration, that have not been drawn out, or missed, by the statutory consultees?

Now available

And so, the day approaches. The Joint Planning Committee will consider the East Street applications on the evening of the 1st October, at 7 pm. The agenda and associated papers are now available on the Waverley website.

Is it just me, or is it possible than so many people will turn up that they will be standing along the corridor and down the stairs?

Aspiration. Inspiration.

I'm going to join the Farnham Theatre Association.

I've been pondering this on and off over the weekend, as on Friday, I was inspired by Anne Cooper and Abigail McKern. Listening to their passion for theatre, the positive impact on a town and its culture, and the potential for youth involvement, I couldn't deny what a good aspiration it was to have a professional, commercial, and successful theatre in Farnham.

Whilst I wouldn't call myself a regular theatre-goer, I have seen quite a lot of shows in London over the years, been to the Maltings a few times, and I used to perform in a light operatic society some time ago (as well as attending tap, modern and jazz classes, but don't tell anyone).

But, it's not that I'm a buff: much more that I was captured by Anne and Abigail's passion and aspiration. And, my support is independent of whether the Redgrave is retained.

I simply like the idea of an active theatre in the town, and all that it could bring.

Farnham Herald in the Chicago BA lounge?

If they did stock the Farnham Herald in the BA lounge at Chicago O'Hare (doing my bit for BA in the midst of their 88% drop in profit), I'd have spotted what I've just spotted now - David Wylde's letter in this week's Herald, kindly referencing my blog, and responding to the 6 questions on East Street that I posed a few days ago.

He's really captured the essence of what I'm trying to do with the blog. He rightly points out that all councillors are constrained by a code that persuades against open debate in public. Not that I'm saying the code is a bad concept, not at all, but that the way in which it works out - councillors not being able to speak their minds about major issues, mostly planning, in the borough - really doesn't smack of local and representational democracy. And so, my blog is an attempt to be as open as I can about what I think and say and do, and encourage debate.

Personally, I'm not on the planning committees of Waverley, and so I can be much more free about what I think. My questions are not my only or final say on East Street, and I will post more about it soon.

Question Time

1. How should a landowner of a large town-centre site, respond in a business-like manner to the prevailing economic climate, especially the specific signs of depression in the building industry? How might this affect their determination of appropriate building contractor and best timing?

2. Should the recent indication that F&C intend to submit a planning application for the same land, persuade Waverley Borough Council that, (acting as neither landowner, nor planning authority, but simply community representatives), they should reconsider what is the right outcome for the town of Farnham and surrounding areas, and welcome this new application?

3. Will the present gas works in Farnham, enable a sensible, a realistic (if not strictly scientific) assessment of the likely impact on town traffic of the East St. scheme?

4. The F&C sketch seems to includes a cinema potentially doubling as a theatre - does this offer a politically acceptable and popular way of meeting theatregoers' needs, as well as the youth that we assume want and will use the cinema?

5. Could F&C be persuaded to include in their application the North side of East Street, thus pleasing everyone who hopes to be rid of this eyesore?

6. Is the scheme viable?

Trumped

I can't imagine that Waverley's planning committee has yet had such a famous face appear before it - that of Donald Trump. Seeing the Trump Tower of Chicago (offices, appartments, gym, hotel - $600+ a night!!!!) made me think of his recent appearances in Aberdeen in his attempts to gain permission to build a new golf resort, and has me wondering if he would be doing a better job of East Street that we've seen so far.

BREAKING NEWS

Looks as if it will be October before there's a decision on East Street.

Recent submissions regarding the planned development, from the Environment Agency, raised questions regarding the flood plain, and the impact of the development on it. CNS have confirmed that revised plans, particularly with regard to landscaping and ventilation will need to be submitted, and won't be done until August.

Talk the walk

I blogged about our MP's new YouTube site when he launched it, and have this week noted a new video about the pedestrianising of Farnham.

It's a very pertinent time for his comments, coming in the weeks leading up to the planning decision that's due on the latest East Street application. He points out the aspiration for pedestrianisation, but countered by the reality of traffic management, (not least right now, even prior to any increase due to extra homes and shopping!)

I'm completely in support of both an analysis, and a trial of redirection and pedestrianisation. This idea was referred to by a question from a member of the public early into the council meeting on 22nd April, and whilst I would have written parts of the letter differently, it nonetheless clearly highlighted this as a concern.

Predisposed, predetermined, pre...tty complex

It's a mine field, let's face it. Not that I wasn't aware of the area of standards in public life before I stood for election, but I certainly wasn't an expert, and nothing makes things crystallize in one's mind like experiencing it for real.

So, East Street provides the basis on which I find myself beginning to understand the nuances of when, where, and how once can speak on an issue on which one feels strongly.

Especially helpful has been a paper sent out to councillors in the past couple of weeks. It's from the Standards Board for England, and is an 'occasional paper' from August 2007. It's the clearest explanation of Predisposition, Predetermination or Bias, and the Code, that I've yet read, and I'd recommend it anyone that wishes to understand the challenges that face all councillors in wishing to be forthright regarding any planning application, not just East Street.

I'd also recommend reading Alan Lovell's letter in the Farnham Herald today. He clearly articulates his challenge to councillors, and yet also demonstrates his determination to walk the fine line, and represent his residents appropriately. I also wish to do the same, and so invite anyone in Wrecclesham and Rowledge to tell me your views on the latest East Street application, bearing in mind that I have an open mind to the merits of any argument, both for and against.

South, West, North.... no, East... again

It's time for the latest planning application for East Street to be published. Prior to becoming a councillor I wondered why on earth we weren't bombarded by quotes, statements and the anecdotal from our elected representatives about the scheme, and thus get to know their real opinions. I now know that the line between landlord and planning authority is a thin one to tread, and whilst it's allowable that these roles are filled by the same body, it's one that needs care and cautiousness.

I write this not being a particulary outspoken person about this development, or a member of any planning committee. Thus, I have some latitude when it comes to commenting about applications, as I play no part in the decision-making process.

However, this post isn't about to turn into a diatribe on either side of the argument. It is though, an appeal - I would like to hear from everyone in the ward who has an opinion about the scheme. And not just those against - it's typical to hear the loudest voice, and that can often be the one against a thing. I want to hear voices of those in favour, as well as against, and I promise to listen hard to all.

This doesn't negate the need for objections to be submitted to the council's planning department - this is the only way for objections to be formally registered. The public consultation phase of the application begins today, for 28 days.

And please ensure that you are directly familiar with the actual application before signing petitions or responding to "surveys" or sending in circular letters. Planning objections are treated in a prescriptive (legislatively and regulatively driven) way, meaning that petitions are treated as on objection only.

The application is large and complex, and so it will be available physically and electronically on a dedicated computer, at the Farnham Locality Office, or at the Godalming Office.

Click here for direct access to the Waverley Planning page with this information.