1.1 Having participated in the Urban Design Workshops and public Consultations in regard to the Planning and Development Briefs and having responded to the exhibition of the 'bid' presentations at the Bush Hotel in August last, the Society welcomed the Consultation Exhibition recently staged at a number of venues on behalf of Crest Nicholson/Sainsbury Property ("CNSP").

1.2 The Society is aware that CNSP are in the process of preparing a 'master plan' which, in due course and accompanied by Retail, Traffic and Environmental Impact Assessments, will form the basis of an 'outline' planning application to Waverley Borough Council.

1.3 The Society is also aware that, according to the CNSP website, the intention behind this Consultation Exhibition was to show "indicative ideas of how the development might look".

1.4 Given that the scheme is clearly still evolving and will continue so to do for sometime yet, the Society welcomes many of the changes to the 'bid' scheme which, so far, have been incorporated.

1.5 Throughout this long Consultation period, the Society has maintained a consistent agenda, viz.,

1.6 Development of the existing Town centre has accrued gradually during a very long timescale; and, mindful that the area covered by the East Street Area of Opportunity represents a very significant part the Town centre, the Society commends the Technical Report published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister -'Living Places -Urban renaissance in the South East, Case Study 14 - Farnham', under the byline 'retaining the character of a small historic town while it continues to grow'.

2.1 Using the agenda referred to in paragraph 1.5 above as a baseline –

The retention and refurbishment of Brightwell House together with Its garden, the surviving garden walls and Brightwell Cottage, all historically within its curtilage -

2.2 The Society welcomes the proposed retention of Brightwell House, in accordance with the Development Brief. However,

2.3 In that regard, we are also concerned at the ungenerous space at present allocated to the proposed Town Square. .

2.4 In our opinion, the majority of the concerns set out above would be addressed if the north-western elevation of the larger of the proposed 'bars and restaurants' building were to be cut back in the manner illustrated in the Annexe attached; with, perhaps, a 'turreted' or some other appropriate feature on the northern corner.

2.5 If such a revision were to be incorporated into the scheme, we consider that it would create a more acceptable feel of spaciousness that is at present lacking; it would enable more appropriate prominence to be given to Brightwell House, which {with the Cobbett 'art' feature nearby) would then become the focal point of the Square which it merits; it would incorporate the historic walled garden into the Square; and it would reduce much of the over-dominance of the nearby buildings which, we understand, is of widespread public concern.

Retention in situ of the bowling green, to form an essential part of a green corridor from Brightwell House to the River Wey -

2.6 We consider that it is essential that, in terms of the creation of perceived space, the existing bowling green should remain in its present location; however, we are concerned at the scale and massing of buildings in such close proximity to the green. We are aware that the shadow cast by Falkner Court on the southern corner of the green already impedes the growth of grass and we consider that the scale and massing of the proposed buildings in such close proximity to the green would prejudice its future viability.

2.7 We welcome the creation of a green corridor from Brightwell House down to the River Wey and recognise that Falkner Court already protrudes into that space. However, we consider that the proposed staggered residential blocks might protrude unnecessarily far into that corridor.

2.8 If our understanding of the exhibition model is correct, the staggered residential blocks are (in the direction of the river) respectively of four, three and two storeys. We consider that a 'graduation' towards the river is essential, in order to avoid the appearance of overdevelopment in such close proximity to the River Wey; but, in our opinion, the essential role of the green riverside corridor would be better served if there were only two blocks where there at present three, the first being of three storeys and the second of two.

2.9 We do not accept the arguments put forward by a representative at the exhibition to justify the provision of a further footbridge over the river as, together with its new 'associated' footpaths, it would create pedestrian traffic which would intrude on the amenity of the elderly residents in Home Park and Falkner Court; and of the residents in the proposed 'staggered' blocks, who appear from Plan EO02 to lack any private amenity space.

2.10 In our opinion, the principal riverside walk should continue to be through Borelli Walk and that there would still be adequate pedestrian access from the development to the railway station without the additional footbridge.

The redevelopment of the area should be complementary to the historic core of the existing T own centre and not create a 'second' Town centre -

2.11 We recognise that the scheme is still evolving and that land uses has not yet been finalised.

2.12 However, given the extent of the area covered by the development, we consider that the overall scale of the proposal as at present drawn will create a second Town centre and not complement the historic core of the existing Town.

The architectural design of new buildings should be of the highest quality and in keeping with the character of the existing the T own centre -

2.13 We recognise that the detailed architectural design of the proposed buildings has not yet been finalised.

2.14 We consider that the architectural design and quality of materials must be of the highest quality and in the local vernacular and should reflect more of the grain of the existing Town centre than appears evident in the artist's impressions displayed at the exhibition.

2.15 That said, when faced with the problem of relating new development to the character of a neighbouring historic area, we recognise that there is nevertheless a danger of placing too much reliance on pastiche. We consider that the Architects have made praiseworthy efforts to give a variety of characteristics to various parts of the scheme; however, we feel that it is possible that they might have felt too inhibited and we consider that they might be encouraged, therefore, to consider taking a more inventive approach to parts of the scheme, while still reflecting the traditional materials and vernacular of Farnham.

2.16 While we recognise that the northern elevation of the residential block which includes the relocated Sainsbury's store would be enhanced by an architectural 'feature', we do not regard the proposed 'kiln/oast' towers to be appropriate.

The scale and massing of such buildings should also be in keeping with the character of the existing Town centre -

2.17 In our opinion, much of the proposed development as shown in the exhibition model meets neither the letter nor spirit of the Development Brief.

2.18 The Society supported the Development Brief where it specifically stated that the scale, height and massing should respect the prevailing character of the surrounding area; that the development should not have an overbearing appearance; that new buildings should not exceed four storeys; and that it may be necessary to restrict the development of parts of the site to three storeys.

2.19 In our opinion, the height, scale and massing of too many of the proposed. buildings is excessive, such that the scheme as at present proposed would not be In keeping with the character of the existing Town centre; that it would result in a significant overdevelopment of the area; and that it would create a second centre.

2.20 We consider that the predominance of four storey buildings to be too great and that, due to the absence of adequate graduation of most of the peripheral buildings, that massing is accentuated along much of the periphery of the scheme - nowhere more so than the proposed block overlooking Falkner Court and Victoria Garden.

2.21 A significant element of the character of the existing Town centre is its unique roofscape; in West Street, Downing Street, The Borough and South Street it being the exception rather than the rule that adjacent properties have either the same number of storeys or roof styles.

2.22 Additionally, the Society does not consider that residents in the residential elements of the scheme are provided with adequate private amenity space, which again contributes to the overdevelopment of the area as a whole.

The overall design of the redevelopment should be such as to provide a seamless join (at South Street) with the existing Town centre -

2.23 The Society is most concerned that the 'perspective view along South Street' as shown on sketch SK31 is not correctly drawn such as to very misleading, both as to levels and more especially as to the width of South Street, such that it gives a very false impression of the scale of the elevations of the proposed buildings.

2.24 The western side of South Street is characterised, in particular, by a series of setbacks and, in our opinion, given the relatively narrow street scene, which should be reflected at least in part in the elevations of the proposed development.

2.25 In our opinion, while we appreciate that the intention behind the proposed pedestrian crossing in South Street (partly in the location from which the~ existing crossing was recently moved) is to provide a visual link between the United Reformed Church and the Town Square, we do not consider that it would be appropriate in traffic movement terms. In fact, it almost appears to resemble a second mini-square within the highway.

The land uses in the Area (especially that part which it is proposed should be retail) should be complementary to, and not detract from, the existing Town centre -

2.26 As already stated, we recognise that the land uses have yet to be finalised and that the necessary Retail Impact Assessment has not yet been prepared.

2.27 In the meantime, given the extent to which existing office accommodation currently and frequently stands vacant for long periods, we also have concern that the scheme should now include a further 47,000 square feet of speculative office accommodation.

Until traffic and movement issues are properly addressed, any redevelopment of the site should be regarded as premature -

2.28 The Society recognises the reason why a Traffic Impact Assessment has not

yet been commissioned and that, given that the present highway infrastructure in the Town centre is inadequate and that car parking provision has to be a material issue, the future consideration of much of the development as at present conceived hangs on the outcome of that Assessment.

2.29 The Society's Traffic Management Group awaits that Assessment with interest; but, in the meantime, we have to be concerned that there appears to be no provision in the current scheme for a bus interchange which we consider to be essential in any otherwise acceptable scheme.

3.1 As already stated, the Society recognises that the scheme is still evolving. We understand that it is the intention that there is to be further public Consultation on the scheme as it evolves during the coming months and we look forward to being able to participate in that process.

3.2 In the meantime, while we are aware that this Response includes criticism of certain elements of the scheme as at present drawn, we have endeavoured to approach the recent Consultation Exhibition constructively and trust that it will be regarded in that manner.

(Back)