THE FARNHAM SOCIETY

East Street Area of Opportunity, Farnham

Read the response by the Farnham Society to the consultation on the current Master Plan on behalf of Crest Nicholson Developments & Sainsbury's in June/July 2004

1. Introduction:

1.1 As 'stakeholders' in regard to this development, the Society has engaged in the Urban Design Workshops and public Consultations in regard to the Planning and Development Briefs and responded to the exhibition of the 'bid' presentations and the Consultation Exhibition staged in February/March 2003; the Society welcomes ; the opportunity to respond to the current Consultation on behalf of Crest Nicholson c Developments & Sainsbury's ("CNS").

1.2 The Society has had the benefit of a presentation by CNS, at which we requested further information not all of which has been forthcoming; and, of course, ; we have not been able to see the written statements referred to in the Consultation Document which we understand form a part of the Master Plan.

1.3 The Society welcomes some of the changes which have been incorporated, notably the reduction in the height of some of the buildings; but, recognising that the scheme is still evolving and will continue so to do, we trust that further consideration can be given to incorporating matters which we set out in our Response to the 2003 Consultation which, for ease of reference, are reiterated in this document.

1.4 Throughout this long Consultation period, the Society has maintained a consistent agenda which has included:

(a) the retention and refurbishment of Brightwell House (Grade II Listed), together with its garden, the surviving garden walls and Brightwell Cottage, all within its historical and Listed curtilage;

(b) the retention in situ also of the bowling green, to form an essential part

of a green corridor from Brightwell House to the River Wey and which is within the curtilage of the Grade II Listed building;

(c) that the redevelopment of the area should be complementary to the historic core of the existing Town centre and not create a 'second' Town centre; and to that end

.(i) that the architectural design of new buildings should be of the highest quality and in keeping with the character of the existing the Town centre;

(ii) that the scale and massing of such buildings should also be in keeping with that character;

(iii) that the overall design of the redevelopment should be such as to provide a seamless join (at South Street) with the existing Town centre; and

(iv) that 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; and

(d) that until traffic and movement issues are properly addressed, any

redevelopment should be regarded as premature.

1.5 Historically, the existing Town centre has developed gradually over very many years. The area covered by the East Street Area of Opportunity, as now extended, represents a very significant part of that centre, the Society regrets that scant regard has been paid in the scheme now evolving to 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. The Society's Response:

2.1 While we have continued to use the agenda referred to in paragraph 1.4 above as the baseline for this Response, we have taken into account the latest revisions to the Scheme now incorporated in the current Master Plan.

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

3.1 The Society welcomes the retention of Brightwell House, in accordance with the Development Brief. We regard Brightwell House as the focal point of the scheme and consider that its curtilage (ie the garden, the garden walls appropriately restored) form an essential part of a green corridor down to the River Wey. However,

(a) we remain concerned that the scale and massing of buildings in close ~ proximity to the house is such that Brightwell House will not have the prominence which its Grade II Listing deserves; and that its garden

will be overshadowed; )

(b) we regret that the scheme does not appear to provide for the retention

of the surviving garden walls, which we consider form an integral part of the character of the house -if their retention is considered to be an impediment to any of the proposed buildings (eg 02 on the ground floor plan), then the footprint of those buildings is clearly too large;

(c) we also regret the proposed loss of Brightwell Cottage, which we consider could ideally form apart of the relocated pavilion (extended in keeping with its character) for the Bowls Club -if the retention of this 'icon' building is considered to be an impediment to the proposed residential block 04A on the ground floor plan, then the footprint of that building is clearly too large;

(d) we regret that a formal 'mosaic' garden in front of Brightwell House still

forms apart of in the Plan; we do not consider this to be in keeping with the character of the house or, historically, with its garden; and

(e) given the proposed extension to the south west of Brightwe/1 House, we

consider that the aspect of the garden when seen from the proposed Town Square should be enhanced.

3.2 In that latter regard, we remain concerned at the ungenerous space at present allocated to the proposed Town Square, which is accentuated by the height and massing of the surrounding buildings. In our opinion, if a sense of spaciousness is to be achieved here then the height and massing of these buildings should be reduced or graduated and the northern corner of the proposed .bars and restaurants. building (D2 on the Ground Floor plan) cut back in the manner illustrated in the Annexe to this Response.

3.3 If this revision were to be incorporated into the scheme, we consider that it would create a more acceptable feel of spaciousness that is lacking at this point,

enabling greater and more appropriate prominence to be given to Brightwell House, which (with the Cobbett 'public art' feature nearby) would ensure that it did become

the focal point of the scheme and incorporate the historic walled garden as a part of the Square; and it would also serve to reduce at least some of the over-dominance of the nearby buildings.

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

4.1 We presumed that the retention in the Development Brief of the bowling green in its present location was because it was considered by Waverley Borough Council -

(i) that it is within the curtilage of the Grade II Listed Brightwell House; (ii) that it is a near unique feature of the Town centre; and

(iii) that it forms part of the green corridor which is to be provided down to the River.

4.2 If it is now considered that location and scale and massing of the proposed buildings in close proximity to the green would prejudice its future viability, then clearly their footprint is incorrectly perceived and their scale and massing are too great; and we return to this in paragraph 7 below.

4.3 We welcome the creation of a green corridor from Brightwell House down to the River Wey, although we recognise that Falkner Court already protrudes a little into that space. However, we consider that the proposed staggered residential blocks (D5 on the ground floor plan) protrude unnecessarily and unacceptably into that corridor and should be eliminated from the Plan; and we return to this in paragraph 7 below.

4.4 We understand that justification for the provision of a further footbridge over the river is to give residents in the development pedestrian access to the railway station. Setting aside the fact that that implies that perhaps the majority of these new residents in the Town centre would be commuters to London and elsewhere, we consider that adequate provision already exists via Brightwells Road and South Street which would still exist post-development.

4.5 In our opinion, the principal riverside walk should continue to be through Borelli Walk, thus protecting the amenity of residents in Falkner House and Home Park.

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

5.1 We recognise that the scheme is still evolving; however, given the extent of the area covered by the development which now stretches well beyond the area

defined in the Development Brief, 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.

 

5.2 The present core of Farnham is characterised by a mix of small to medium sized offices and (with one notable exception) retail outlets. While we appreciate that any planning applications will have to be accompanied by a Retail Impact Assessment, we are extremely concerned that CNS should now consider that a floor and a half of block D6 should be set aside for a second anchor store in addition to the relocated Sainsbury's. The scheme could not then complement the existing Town centre.

5.3 Furthermore, we consider that the addition of a second anchor store could have an inhibiting effect on any future redevelopment of Woolmead House; a true redevelopment of East Street, in our opinion, should take a longer term view and look beyond the limited interests represented by one Developer's Master Plan.

6. 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 -

6.1 We recognise that this Consultation is not intended to deal with the detailed architectural design of the proposed development which has probably not yet reached an advanced stage; and, as the Consultation document contains only a brief paragraph in this regard, there is nothing upon which we can comment.

6.2 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 T own centre than appears evident from the artist's impressions which we have seen to date.

6.3 In our opinion, it would be helpful if, sooner rather than later, an overall design concept could be prepared for further consultation, giving overall coherence to the scheme, involving the predominant use of high quality red brickwork; brickwork being versatile, style free and giving scope for inventiveness including, if necessary the reinterpretation of local vernacular features. It would provide a unifying theme, even

when incorporating contemporary elements arising from the requirements of different buildings; and provide a strong visual link with the existing historic centre. That concept should not be either 'traditional' or 'modern', but simply be of our time; resulting in an ambience of its own which does not compete with but complements Georgian Farnham.

6.4 Additionally, a significant characteristic 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; and we consider that that should also be reflected in the design concept.

7. The scale and massing of such buildings should also be in keeping with the character of the existing T own centre -

7.1 In our opinion, much of the proposed development as shown in the latest Consultation document does still not adequately meet either the letter or spirit of the Development Brief.

7.2 As stated in our previous Response, 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.

7.3 We recognise that CNS have made what they claim to be a significant reduction in the number of buildings previously of four storeys. However, in our opinion, the height, scale and massing of too many of the proposed buildings still remains 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 thus create a second centre.

7.4 We consider the number of four storey buildings still 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, especially the residential blocks D3, D4B and D5 -the last of which, as stated in paragraph 4.3 above, we consider should be eliminated from the scheme. Additionally, we consider that the proposed street scene in East Street would be enhanced and better relate to the Town if the landmark 'Marlborough Head' public house was to be retained and incorporated into the scheme.

7.5 In our opinion, there are a number of factors which lead us to conclude that the Master Plan as at present drawn would result in a significant overdevelopment of the area and these include

(i) the over large footprint of buildings, such that the surviving garden walls at Brightwell House are not to be retained (paragraph 3.1 (b) above);

(ii) the over large footprint of residential block D4A, such that Brightwell Cottage cannot be retained (paragraph 3.1 (c) above);

(iii) the limited space allocated to the proposed Town square, which is accentuated by the height and massing of buildings on three of its sides ; (paragraph 3.2 above);

(iv) the possible relocation of the bowling green (paragraph 4.2 above);

(v) the intrusion of the residential block D5 into the green corridor from Brightwell House down to the river (paragraph 4.3 above);

(vi) the absence of adequate secure amenity space for the proposed residential development; and

(vii) the loss of important green space outside the area defined in the Development Brief .

7.6 Additionally, other factors which contribute to the overdevelopment of the area include

(i) the very substantial retail element included in the current Master Plan, which we are concerned could detract from and have an adverse impact on the vitality of the existing Town centre; and

(ii) mindful that the Borough Council has recently granted planning permission for some 60,000 square feet of speculative office space in East Street, the need for additional office space on the scale proposed in the current Master Plan be justified; and

(iii) the extent of residential development still included in the current Master Plan

7.7 As to that residential development, while we would not dispute that there is an identified need for one and two bedroom properties in Farnham, we consider the proposed number to be excessive. Given the housing requirements which the Surrey Structure Plan imposes (and is likely to) on Waverley Borough-wide, new housing on the scale proposed in one relatively confined site, albeit in Waverley's largest Town, has to be regarded as premature.

7.8 Additionally, mindful that residential development on this scale represents some one-and-a-half times the normal average annual growth Borough-wide, we are concerned at the impact which this would have on the infrastructure of the area, in terms of health services, schools and public services generally.

7.9 A measure of what we consider to be the overall overdevelopment of this area, would be to relate the aggregate floor space provided in the current Master Plan to floor space in the existing Town centre west of South Street. Notwithstanding that we do not the information to enable us to carry out such an exercise, it is our perception that in those terms the proposed development would equate to the major part of the existing Town centre.

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

8.1 The Society remains most concerned that the artist's impression of the 'perspective view along South Street' as shown in the Consultation document 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 to the east of the Street.

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

8.3 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. Additionally, we note that the visual link would face directly into the prevailing south-westerly wind.

9. 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 -

9.1 In order to avoid repetition, we have covered this in paragraph 5 above.

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

10.1 Given that the present highway infrastructure in the Town centre is inadequate and that car parking provision has to be a material issue, any further consideration of much of the development as at present conceived hangs on the outcome of the Traffic Impact Assessment. Clearly, if the highway issues generated by this development cannot be addressed satisfactorily, the scale of the development will have to be reduced

10.2 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.

10.3 In this regard, we understand that CNS consider that the current Master Plan provides adequate pedestrian walkways from the proposed development to existing and proposed off-site bus-stops. We do not consider that that adequately meets the need for a bus interchange, which it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to locate elsewhere in the Town centre.

11. Conclusion:

11.1 The Society recognises that the detail of the scheme is still evolving but, for the reasons set out in this Response, we consider that, in the context of Farnham,

the current Master Plan represents a considerable overdevelopment of the area and should be reduced in scale.

11.2 In the meantime, there is one further matter which we wish to table in regard to the 'dividend’ which any development of this area will generate.

11.3 There can be no doubt that traffic generation and highway issues are a very significant factor which will have to be addressed in any scheme and the Society considers that, in the first instance, the 'dividend' should be applied in resolving the wider highway issues of Farnham which are not to be otherwise covered in the scheme.

11.4 Finally, we have endeavoured to approach this Consultation constructively and we trust that, notwithstanding that this Response contains criticism of the current Master Plan, it will be regarded in that manner.

Annexe:  Revised Town Square