A new development for me personally about the forthcoming East St redevelopment in the centre of Farnham - someone emailed me earlier this week to ask what I thought. That's the first time that has happened for years. As a local councillor representing parts of the South of the town, I get constant calls and emails about matters that residents say they are concerned about - the post-bag is full of school admissions, highways and council tax rates at the moment. Not a problem of course - it's the core of the job.
On East St however, not a murmur until now, and several councillors have said they have the same experience. Yet the local Farnham Herald has a story nearly every week and most Waverley council meetings start with a question on the subject. When I was canvassing for the local elections last May, in several wards all over the town, it was hardly ever mentioned. So, on the one hand, it's way down the list of concerns raised to me (and, trust me, Farnham people are far from reticent on other issues) and, on the other side, I hear at second hand that people have worries.
What's the truth of it? Is it a live issue? Perhaps blog readers could enlighten me.
Do I support the East St development? Yes, with reservations. Perhaps leave that subject to another blog.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
David, one reason might be that people who have concerns do not have internet and/or are also part of the "silent Majority". This though seems terribly simplistic. Might also be they are unsure as to what it actually involves hence unsure how to express their thoughts. If you wrote a letter similar to your blog here you might pull them out the woodwork, if you will excuse the analogy!
David, I am surprised that you haven't had more reaction to this post, if only from the 'usual suspects'. Part of the explanation I suspect may be that the issue has been dragging on for so long - and also the feeling that Waverley are determined to impose the development on to the town, regardless of the consequences.
I attended one of the Mayor of Farnham's coffee mornings recently, and there was certainly a good deal said on the subject by those who attended - who were, I think, a reasonably respresentative selection of the residents of Boundstone and Wrecclesham. As far as I can recall, the only person who was remotely in favour of the development was a young lady who thought that it would bring some 'more affordable' shops to the town . . . faint hopes, I fear.
My personal view is that the development will be a disaster for the town on several levels, not least because of the additional traffic problems it will bring. The Borough is already one of the most polluted spots in the area, and bringing hundreds of additional vehicles a day into the town is a nightmare scenario.
The other point I will make for now (I could go on for some time) is that you only have to look at the number of empty units in the shopping centres in Fleet and Aldershot, to see that we don't need yet another development of this type in the area. I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said that the true definition of insanity lies in doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results - yet Waverley is planning to do the same thing here as has already failed in two other towns nearby.
The East Street area may be a bit of a mess at the moment, but the proposed development is absolutely not the right way to solve the problem!
David, I can only speak for myself. I have spent many hours attending meetings and exhibitions, talking to architects and CSN representatives, writing and emailing those who I thought could make a difference, only to have the vast majority of objections (over 3000 against, five in favour?) overturned in a most undemocratic process. I despair of the voice of the majority being listened to. I had hoped that the change in councillors would bring a promised end to this increasingly unwelcome scheme, but nothing has changed. The silence reflects that people have lost all faith in local democracy in planning matters, and in the ability of their councillors to influence planning decisions.
Post a Comment