Monday night, Rushmoor Borough Council ....

Presentation to planning committee by planning official Daryl
Phillips, in reality a hard sell on behalf of the developers,
followed by comments by the councillors. Daryl Phillips has
missed his vocation in life, he should have been a time share
tout in Tenerife, though he would have to work a little harder
for his œ36k a year.

The councillors fell over backwards to compliment the scheme, just
what Farnborough wants. How they can even make such a claim
without widespread consultation is beyond me.

It was claimed Farnborough had been in dire straits for twenty
years. Not true, the rot set in when KPI took over.

Little concern expressed for the residents of Firgrove Court who
are to lose their homes for a car park for the superstore. More
concern was expressed for the Housing Association, Pavilion.

The threat to the residents of Firgrove Court is a breach of the
Human Rights Act, not a whisper of the committee's duty to
safeguard these rights.

We are to get more choice. Urrgh not exactly with the loss of
many small retailers, most of who have already been driven out of
the town and more are expected to go after Christmas.

Daryl Phillips claimed there was no loss of public open space.
Simply not true.

No concern, they were not even mentioned, for the tenants in the
flats above the shops. When one tenant foolishly tried to raise
her concern of becoming homeless with a councillor after the
meeting, he did not wish to know.

It would have been all too easy to have ripped to shreds the
presentation, but no one did. No mention of the downside. No
discussion of sustainable development, no mention of the traffic
problems, lack of choice, impact on remaining retailers etc.

KPI, developers, fail to meet the Fat Engine Controller's desire
for 40% social housing. Planners fell over backwards to
justify this failure. Ironically, the excuse was the cost of
having to demolish Firgrove Court, existing social housing!!!

Surrey Heath, on behalf of Camberley town centre, had raised
objections. What these objections were we do not know as the
committee were not told. It did though trigger childish comments
from several councillors that Surrey Heath should mind their own
business. Rushmoor councillors seem blissfully unaware of the
need to carry out an assessment of the impact the proposed
superstore will have on surrounding retail. Hence the input from
Surrey Heath.

Retailers were noticeable by their absence. KPI were present,
quietly pleased that the committee were dancing to their tune.

Sustainable? No. Low carbon impact? No. Ecological footprinting? No.
Retail impact assessment? No. CHP? No. People friendly? No.
Preference for co-operatives rather than Housing Association? No.
Community space? No. Open space? No. Soft landscaping (ie green
spaces that are permeable to rain)? No. Use of recycled materials
in building? No. Buildings self-generators of power? No. Minimum
energy use buildings? No. Natural not mechanical ventilation? No.
Starter units for small businesses? No. Community involvement? No.

Any of these issues mentioned or discussed? No.

It was mentioned in passing, objections received, presumably from
myself, but nothing more, the substance of the objections or
where the objections had come from, not revealed.

The agenda clearly states:

'At the time of writing, no response has been received to the most
recent neighbour notification ... Any further comments will be
reported at the Committee meeting.'

As far as I can ascertain, this 'recent neighbour notification' is
the only notification anyone has ever received, and then it was
only to do with junction changes to Victoria Road, not the scheme
itself, cf the agenda 'Extensive notification has been carried
out'.

There has been no 'extensive notification', no consultation, no
public meetings.

I had asked for my report to be placed before all members of the
committee. I am awaiting written confirmation if this was the
case. Breach of the Human Rights Act if not.

 http://www.heureka.clara.net/surrey-hants/kpi.htm

The councillors, in unison, all voted unanimously for the scheme.

Immediately after the meeting, councillors told privately those
members of the public who wished to listen to their hypocrisy,
that they personally were not at all happy with the scheme, if
not against, but felt they had no choice other than to vote for
the scheme.

Immediately after the meeting, councillors told privately those
members of the public who wished to listen to their hypocrisy,
that they personally were not at all happy with the scheme, if
not against, but felt they had no choice other than to vote for
the scheme.

An extremely depressing episode. There may be something in it
for the developers, but nothing in it for the local community,
the people who live in the town, or the small retailers. The
people the councillors allegedly represent.

Then councillors wonder why no one bothers to vote.

The only good point in the entire sordid episode was that
Rushmoor planning official Daryl Phillips let slip that if the
residents of Firgrove Court do not go, the scheme cannot go ahead.
Or looked at another way, if they sit tight, as they have every
right to do so, the scheme collapses. Or if they are happy to
move, they should be looking for a windfall of at least œ250,000 each.

The following day, I went around and talked to as many people as
possible, townsfolk, local retailers, etc. Everyone, and I was not
surprised as the scheme has never had public support, expressed
anger and outrage and disgust at the decision.

Some people already seem to have started to take direct action. A
few of the flats above the shops at the northern end of the town
centre are now occupied by squatters.

The scheme now has to go before the Secretary of State. This
means there is still opportunity for objections. There will also
be opportunity for objections when application is made for the
stopping up of the highway.

Keith Parkins