WAVERLEY will lack the protection of a Local Plan to guard against undesirable housing developments for at least a further four months, due to delays in finalising supporting documents.

Concern that the borough council’s inability to demonstrate a five-year housing supply was already to blame for unpopular housing developments being granted on appeal in order to meet government housing targets, was raised at Waverley’s Executive meeting on Tuesday, in which members agreed it was impossible to approve the plan for publication in April, as previously agreed.

The move to delay publication followed a warning by The Communities and Local Government Committee that communities will not benefit fully from the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) unless their local authorities had properly fulfilled their responsibilities to publish and adopt Local Plans.

Four years on from the publication of the NPPF, Waverley is one of 17 per cent of local authorities that have not yet published Local Plans, and a further 34 per cent have not had their plans adopted.

Public concern was voiced before Tuesday’s meeting and Waverley was accused of using “filibustering” tactics to prevent more of the residents attending from asking “informal” questions of which councillors had no prior notice in the 15-minute slot beforehand.

Three informal questions were asked, all voicing concern about Waverley’s Local Plan and if it would be sufficiently robust.

Residents who had also hoped to speak, complained afterwards an “unusually” lengthy response by Waverley planning portfolio holder Brian Adams insisting the council was fulfilling its legal duty to co-operate with neighbouring authorities had effectively prevented further questioning and amounted to filibustering.

One such resident, the leader of Waverley’s opposition Farnham Residents party Jerry Hyman, had hoped to ask the council about funding for the Brightwells regeneration scheme in Farnham but was frustrated after the informal question time exceeded the maximum 15 minutes allowed.

The committee later agreed a recommendation to amend the timetable due to a delay in getting the strategic transport assessment in connection with Guildford’s local plan. It means the plan will be published in July or August with November as the likely submission date.

Waverley officers said the delay would still mean the borough council could complete within the government’s timetable for producing local plans. Housing minister Brandon Lewis announced in July 2015 that the government will take over the process in areas where no local plan had been produced by early 2017.

Planning policy manager Graham Parrott said: “While it is disappointing that there has been some delay in completing the strategic transport modelling, it is essential that when the plan is published it is supported by robust evidence which stands up to scrutiny.”

Opposition group Farnham Residents chairman John Williamson asked what the position was on Waverley’s “critical” five-year plan, following this week’s appeal decision to approve 425 new homes in Cranleigh, based on the lack of the required five-year housing supply.

Mr Adams said: “I am well aware residents accept the housing targets allocated as long as new homes are not built near them, hence the preference for Dunsfold Park. Unfortunately, Dunsfold Park is an unsustainable location and to make it sustainable takes time and is very expensive.

“Dunsfold Park has requested 1,800 houses to be built over a nine-year period and that is currently being considered. Our spatial strategy must be satisfactory if it isn’t to leave a big hole.”

Farnham councillor and Waverley’s new leader-in-waiting Julia Potts said: “It’s disappointing some of the times have changed but no one can underestimate the significance of the strategic transport assessment.

“We have to make sure it’s right and we have the right data. Before we submit it to the inspector, we have to have the data that Guildford and Surrey County Council deem to be the most up to date so we have the endorsement of Surrey County Council and Highways England and we have shown we have embraced the duty to co-operate. That is crucial.”

• Questions surrounding the source of Surrey County Council’s funding for the Brightwells regeneration scheme in Farnham remain unanswered this week.

As reported in last week’s Herald, the county council has confirmed it is to financially support Waverley Borough Council’s redevelopment of land south of East Street to help get the long-delayed mixed-use scheme off the ground.

However, speculation is rife as to the origin of the estimated £58 million needed to fund Brightwells’ commercial retail element, with Surrey merely commenting it is backing the scheme as part of its support for “economic growth in the county”.

Rumours that Surrey’s pension scheme was set to stump up the cash were dispelled last week by Farnham North councillor and chairman of the pension scheme Denise Le Gal.

And responding to a further rumour this week that the Enterprise M3 Local Enterprise Project (LEP) is again involved having already loaned £1.5 million to the project, a Waverley spokesman said the funding offer is yet to be finalised.

Waverley’s spokesman told The Herald: “The development agreement between Waverley Borough Council and the developer, Crest Nicholson, requires Crest Nicholson to secure an acceptable external funder for the commercial elements of the Brightwells regeneration scheme.

“It is likely that a report will be presented to council in the next six to eight weeks. The funding arrangement between Crest Nicholson and Surrey County Council will be finalised at a later date.”