THE final say by Waverley’s 29-strong ‘watchdog’ committee on the borough’s blueprint to build 10,000 houses by 2032, was had on Monday night. But doubts about what force their comments would be given, was raised early on by members unconvinced previous comments they made on the plan had been taken on board by Waverley’s decision-making executive and council committees.

Waverley’s joint overview and scrutiny committee (O&S) met on Monday to consider the 217-page summary of key issues raised in the 2,500 responses from the public to the borough’s draft Local Plan, together with replies from council officers.

Objections raised included protests that Waverley’s revised housing target of “at least” 519 new homes a year was too high – and had been summarily dismissed by officers.

Waverley is racing against the clock to beat the new year deadline improsed by the Government – or risk facing the local plan – along with other local authorities failing to to submit a completed plan – being taken over by Whitehall.

The executive committee meets on Tuesday, at 5pm, to finalise the document, and the full council will approve it at 7pm on the same night.

Chief planning officer Liz Sims told Monday’s meeting: “It’s a vast document with a lot of issues arising.

“We have to deliver it by early 2017.

“We haven’t got much time left but we are confident in the plan.”

Concerned ‘watchdog’ councillors began the debate by querying if comments they had made on the plan in June had actually been included in the draft document. They were assured by officers due process had been followed.

“They do not appear in this document,” Tory Cranleigh councillor Mike Band said. “I would certainly like to see them included in amendments to the plan.”

Mr Band also raised concerns the technical review commissioned by the 11 joint parish council from former ministerial housing advisor Neil McDonald, who concluded the need was for 400 houses per annum rather than 519, had been “summarily dismissed”.

He said “My concern is if Waverley is not seen to be doing something with the updated housing figures, it will be challenged by the inspector.

“It might save our case if it had more informed opinion rather than summarily dismissing it. It was an unfortunate approach to take.

“Farnham has the biggest need logically for affordable housing, being the largest conurbation. We haven’t responded to parishes in sufficient depth on why we believe Dunsfold Aerodrome is more suitable than Farnham.

“Unless we are prepared we will face challenges from the parishes.”

O&S chairman Jerry Hyman, of Independent Farnham Residents, asked why Waverley was using the higher housing target given by its own consultants G L Hearn, when it could use an updated lower figure. He urged Waverley should follow Guildford Borough Council’s lead and reconsider.

Waverley’s portfolio holder for housing Brian Adams, a Tory member for Frensham, said: “GL Hearn is one of the largest consultancies across the country. If we delay by a year there could be another set of figures and it will mean costly officer time. Let’s stick with this.”

Agreeing speed was of the essence, fellow Tory Mary Foryszewski said: “We chose GL Hearn, let’s believe what they tell us. We don’t have time to look at it in more detail. We are doing nothing to stop developers coming forward. Please, no more delays.”

Concern was also raised a proper assessment had not been conducted that the infrastructure was adequate to support the 2,600 houses allocated for Dunsfold airfield.

Mrs Sims told members the planning committee would need to be satisfied the necessary infrastructure could be delivered when it determined Dunsfold Park’s application for 1,800 new homes.

Andy MacLeod, an independnet councillor for Farnham, criticised the decision to reduce the threshold for affordable housing from 40 per cent to 30 per cent as it failed to meet the objectively assessed need. But he was told by officers it was the only way to ensure sufficient funding.

Hindhead and Haslemere Tory councillors Peter Isherwood and David Round both objected to a “green lung” woodland next to Holy Cross Hospital being stripped of its protective landscape designation as an area of special visual interest – opening the door for residential development.

“Please leave it alone,” Mr Round said. “That’s the unanimous view of Haslemere Town Council.”

Farnham Conservative councillor Wyatt Ramsdale objected to Waverley’s decision not to designate another “green lung” at Dockenfield as Green Belt.

“There’s good reason to change it now,” he said. “It says there is the potential for it in the green belt review.”

Milford Tory councillor Denis Leigh urged the building of 180 houses on land opposite Milford Golf Course, as allocated in the plan, should be accelerated “because of the infrastructure benefits”

Mr Ramsdale said: “These sites are not assessed for how fast we would like them to happen, but how fast it could happen. There is no reason why we should raise false expectations.”