WAVERLEY Borough Council could lose the power to decide where to build almost 10,000 houses by 2032, if it fails to finalise its Local Plan within two years.

Piling on the pressure to decide whether to “dump it on Dunsfold”, chief executive Paul Wenham warned Waverley’s watchdog community overview and scrutiny committee on Monday night, if the council didn’t deliver the housing growth required and had no Local Plan in place by 2017, central government would seize its powers and take over responsibility for where they are built.

Monday’s meeting was the first opportunity for councillors to have their say on last week’s draft spatial strategy document, which supported building 1,800 new homes at Dunsfold Park subject to a detailed transport assessment Waverley has commissioned but not completed.

It identified a shortfall of almost 6,000 homes in meeting the Government housing target, but estimates nearly 3,000 can be built “on greenfield and other sites” mainly in or around Farnham and Cranleigh.

A further 3,000 can be built by allowing more at the airfield or by “further greenfield opportunities” around the two towns – or a mixture of both.

The housing document, which will be used as evidence in support of Waverley’s Local Plan, has already come under fire for being premature in identifying sites for major residential developments before assessing if they are sustainable on transport grounds.

Many of those speaking on Monday night, voiced concerns that the document was flawed. Councillor Kika Mirylees said: “Why does Waverley seem intent on repeating the same mistakes of the past.

“This puts the cart before the horse.”

Concerned residents used the public slot before the meeting started to oppose both the housing target and also building a large residential settlement at Dunsfold Park.

Hascombe Parish Council chairman Charles Orange said: “I think this document is a flawed numbers exercise, with dump it on Dunsfold for anything left over. Large-scale housing was previously refused on appeal as unsustainable so what’s changed.”

When Waverley’s head of planning Matthew Evans told Mr Orange about the expert transport report currently under way, he asked why it hadn’t been finished. Councillor Jim Edwards also asked when the report would be completed but was not given a firm date.

“Government could well remove Waverley’s powers,” Mr Edwards responded. “I would like to see Paul Wenham ensure we get on with this.

“I don’t care if officers have to work seven days a week.”

Echoing Mr Edwards’ complaints, Cranleigh councillor Mary Foryszewski said it was frustrating the transport report was not finished. She was disappointed the housing document was “not robust” and described the housing requirements for Cranleigh and Farnham as disproportionate.

“If we ignore Dunsfold Park it is at our peril,” she said. “let’s stop being anti-Dunsfold and see what we can do going forwards.”

Fellow Cranleigh councillor Brian Ellis said: “While we wait for the Local Plan and neighbourhood plan, developers will gather like bees round an open pot of jam. For God’s sake can Waverley get on with the Local Plan.

“We want to get on with our neighbourhood plans and we can’t get on with neighbourhood plans until Waverley has got its Local Plan.”

Councillor Carole Cockburn said: “I’m concerned about the soundness of the strategy. I sat through Waverley’s curtailed Local Plan examination in 2013 and the last thing we want is to see another one rejected.

“You should not put vast numbers of houses in areas that need mitigation if you haven’t got it.

“We have two beautiful settlements at Cranleigh and Farnham under threat.

“No site in the borough ticks as many boxes as Dunsfold Park.”

Farnham Residents member John Williamson said: “Once again we are being asked to agree the location and amount of housing before being shown the evidence that constrains it.

“We are not following process.”

Mike Band, who is also Waverley’s Mayor, submitted his objections to building a major settlement at Dunsfold Park in writing.

“It seems to ignore the reality of existing population distribution, identified in the original 2013 G L Hearn Report and makes little attempt to match future housing with regional demand within the borough,” he wrote.

“Given the land availability constraints identified, surely more work should be focused on developing a spatial strategy which justifies on sustainability grounds why the Strategic Housing Market Assessment figures cannot be met.”

The members response from the meeting will go to Waverley’s executive, which meets on Tuesday, December 1, and the council is timetabled to approve its new Local Plan for publication next April.

Committee chairman Nick Holder said: “There are a lot of questions that have to be answered. I don’t think we can do it before April 2016.”