A DECISION on whether or not the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan referendum will proceed as planned on May 4 is set to go down to the wire, with a High Court judge considering an injunction claim by a consortium of developers.

Three house builders seeking to develop sites not promoted for development in the community-led planning blueprint - Bewley Homes, Wates Developments and Catesby Property Group - finally issued judicial review proceedings to the High Court of Justice last Tuesday, April 18.

The claim challenges the decision of Waverley Borough Council in March, that the draft Farnham Neighbourhood Plan meets the “basic conditions” for a lawful neighbourhood plan and can proceed to a referendum - which is set to coincide with the county council elections on Thursday, May 4.

The consortium has also submitted an “application for urgent consideration” to the High Court, in a bid to halt the May 4 public vote. This, they submit, is necessary to allow all parties to “prepare adequately for a substantive judicial review hearing” - making no reference to the impending appeal hearings awaiting their proposed developments in Lower Weybourne Lane, Upper Old Park Lane and Waverley Lane.

A spokesman for the Royal Courts of Justice confirmed on Wednesday morning that the application is “before a judge as we speak” and would be determined without need of an oral hearing. The spokesman added “there is no exact timescale” for the judge’s ruling, which will be posted on The Herald’s website as soon as possible.

However, in an email to councillors last week, Waverley stated defiantly: “We have taken legal advice and can confirm that the council will not be postponing the referendum and will robustly defend the application.”

This supports the stance of the Department for Communities and Local Government which told The Herald earlier this month: “Legally the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan referendum has got to go ahead on May 4 regardless of any legal challenges.”

The consortium’s challenge is based on legal advice received as the plan was undergoing independent examination last winter - specifically concerning the Farnham plan’s reliance on Waverley’s “un-tested” emerging Local Plan and not the borough’s existing Local Plan adopted in 2002.

Rupert Warren QC has advised the consortium that the Farnham plan’s approach of allocating sites using a new ‘Built Up Area Boundary’ was “contrary to the strategic policies of the adopted Local Plan, and is likely to fail against at least two of the basic conditions”.

Mr Warren also questioned the plan’s level of protection afforded to the Special Protection Areas surrounding Farnham, adding: “The Neighbourhood Plan is also liable to a legal challenge on the additional freestanding basis of failure to undertake a compliant strategic environmental assessment.”

The Farnham Neighbourhood Plan, which has been led by Farnham Town Council and is the result of more than three years’ public consultation, is focused on “well-designed development on brownfield sites within the built up area of Farnham” and preventing the “coalescence” of existing settlements.

It does propose a number of further greenfield sites for housing development, most notably 350 homes at Coxbridge Farm, and a new business site at Water Lane.

However, these sites have been promoted in close collaboration with the community, and have received the backing of more than 20 of the town’s residents associations and civic societies.

Councillors are currently restricted from commenting on the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan itself due to the purdah period prior to the May 4 referendum.

However, discussing the legal challenge, Waverley leader Julia Potts this week expressed “disappointment" at the consortium’s actions - “especially considering that the government is actively encouraging communities to adopt neighbourhood plans”.

She told The Herald: “Clearly this will be a significant legal cost to Waverley at a time when our finances are challenged, which again is not helpful. We would prefer to spend our money on services for our residents.

“However, it is now a matter for the courts and our legal system, so let us hope that we have a timely decision, and can move forward positively for the sake of our community.”