AN unelected government inspector has over-ruled the democratically-elected planning authority and express wishes of Farnham residents by allowing an appeal for almost 100 new homes in Folly Hill.

Waverley Borough Council refused planning permission for 96 homes on fields south of Upper Old Park Lane in 2016, on a site occupying part of the medieval Farnham Old Park.

More than 560 people objected to Catesby Estates Ltd and Bewley Homes plans.

The developers refused to take no for an answer, however, and a public inquiry was held in 2017 after they appealed.

A long wait ensued after the planning inspector delayed his ruling following the adoption of Waverley’s Local Plan and Farnham’s Neighbourhood Plan – both of which exclude the site.

But a further public inquiry was held last October – and to the great shock of objectors, inspector Philip J Asquith has announced he will allow Catesby and Bewley’s appeal.

Explaining his decision, Mr Asquith pointed to a “significant shortfall” in Waverley’s delivery of housing against government targets, and specifically its ability to deliver enough housing to meet demand in the next five years.

Mr Asquith stated: “I consider the council’s stance on a five-year housing land supply to be somewhat optimistic based on past performance.”

The inspector did dispute the developers’ claim the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan had been rendered “out of date” by Waverley’s demand to find sites for an additional 450 homes. However, crucially he agreed “relevant policies in the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan cannot carry full weight”.

One such policy of the plan, FNP10, specifically sets out to retain the landscape character of the historic Farnham Old Park area, within which Catesby/Bewley’s development site sits.

The inspector adds: “I have concluded the degree of change would not result in such a level of harm to the character and appearance of the area that the proposals would be contrary to the thrust of the majority of relevant protective development plan policies.”

Farnham Town Council is expected to discuss the shock ruling at its meeting today.

Council leader Carole Cockburn told the Herald she was “incredibly disappointed” by the decision, confirming the town council immediately took legal advice – but found there were no grounds for a challenge.

David Howell, chairman of Farnham Society’s planning committee, said he was “lost for words” and “outraged” by the inspector’s decision.

“The outline of the inspector’s decision is littered with incorrect assumptions and views, to a point where one wonders whether he even begins to understand the importance that thousands of Farnham residents attach to this location and site and its landscape value,” he said.

“He correctly states this is not a site allocated by the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan and is outside the defined Farnham built up area boundary.

“The Neighbourhood Plan was a planning policy document voted for by large numbers of Farnham residents, and adopted by our local planning authority.

“He has trashed it by saying ‘I do not consider the proposals would result in a level of harm such as to offend against the thrust of the neighbourhood plan’.

“So I ask myself how the democratic process of voting for the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan, and the formal adoption of it, to determine the best – or least bad – sustainable sites for development, without a devastating impact on the town, could possibly be superseded in such a damaging and arbitrary way.

“I really fear for the future of Farnham, as I see the spectre of hundreds more houses on previously-rejected sites resurfacing on the back of the decision to allow this appeal. I hope the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government review it – urgently.”

Waverley Borough Council leader and councillor for Upper Hale Julia Potts said: “I am really disappointed with this decision and disagree with the inspector’s view.

“Waverley Borough Council put up a strong legal and professional defence team to fight the case at the public inquiry and this is not the outcome we were hoping for.

“However, our Local Plan remains sound and up to date, and we will continue to defend against inappropriate development.”