THE fate of the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan lies in the hands of a High Court judge this week, after a consortium of three developers took the community-backed planning blueprint to a judicial review.

More than 10,000 people (88 per cent) voted in favour of adopting the Neighbourhood Plan in a referendum on May 4, on the back of four years of public workshops, consultations and independent examination.

However, developers Bewley Homes, Wates Developments and Catesby Estates - each promoting housing sites not allocated for development in the plan - lodged a judicial review against the plan, which they claim fails to meet the ‘basic conditions’ for a lawful neighbourhood plan.

A two-day hearing subsequently took place at the Royal Courts of Justice last Thursday and Friday, with barrister Rupert Warren QC presenting the consortium’s case to judge Mrs Justice Lang, and barristers Clare Parry, representing Waverley, and Lisa Busch QC, on behalf of Farnham Town Council, defending.

Mr Warren QC challenged the decision of independent examiner, Derek Stebbing, made in February to allow the plan to proceed to a referendum - and particularly the examiner’s conclusion that the Farnham plan is in “general conformity” with Waverley Borough Council’s adopted 2002 Local Plan.

The Farnham Neighbourhood Plan lays out a ‘Built Up Area Boundary’ for Farnham, outside of which development is to be resisted in a bid to prevent the “coalescence” of towns and villages.

However, Mr Warren QC argued this differs substantially from the settlement boundary in the 2002 Local Plan, and is therefore in conflict with Waverley’s adopted development plan.

The consortium’s barrister also claimed the Farnham plan relies on flawed evidence - specifically Waverley’s ‘AMEC’ landscape report - and does not provide sufficient protection for the rare heathland Special Protection Areas surrounding the town.

But defending the plan, Waverley and Farnham councils’ barristers argued that the examiner fully considered the relationship between the new Neighbourhood Plan and the 2002 Local Plan in reaching his decision in February.

This, they submitted in court, was evidenced by the fact Mr Stebbing held a public inquiry in Farnham last November to address specific points relating to the proposed Built Up Area Boundary and the Special Protection Areas - and later recommended several amendments to the plan, all of which were adopted prior to the referendum.

The 2002 Local Plan was only designed to direct development up to 2006, they added, and where the settlement boundary has changed, it has only done so “marginally” to reflect how the town has developed since 2002.

The defending barristers also stressed that, whereas a Local Plan must pass a test of ‘soundness’, a Neighbourhood Plan only has to meet ‘basic conditions’ - and as such, there is no obligation on the examiner to compare every policy to the adopted Local Plan.

The judge Mrs Justice Lang is now expected to hand down her decision in two to four weeks time.

But conversely, if Mrs Justice Lang dismisses the consortium’s case, Waverley would be duty-bound to adopt the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan as planning policy as soon as possible, setting out a community-led blueprint for development up to 2031.

Speaking after the two-day hearing, Farnham town clerk Iain Lynch told The Herald: “This was a very good case of Waverley and Farnham Town Council working together to defend what local people have said are important priorities for them in how the shape of Farnham is developed in the future.

“We’re hopeful for a positive outcome and it would be a sad day if well-resourced developers can win through the courts against local views. The big question is, if the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan is so wrong, why aren’t the developers who have got their sites in the neighbourhood plan complaining as well?”

Representatives of The Farnham Society and several Farnham residents associations were also in attendance at the High Court, joined by Waverley’s planning portfolio holder Brian Adams and lawyer Daniel Lucas.