URGENT action needs to be taken by Waverley Borough Council to avoid being put into “special measures” by Whitehall civil servants for losing too many major planning appeals.

Executive committee members voiced “grave concern” on Tuesday night that the authority was in imminent danger of missing the Government’s target for the number of major planning applications refused by a council – but allowed at appeal.

Against a target threshold of losing no more than 10 per cent of major appeals, Waverley has a record of 6.4 per cent. Officers have now warned upcoming major appeal decisions could see that figure rise to 16 per cent in a worst-case scenario.

Waverley’s performance was described as a “significant concern” by Liz Sims, the borough’s head of planning services, who recommended more training workshops for councillors and officers – and the need for councillors to ‘recognise and engage the presumption in favour of sustainable development’ to avoid ‘unnecessary’ refusals.

But most importantly, Waverley’s new Local Plan should be progressed she urged, ‘as quickly as possible’ to strengthen the council’s defence against harmful developments.

However, hopes Waverley will meet its timetable target of getting the first part of its Local Plan adopted in December, now look increasingly unlikely, after government inspector Jonathan Bore posed a new set of questions this month on the latest modifications to the plan, which have not yet been answered.

One question relating directly to Haslemere, asks how 130 more houses can be built in the town by 2032, as the land availability assessment has not yet identified sufficient suitable sites.

Mr Bore also asked how Waverley can ensure the 450 houses on top of the 2,780 allocated for Farnham can be built, due to the timing of the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan review and Natural England’s objection that the Local Plan does not identify enough mitigating land, or Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space.

He also asked if more green belt land will need to be released for housing, and for a reassurance that Waverley’s updated increased housing figures based on large ‘windfall’ sites ‘do not involve double counting’.

At Tuesday’s meeting, members stressed the need for the Local Plan to be adopted as soon as possible to ensure the council did not lose out to developers proposing major developments, at appeal.

Councillor Carole Cockburn highlighted the problems caused by Waverley’s decision to review the adopted Farnham Neighbourhood Plan and the lack of neighbourhood plans for Haslemere, Godalming and Cranleigh, which could have strengthened the borough council’s defence at appeal.

“I assumed you were aware how important Farnham Neighbourhood Plan was in defence of appeals,” she said. “As soon as the Waverley executive declared the plan out of date within weeks of its being made, developers wrote to the Secretary of State, asking him to allow the three recovered appeals.

“Without the protection of a made neighbourhood plan, the developers claimed that the evidence was not convincing enough.”

Peter Isherwood (Hindead) added: “Haslemere Neighbourhood Plan is still not made. The only one is Farnham. I’ve attended appeals and I do worry because of the cost of defending appeals and of going into special measures.

“We need urgent action training councillors and officers. We want to be in control of planning. Developers all speak with one voice. I want us to be strong.”

Chris Storey said Waverley had met all the planning targets except for major appeals, where its 6.4 per cent rate was a “grave concern”. He hoped the increased fees to be charged for planning applications would give Waverley ‘a bit more to keep the planning department going’.

Waverley leader Julia Potts, who represents Farnham, said: “To see more than £500,000 spent on defending appeals is absolutely horrendous and it’s partly because we don’t have a sound Local Plan.

“Hopefully, we are well on the way to that now and can adopt one to ensure appropriate plan-led development. Think what all that money could have been spent on, such as services to vulnerable residents.

“We need to make sure we invest in planning services and officers. If we don’t we will continue to have issues. We must ensure the Local Plan is adopted as soon as possible.”

Members agreed unanimously to the head of planning’s six recommendations for urgent improvements.