WAVERLEY Borough Council has confirmed plans to allocate a further 450 homes in the Farnham area by 2032 - on top of the 2,330 already proposed - after a Government inspector told it to increase its housing target last month.

A six-day public examination was held at the council offices in Godalming in July to test the “soundness” of ‘part one’ of Waverley’s draft Local Plan, after which the inspector announced there were no “showstopper” issues but did request a number of modifications before recommending the plan for adoption.

These included raising Waverley’s housing target from 519 to 590 homes per year until 2032, lifting the total from 9,861 to 11,210 over the plan period (2013 to 2032), and, most contentiously, incorporating 50 per cent of Woking’s unmet housing need.

Responding, Waverley planners outlined a series of modifications to the borough’s planning blueprint this week, in a report to a ‘special meeting’ of Waverley’s decision-making executive committee scheduled for 6.45pm next Tuesday.

The report proposes a “proportionate” 19 per cent uplift to Farnham’s housing allocation (from 2,330 homes to 2,780), a 23 per cent uplift in Godalming (1,240 to 1,520), 19 per cent in Haslemere (830 to 990) and a “less than proportionate” 12 per cent increase in Cranleigh (1,520 to 1,700).

The Elstead and Weyburn area has also seen its allocation increase from 150 to 160 homes, Churt from 10 to 15, Frensham from 15 to 20 and Tilford from 15 to 20.

But to the dismay of many Farnham councillors, the allocation for Waverley’s largest brownfield site, Dunsfold Park, remains 2,600 - despite the inspector backing a larger development at the former Second World War airfield south of Godalming, endorsed by the majority of residents who responded to a 2014 consultation on the Local Plan.

Waverley has not yet identified where the additional 450 homes in Farnham will be located, and councillors have expressed concern that the modifications could undermine the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan which was only officially adopted on July 28.

The Neighbourhood Plan, through four years of public consultations and workshops, has already identified sites for 124 homes per year up to 2031. But this does not include the additional homes Waverley now says must be built in the town.

The borough council proposes to consider additional sites to account for the shortfall through ‘part two’ of the Local Plan, which it says will avoid the need to undertake an early review of the now-adopted Neighbourhood Plan.

However, in a blow to Farnham Town Council and the 10,000-plus people to vote in favour of the Neighbourhood Plan in May, Waverley’s report adds that where there is a conflict between the Neighbourhood Plan and the Local Plan, the Waverley document will “take precedence as it will be the more up-to-date development plan”.

A public consultation on Waverley’s proposed modifications is expected to start on September 4 and last for six weeks.

Responding to the modifications, Farnham town clerk Iain Lynch described the numbers proposed for Farnham as “excessive”, and accused Waverley of failing to explore “opportunities elsewhere in the borough”.

“We’re very pleased that Waverley have acknowledged in their proposed allocations that there would be no additional allocations in the first 10 to 15 years of the Neighbourhood Plan,” said Mr Lynch.

“However, there is an illogicality in not putting a higher number at Dunsfold. Waverley has undertaken in the early stage of the Local Plan a clear consultation earlier and there was overwhelming support for a higher number of homes at Dunsfold Park.

“The inspector, in looking at the Local Plan, indicated that the development at Dunsfold Park was a good prospect. The proposal is well advanced and it has an innovative approach to a garden village. We have no doubt it would be an exemplary development.

“We strongly believe as a town council in a plan-led planning system. We’re fed up with speculative, identikit developments that don’t add to the character of the area and don’t contribute sufficiently to the infrastructure to alleviate their negative impacts.

“Something like Dunsfold, where you’ve got a good concentration of development, brings in sufficient funding to support the infrastructure in the area.”

Mr Lynch added the inspector acknowledged any further development in Farnham would be hampered by the town’s “huge” traffic congestion issues, and hinted at the “possibility of freeing up some traditionally green belt areas” where sustainable.

Specifically, Mr Lynch said Milford and Witley, both served by railway stations, are “greater candidates” for a larger number of homes than allocated.

The clerk added his “surprise” that Waverley has released the modifications into the public domain, commenting that the proposals “give false messages to developers that there are additional spaces available for development, which there aren’t”.

Andy MacLeod, a Farnham Residents’ town, borough and county councillor and a member of Farnham Town Council’s Neighbourhood Plan working group, also criticised Waverley’s latest allocations, commenting that more consideration should be given to the 25,000-plus homes being built in the areas surrounding Farnham.

He said: “There’s something like 50,000 houses that are going to be built in the boroughs surrounding Farnham - Guildford, Rushmoor, Hart and East Hants - and about half of them are going to be located within six miles of the town.

“Each house, statistically, comes with one and a half cars, and we need some more joined-up thinking to provide the required infrastructure. It’s no good planning just for Farnham, you need to plan for what’s happening around and about the town as well.”