A CONSORTIUM of developers eyeing up greenfield sites across the Farnham area stirred up controversy after suggesting Farnham’s Neighbourhood Plan should “wait its turn” for Waverley’s Local Plan to be adopted.

Some 10 developers were invited to have their say on the plan, setting out how and where residents would like Farnham to grow over the next 15 years, during a public hearing called by the independent examiner reviewing the document last Friday.

These included representatives of:

• Wates Developments (which has an appeal pending for 157 homes in Waverley Lane),

• Bewley Homes (appeal pending for 140 homes in Lower Weybourne Lane, plus a recent successful application for 65 homes in Wrecclesham Hill and an unsuccessful one for 102 homes in Folly Hill),

• Bargate Homes (appeal pending for 46 homes in Frensham Vale),

• Farnham Estates (refused permission for 64 homes in Green Lane in October),

• CEG (refused permission for a 130-home ‘hamlet in the woods’ in Frensham Vale in September), and

• Rowen Properties (which recently exhibited plans for 350 homes on fields south of Badshot Lea).

The developers took turns to argue that the Neighbourhood Plan provides for too few houses to meet identified demand and, if allowed to proceed on its current trajectory ahead of Waverley’s Local Plan, would undermine its “parent” planning policy document.

Tony Charles on behalf of Cove Construction commented that the Neighbourhood Plan should “wait its turn” - despite taking more than three years of exhaustive work on the part of residents, councillors, businesses and civic societies across the town to progress to the current stage.

Another planning consultant Asher Ross, representing Wates, took particular umbrage at the fact the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan seeks to shape development up to 2031 whereas the Waverley document has a different end date of 2032.

Mr Ross said this would result in the Farnham and Waverley plans pursuing different housing targets, adding the only reason for such a discrepancy is that the town council “could not find enough sites to accommodate the additional units required”.

He said: “To have a plan that doesn’t meet the same housing demand figure or time period as its parent document seems non-sensical.”

This was forcefully rejected by Farnham Town Council however, and in particular by council leader Carole Cockburn who has long argued that Farnham’s document should be awarded equal weighting as the Local Plan.

Representatives of both Farnham and Waverley councils, as well as the examiner Derek Stebbing, also agreed there is no legal requirement for the timescales of the two plans to be “synced” nor any legal impediment on the Neighbourhood Plan advancing independently of the Local Plan.

The town council’s barrister Paul Brown added that any shortfall in housing targets between the Neighbourhood Plan and the Local Plan would likely represent as little as one additional home a year, on top of the 124 per annum already proposed in the Farnham document - a discrepancy of less than one per cent.

Mr Brown said: “We are only having this discussion because of unforeseen delays in the Local Plan process and at the end of the day we’re talking about a one year difference. The Neighbourhood Plan still provides for 15 out of the 16 years of the Local Plan period, and is still in general conformity with it.

“If we were required to extend the period of the Neighbourhood Plan, would it mean having to go back to the drawing board to identify more sites? No it wouldn’t. There is plenty of time over the next 15 years for a partial review, which can be a relatively modest exercise.

“I can’t see how the Neighbourhood Plan could fail the basic conditions set out by the Government just because it has a different end date to the Local Plan.”

Following the hearing, the examiner will now take on board the comments of all those involved, before deciding whether to submit the document for a referendum in its present form, suggest amendments, or reject the plan entirely. His decision is expected in the new year.

• A crucial milestone in the development of the Waverley Local Plan was also reached, as a resounding vote of 40 borough councillors in favour ensured Waverley’s blueprint for development until 2032 will now be submitted for public examination.

Not everyone was convinced the draft plan to build just under 10,000 houses in the borough by 2032 was sound, however.

Many members of Waverley’s decision-making council backed the document just to ensure it was submitted before the new year deadline when the government has threatened to take over any plans not yet submitted, despite their reservations.

Five council members abstained in the recorded vote - former Waverley leader Robert Knowles, fellow Tories Kevin Deanus, John Gray and Richard Seaborne, and Farnham Residents’ group leader John Williamson - while Farnham Residents councillor Jerry Hyman was the only member to object.

Addressing Waverley’s executive at the first of two ‘extraordinary’ meetings last week, council leader Julia Potts said: “We need to move forward, we need to make sure the plan is submitted and the plan is that if we gain agreement this evening, that will happen before Christmas, and we can then move on.

“We are hopefully then in control and we can have a say, and map out a future for Waverley for all our towns and parishes, because we have a number coming along now with their Neighbourhood Plans.”

Agreeing, Tory Haslemere councillor Carole King said: “The plan covers a huge variety of topics and subjects, some dear to some people’s hearts, some not so dear. We could go on and on and on for ever and never ever get it all right. I think the time has now come when we have to just submit it and let the inspector get on with doing his job.”

Executive was immediately followed by an ‘extraordinary’ council meeting, when members also spoke passionately to urge the plan should be submitted as basically sound and evidence-based. However, several warned Waverley might have a rough ride at the public inquiry examination.

One key area of concern voiced by council members was the damning conclusion of the expert report recently commissioned by 11 joint parish councils from ministerial housing advisor Neil McDonald.

Mr McDonald concluded that the target housing figure of “at least” 519 houses a year by Waverley consultant G L Hearn, on which the Local Plan is based, was too high and it should be 400 per annum.

Another cause for concern was the Infrastructure Delivery Plan, still in progress, and its current absence of mitigating measures to deal with the increase in traffic on already congested roads when many thousands of houses, many concentrated at Dunsfold Aerodrome, are built.

Solitary objector Mr Hyman shared the transport concern and was also concerned the plan might not comply with the government habitats directive and air quality legislation.

Urging the need to have a Local Plan in place, Tory Godalming councillor Tom Martin said: “It’s imperative we have a Local Plan that enables us to build housing for the people who live and work here as our children continue to be forced out of the borough.

“Revisiting housing figures is a vicious circle that will never get us to examination. We should avoid ever-decreasing circles of evidence gathering and bureaucracy.”

Summing up before the final vote, Miss Potts said: “We employed G L Hearn to do the work and we cannot continually challenge that. We need to move the plan forwards. We are very much in the hands of developers and we need to lead. This is our best chance to grasp the nettle and become the leader.”