THE final say by Waverley’s 29-strong ‘watchdog’ committee on the borough’s blueprint to build 10,000 houses by 2032, was made on Monday night.

But doubts about what force their comments would be given was raised early on by members, unconvinced that previous comments they made on the plan had been taken on board by Waverley’s decision-making executive and full council committees.

Waverley’s joint overview and scrutiny committee (O&S) met on Monday to consider a new 217-page summary of key issues raised in the 2,500 responses from the public to the draft Local Plan, together with officer replies.

Objections raised by those responding included protests that Waverley’s revised housing target of “at least” 519 new homes a year was too high, had been summarily dismissed by officers.

Waverley is racing against the clock to beat the new year deadline when the government warned it will take over the local plans of any local authority that has failed to submit one.

The council’s executive committee meets on Tuesday, November 29, at 5pm to finalise the document and council will approve it at 7pm the same night.

“It’s a vast document with a lot of issues arising,” chief planning officer Liz Sims told Monday’s meeting. “We have to deliver it by early 2017. We haven’t got much time left but we are confident in the plan.”

Concerned ‘watchdog’ councillors - including opposition Farnham Residents councillor Jerry Hyman in his new role as O&S committee chairman - began the debate by querying if comments they had made on the plan in June had actually been included in the draft document. They were assured by officers that due process had been followed.

“They do not appear in this document,” said Tory Cranleigh councillor and former Mayor of Waverley, Mike Band. “I would certainly like to see them included in amendments to the plan.”

Mr Band also raised concern that a technical review commissioned by 11 joint parish councils in the south of the borough from former ministerial housing advisor Neil McDonald, who concluded the need was for 400 houses per annum rather than 519, had been “summarily dismissed”.

This, he said, could leave the plan vulnerable if challenged on why Dunsfold Aerodrome, where the council has allocated 2,600 new homes, is more suitable to take housing than the borough’s largest conurbation Farnham where housing need is “logically” greatest.

“My concern is that if Waverley is not seen to be doing something with the updated housing figures, it will be challenged by the inspector,” he said.

“It might save our case if it had more informed opinion rather than summarily dismissing it. It was an unfortunate approach to take.

“Farnham has the biggest need logically for affordable housing, being the largest conurbation. We haven’t responded to parishes in sufficient depth on why we believe Dunsfold Aerodrome is more suitable than Farnham.

“Unless we are prepared we will face challenges from the parishes.”

O&S chairman Mr Hyman also queried why Waverley was using the higher housing target given by its own consultants GL Hearn, when it could use an updated lower figure. He urged Waverley should follow Guildford Borough Council’s lead and reconsider.

Responding, Waverley’s portfolio holder for housing, Tory Frensham councillor Brian Adams said: “GL Hearn is one of the largest consultancies across the country. If we delay by a year there could be another set of figures and it will mean costly officer time. Let’s stick with this.”

Agreeing speed was of the essence, Tory Cranleigh councillor Mary Foryszewski added: “We chose GL Hearn, let’s believe what they tell us. We don’t have time to look at it in more detail. We are doing nothing to stop developers coming forward. Please, no more delays.”

Concern was also raised that a proper assessment had not been conducted that the infrastructure was adequate to support the 2,600 houses allocated for Dunsfold airfield.

Mrs Sims told members that the planning committee would need to be satisfied the necessary infrastructure could be delivered when it determined Dunsfold Park’s application for 1,800 new homes.

Independent Farnham councillor Andy MacLeod criticised the decision to reduce the threshold for affordable housing from 40 per cent to 30 per cent as it failed to meet the objectively assessed need, but was told by officers it was the only way to ensure sufficient funding.

Tory Farnham councillor Wyatt Ramsdale objected to Waverley’s decision not to designate the “green lung” of Dockenfield area as green belt.

“There’s good reason to change it now,” he said. “It says there is the potential for it in the green belt review.”

The comments of the O&S committee will be forwarded to Waverley’s executive and council committees in a tight timetable that originally aimed to approve and submit the plan for examination by the government by the end of this month.

The key executive and council meetings will be webcast live from 5pm and 7pm respectively next Tuesday, online at www.youtube.com/waverleyborough.