WAVERLEY will lack the protection of a Local Plan to guard against undesirable housing developments for at least four months, due to delays in finalising the supporting documents.

Concerns the borough council’s inability to demonstrate a five-year housing supply was already to blame for unpopular developments being granted on appeal in order to meet government housing targets, were raised at Waverley’s executive meeting on Tuesday, in which members agreed it was impossible to approve the plan for publication in April, as previously agreed.

The move to delay publication followed a warning by the House of Commons’ Communities and Local Government Committee that communities will not benefit fully from the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) unless local authorities had properly fulfilled their responsibilities to publish and adopt Local Plans.

Four years on from the publication of the NPPF, Waverley is one of 17 per cent of local authorities which have not yet published a Local Plan, and a further 34 per cent have not had their plans adopted.

Following the withdrawal in of the previous Local Plan 2013 – after the government inspector warned the housing target of 250 new homes a year was too low – Waverley originally gave itself two years to redraft it.

The revised plan is now based on the increased housing target of 470 homes, which was identified as the housing need for the borough in the updated strategic housing market assessment Waverley subsequently commissioned from G L Hearn.

Public concern about the current state of the Local Plan was voiced before Tuesday’s meeting and Waverley was accused of using “filibustering” tactics to prevent more of the residents attending from asking “informal” questions of which councillors had no prior notice, in the 15-minute slot beforehand.

Three informal questions were asked, all voicing concern about Waverley’s Local Plan and if it would be sufficiently robust on the housing front. Residents who had also hoped to speak, complained afterwards an “unusually” lengthy response by planning portfolio holder Brian Adams insisting the council was fulfilling its legal duty to co-operate with neighbouring authorities had effectively prevented further questioning and amounted to “filibustering”.

Farnham Residents’ official opposition leader Jerry Hyman wanted to ask about funding for the Brightwells regeneration scheme, but was frustrated after the informal question time exceeded the maximum 15 minutes allowed by the council.

The committee agreed a recommendation to amend the timetable due to a delay in getting the strategic transport assessment in connection with Guildford’s Local Plan. It means the plan will be published in July or August – with November as the likely submission date.

Waverley officers said the delay would still mean the borough council could complete within the government’s timetable for producing Local Plans.

Housing minister Brandon Lewis announced last July the Government would take over the process in areas where no Local Plan had been produced by early 2017.

Planning policy manager Graham Parrott said: “While it is disappointing there has been some delay in completing the strategic transport modelling, it is essential that when the plan is published it is supported by robust evidence which stands up to scrutiny.”

Farnham Residents councillor John Williamson asked what the position was on Waverley’s “critical” five-year plan, following this week’s appeal decision to approve 425 new homes in Cranleigh, based on the lack of the required five-year housing supply.

Mr Adams said: “I am well aware residents accept the targets allocated as long as new homes are not built near them, hence the preference for Dunsfold Park.

“Unfortunately, Dunsfold Park is an unsustainable location and to make it sustainable takes time and is very expensive. Dunsfold Park has requested 1,800 houses to be built over a nine-year period and that is currently being considered. Our spatial strategy must be satisfactory if it isn’t to leave a big hole.”

Alfold councillor Kevin Deanus thanked Mr Adams for accepting Dunsfold Park was the preferred site – but it was not sustainable.

Councillor Julia Potts who is set to become council leader in May, said: “It’s disappointing some of the times have changed but no one can underestimate the significance of the strategic transport assessment.

“We have to make sure it’s right and we have the right data. Before we submit it to the inspector, we have to have the data Guildford and Surrey County Council deem to be the most up-to-date.”

Find out about planning applications that affect you by visiting the Public Notice Portal.

Committee chairman Robert Knowles added: “Matters outside our jurisdiction have let us down.”