A COUNTRYSIDE protection group has accused government planning inspectors of getting its sums wrong over housing needs in Waverley.

The Surrey branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) has called on inspectors to look again at its figures after a report by an independent adviser and an expert on housing and planning, claimed the number of homes needed had been overstated by a staggering 2,500 – or 29 per cent – of what is required in the borough.

A more realistic housing quota would, it is claimed, help provide more affordable homes and social housing instead of building on green belt and protected areas of land.

The conclusion comes after a new report by Neil McDonald commissioned by the CRPE showed the target of 590 houses per year – a total of 11,210 homes over the next 20 years – which is expected to be imposed on Waverley is “out of touch” and would only lead to “further erosion” of the protected countryside and green belt.

In a letter to The Herald this week, Tony Bennett, who is the joint vice-chairman of CPRE Surrey and Waverley District, claimed the report’s analysis provided “compelling evidence” in support of the widely held view the increased targets being allocated to town and parish councils throughout the borough, are “unrealistic” and would result in “unsustainable developments in unsuitable locations.”

The housing figures which are included in the West Surrey Housing Market Area, takes in the areas of Waverley, Guildford and Woking and includes housing needs in Woking which the town has been unable meet – half the shortfall of which the inspector appointed to oversee the borough’s new Local Plan wishes to add to Waverley’s figures.

But Mr Bennett claimed in his letter, the assessment of Woking’s unmet need is based on “out-of-date information” and “untested assumptions” and does not form a reliable basis on which to reach any conclusions as to its amount, let alone the imposition of any part of it on Waverley.

He maintained the report findings should allow Waverley Borough Council to:

• Regain control of development within a sound Local Plan

• Call a halt to “unnecessary housing” in protected areas of the countryside and

• Enable parish councils to proceed with their own Neighbourhood Plans.

And Mr Bennett concludes in his letter that Waverley would then be able to “focus more on meeting the genuine need for affordable and social housing throughout the borough” instead of “fuelling excessive demand at the expense of our protected countryside.”

Mr Bennett also told The Herald this week he also considered the current 20-year lifetime of a Local Plan could be a “recipe for ongoing chaos”.

He said: “I think Local Plans should get revisited every five years, personally I think the problem is not so much down to local authorities but to planning inspectors who come with their own mandate to enforce government policies.”

In a statement from CPRE Surrey, the campaign group declared: “There is no reliable basis to reach any conclusion on the Working’s unmet need nor to impose any of it on Waverley.”

And it stated the McDonald Report recommends 83 houses per year – 1,577 homes in all – should be deducted from the inspector’s target for Waverley.

“The inspector’s 25 per cent uplift over Waverley’s agreed demographic housing requirement of 396 homes a year (to improve affordability for market housing) is arbitrary, unsound and severe,” claimed the report.

Anthony Isaacs, chairman of CPRE Surrey’s local Waverley committee said: “The impact of these changes would be of fundamental importance during the life of the plan period.

“They would contribute to Waverley’s new plan being declared ‘sound’ and would help to ensure that through the plan period the borough would be able to control development under its own sound plan, rather than one under threat of excessive housing numbers, rendering the plan out-of-date for a lack of a five-year housing supply.

And Mr Isaacs concluded that with more than three quarters of land in Waverley currently part of the Green Belt, or an Area of Outstanding Beauty, or Great Landscape Value, the higher targets coming from the inspector will “only lead to further erosion of those protected areas.”