WAVERLEY Borough Council was accused of putting “two fingers” up to Farnham’s Neighbourhood Plan at an executive committee meeting on Tuesday to endorse a raft of modifications to the borough’s draft planning blueprint.

The main modification to Waverley’s Local Plan for development, which will be in force up until 2032, is an increase from 519 to 590 new homes per annum – as demanded by a government inspector in July.

It includes an additional 450 homes to be built in Farnham by 2032, on top of the 2,330 already proposed and accommodated in the town’s Neighbourhood Plan, which now faces an early review and possible second referendum to meet the shortfall.

Haslemere was allocated 830 houses in the draft plan, but will now need to find sites for 160 more homes.

The allocation for Witley parish, which includes Milford, Brook and Wormley, has risen from 380 to 480 to reflect “potential availability of land in light of a Green Belt Review”, while Chiddingfold’s allocation increases from 100 to 130.

The biggest increase will be in Farnham, which has been allocated 450 more houses bringing its total to 2,780 while Cranleigh’s allocation rises from 1,520 to 1,700; and Godalming’s by 180, from 1,240 to 1,520.

Waverley’s modifications are expected to go out to public consultation on September 4, but have already met fierce opposition from Farnham councillors who have warned the decision undermines the borough’s only “made” neighbourhood plan.

The Farnham Neighbourhood Plan was only adopted on July 28 having undergone four years of consultation. A referendum in May was backed by a massive 88 per cent of voters and survived a High Court legal challenge by developers.

In an emotional statement at Tuesday’s extraordinary meeting, the plan’s chief architect Carole Cockburn strongly condemned Waverley’s actions which she warned could render the entire Neighbourhood Plan process a “waste of time”.

“I don’t think you’ve undermined the Neighbourhood Plan, I think you’ve given it two fingers,” she said. “We are affecting the lives of every single resident in this borough, and yet you’ve just come up with these arbitrary figures which have been rushed and lack any logic. You’ve not thought this through.”

Councillor Jim Edwards said: “Nobody is denying this is a very very difficult situation we’re in.

“We are consulting on a daily basis with the inspector and bouncing things off him, asking for his advice and a steer. I don’t think we can do any more than we are currently doing.

“I understand totally and know personally people worked extremely hard on the Neighbourhood Plan, but I’m sure in time we will be able to address those concerns once we’ve got the final details from the inspector.”

A number of councillors – including Dunsfold’s Tory councillor John Gray – also criticised Waverley’s decision not to increase the 2,600 homes allocated at the borough’s largest brownfield site, Dunsfold Park, to help meet the shortfall – instead targeting greenfield releases around existing settlements.

Repeating his calls for 4,000 or more homes at Dunsfold Park, Farnham Residents’ Andy MacLeod also criticised Waverley’s housing figures as “fantasy” claiming government targets require the borough to build three times more homes per year than the current rate.

“We should be protecting the green fields in the borough by putting the extra 1,350 houses on Dunsfold Park,” he said.

“I appreciate we’re being told Dunsfold might not necessarily be able to achieve that in the period of the Local Plan, but I’d say that is far more achievable than the figures projected in Waverley’s report.”

This view was endorsed by Farnham Residents councillor Jerry Hyman, who reminded members the inspector himself highlighted Dunsfold Park’s capacity to take more than 2,600 homes, back in July.

Mr Hyman added he has seen no evidence to support the inspector’s view that Waverley must “bail out” Woking by taking on 50 per cent of its unmet housing need and called on council chiefs to “question that rather than simply go along with it”.

He also called on the executive to defer its decision and allow a call-in to the overview and scrutiny committee, which he chairs.

He said: “For the sake of our borough, please confirm you will allow scrutiny before this important decision is made”.

Waverley leader Julia Potts denied Mr Hyman’s request to defer the recommendation, and members agreed unanimously to proceed with the consultation.

Miss Potts added: “As a Farnham councillor and resident, I’m well aware of the sensitivities and concerns about the Neighbourhood Plan. Everyone’s worked incredibly hard on that, and we, as the local planning authority, along with Farnham Town Council fought a very difficult legal challenge to that very plan.

“We are aware of the concerns, and we’ve tried our best to address those concerns by allowing Farnham to make the decision whether to bring those modifications and additional numbers through as part two of the Local Plan or an early review. But we need to move forward.

“We are not trying to rush this, but we do want to make sure we keep up momentum following the examination hearings.

“We want plan-led development and we want appropriate development.

“But the only way we’ll have appropriate development with the right funding for the infrastructure we need is to have a sound Local Plan, and the only way for us to have a sound Local Plan is to go through a process of consultation on the proposed modifications.”