Page 860 - Appeal bundle 31 files

Appeal Bundle

7
It is not a question of or be said the density violates all
applicable policies and should disqualify the application. As Monty Python would say
the excessive development is

.

The car parking provision is ridiculous: violates the applicable policy and would lead
to massive problems within the development and parking spilling onto the A22.

The report gives the impression that it was cut and paste from other stuff and was cobbled
together during a pub lunch break to tick a box of no importance. It is not professional nor
persuasive except in the opposite direction to that supposedly intended. It invites being over-
turned and is a sitting duck for this outcome.

th
The report was dated and loaded onto the MSDC portal on 19 August 2019 but within
hours the gremlins were at work and 197 changes were made to produce the version now
included in the Committee pack.

th
The Committee pack was also dated 19 August 2019 but has not been loaded onto the
portal. Admittedly, most changes are minor involving footers and graphic elements, but one,
which is very significant, discussed below.
is
The bottom line is that there is one version of your report on the portal and another going
before the Committee. Ms Blomfield recommendations are nowhere to be seen.

8
I repeatedly pleaded with MSDC to make sure the portal was complete and correct because
it is the only source of information available to the public. Perhaps more importantly, the
portal should be reviewed by the Committee and relied upon as an audit trail if (or more
likely when) the case is referred to the Planning Inspectorate, a court or to another authority.

BATES N0 000857