Page 148 - MJC submissions

Paragraph 2
Minimum Expectations or Requirements

It says:

The “sketch plan” was “only to illustrate that the application scheme does not inhibit
the neighbouring site coming forward in the future. The approach was suggested in
the previous pre-application response”. This is not strictly true.

You appear to have accepted this explanation, without question, but it is not credible,
and it is much more likely that the integrated plan was revealed by accident:

• It is the only mention in over 2,000 pages of application data of any intention to
develop the WH:LIC site;

• It is not a “sketch plan” but a detailed drawing. The numbering of plans in the Design
and Access Statement suggests that large blocks of drawings had been redacted:
maybe because they related to the WH:LIC site;
• The plan of WH:LIC site enclosed with the original application (Attachment 7) –
which was the only hint of the integrated development - was removed from the
revision;
• There was no requirement in the pre-application meeting to produce drawings: the
advice was to ensure that “consideration should be given to the “adjacent allocated
site”. It is difficult to accept that “consideration” was achieved by destroying the
manor house and over-building its entire boundary with blocks of flats without a
word of explanation. Funny sort “consideration”, innit?

20. The file note also states that it was none other than you (“SK”) who had taken part in the
2016 consultation and:
“SK agreed that the allocation of 50+ units to the site originated with the
Neighbourhood Plan: it was an estimate that had not been the subject of detailed
analysis. Agreed that the eventual number of units would be a product of the design
process.

21. This is a serious allegation: that you had agreed that the “50+” figure was an “estimate
without the detailed analysis required” and that density would be dictated entirely by
design.

This is unacceptable and a breach of process.

22. Rather than responding with outrage, that words had been put in his mouth, you
responded:

“Thank you for your meeting notes. I just have a couple of points of clarification.
Firstly, in para 1.3 the comment that it was an estimate that had not been the subject
of a detailed analysis was expressed by yourselves. As I was not involved in the
process of the Neighbourhood Plan examination I can’t comment on the details of
24
how this policy (that is the 50+ units) was arrived at.”

23. You denied that you had been involved in the consultation but did not challenge your
alleged agreement that the developer could do almost what it liked subject to design. This
is the current position.

These inconsistencies, and the fact that DM/16/2845, relating to the pre-application
consultation is missing from MSDC’s website, is worrying.

Page | 11