Page 160 - MJC submissions

It states:

“There is public support for this brownfield development. Two apartment blocks,
totalling 14 flats have been built on a former part of the site and development at a
similar scale would be acceptable, but careful design would be needed to respect the
character of the adjoining and neighbouring buildings, including the adjacent Victorian
manor house”. The 14 flats at Ashbourne Park are built at a density of 28 DdHa.
Development of the WH:EDF site at the same scale would produce 22 dwellings (and
not “50+). The AWNP does not resolve this contradiction.

• The WH:LIC site (of a stated 0.4 hectares) was not appraised in terms of OAN – as
required - prior to its addition to the AWNP ;
1
If I am correct:

• the AWNP should be amended and the “potential capacity” (misleadingly reframed
by the developers as “minimum expectation”) of the Wealden House, EDF site
(AWNP Site 13; SHLAA 757) reduced from “50+” to around 22 units;

• the WH:LIC site (AWNP Site 14; SHLAA 757) should be withdrawn from the AWNP
or revised with an area of 0.08 hectares.

I sense that I may be putting AWVC in a difficult position with Mid Sussex District Council
(MSDC) and that village councillors are wary of enquiries such as this. I apologise if this is the
case because AWVC has behaved impeccably throughout and I trust that if mistakes have been
made councillors will ensure they are corrected.
Given the Localisation Act and the supposed delegation of powers to parish and village
councils and local communities, I am astounded by MSDC’s dominance and the fact that its
senior planning representatives were willing to circumvent the requirement to involve AWVC
on both the 2016 pre-application consultation and the current application. Such arrogance
may be the most serious breach of process in this case.

We shall see: but first apparent anomalies in the AWNP must be resolved. The questions I
would like answered are:

• Is the calculation of “50+” dwellings on the WH:EDF site a mistake or;

• Did the Steering Group consciously decide to approve a DdHa 20 times greater than
the average for the village and if so why?
• Why was the contradiction between “50+” units and an implied maximum of 22 left
unresolved?

• Should the WH:LIC site - of an estimated 0.4 hectares - be removed from the AWNP
and substituted by 0.08 hectares?
Page 2
• Which part, if any, of the WH:LIC site was assessed?

1 It appears that only the Northern Car Park of the Wealden House (LIC) site (amounting to 0.08 ha) was assessed
(Site 14). This is clear from Appendix 1 to the AWNP SA Update Report of September 2015 (See Attachment 3) and
the detailed analysis at page 83 of that report.