Page 194 - MJC submissions

9 Ashbourne House
Lewes Road
Ashurst Wood
East Grinstead
West Sussex RH19 3TB
Telephone 01342 312050 Email Comer@btinternet.com

28 November 2018
th

Dear Mr King,

Application DM18/1548 and DM16/2845

I will keep this letter as brief as possible because it is becoming increasingly obvious that you
appear determined to “pro-actively” bludgeon through preposterous plans to develop the
Wealden House, Life Improvement Centre (WH:LIC) and Wealden House EDF (WH:EDF)
sites. The iterative process you have finally admitted to using to carve an agreement you “can
support” with the developer – involves “proactivity” much admired by the applicant,
circumvention of planning policies, unlimited informal contact, exclusionary agenda,
ambiguous minutes, selective and delayed disclosures. On the other hand, you doggedly
refuse to answer legitimate question I and others have raised or to consider solutions we have
proposed.

So much for revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which states:

128. Design quality should be considered throughout the evolution and assessment
of individual proposals. Early discussion between applicants, the local planning
authority and local community about the design and style of emerging schemes is
important for clarifying expectations and reconciling local and commercial interests.
Applicants should work closely with those affected by their proposals to evolve
designs that take account of the views of the community. Applications that can
demonstrate early, proactive and effective engagement with the community should be
looked on more favourably than those that cannot.

Neither you, nor the developer, shown any enthusiasm to work closely with the local
community as proposals evolve. Your process is akin to one party in judicial proceedings
being favoured with unrestricted access to the judge and jury and all other parties being
locked in the lavatory.

I anticipate that you do not plan to load your report and recommendations onto the MSDC
website that it will be yet another ambush. If objectors are lucky, we may be granted a two-
minute audience once the decision has been made. So much for British justice.

As a result of multiple and serious breaches of process, this case is likely be determined in an
application for Judicial Review or an action for Misfeasance in Public Office. Both could be
avoided if you would simply listen and provide the transparency, fairness and independence
Page 1
expected of public servants.