Page 195 - MJC submissions

It should not be necessary to remind you that your predominant, statutory and professional
duty is to uphold the law and to comply with NPPF and planning policies. I suggest you are
not authorised to impose the one-side process you have.

The NPPF’s presumption in favour of approving developments in a “made” plan does not
mean that planning authorities should become the champion for developers, nor should they
instinctively side with them to meet financial and other targets
The presumption in favour of the “golden thread” of sustainable development, requires that
the “right homes are built in the right places”, projects are “plan led”, based on Objectively
Assessed Need (OAN) and that Neighbourhood Plans should, other than in exceptional
circumstances, are determinative.

No evidence has been (or can be) produced to show that the proposed developments are
sustainable, as defined in the NPPF and clarified with precision in the Ashurst Wood
Sustainability Appraisal Update Report 2015. In fact, the developments are the polar opposite
of sustainable and will destroy Ashurst Wood. You cannot fail to realise this.

You do not appear to dispute that the Ashurst Wood Neighbourhood Plan (AWNP) and
supporting Sustainability Reports - as they relate to the WH sites - are an appalling mess and
result from an arithmetical error. I asked (Attachment 1) the Chairperson of Ashurst Wood
Village Council (AWVC) to clarify how the “Potential Housing Capacity of 50+”) for the
WH: EDF site had been calculated. Her response (Attachment 2), appears to admit the error
by stating that “the supporting documents cannot be rewritten as they form part of the
background documents to the plan” and that “amendment to the plan itself would involve
more consultation, another Examination and another Referendum”. In other words, “bad
luck!”

I believe the reality is that:
 Development of the WH: EDF site should be restricted to a maximum scaling of 28
dwellings per hectare: meaning to 23 units: subject to compatibility with the
surrounding rural environment, the distinctive characteristics of Ashurst Wood and
complaint with AW Policy 9 and the Sustainability Appraisal for site 13:

 Only 0.08 hectares of the WH: LIC site, consisting of the small Northern car park was
assessed, but was rejected as unsuitable for development. The entire site, consisting of
the manor house, gardens and car parks (of an estimated area of 0.54 hectares) was
never proposed for development, was not assessed, was not subject to public
consultation, nor the referendum. It was therefore ineligible for inclusion in the AWNP
and was not lawfully included;
Page 2
 Thus, there is no presumption whatsoever in favour of the WH:LIC development as
illustrated in the current Design and Access Statement (Page 28 of the following link).
My original submission to you of 16 July 2018 (http://online.flipbuilder.com/Cobasco/rqng/)
th
urged you to agree a Statement of Facts to resolve anomalies in the AWNP but you ignored
this.