Page 196 - MJC submissions

I believe that the submissions made by the Ashgrove Homes Limited (AHL) to its American
owners were based on plans and viability assessments for the combined EDF and LIC sites and
that while planning applications may have been separated for valid tactical reasons they will
lead to problems. I believe you have shown reckless disregard of the wider picture and that
at some point you will be compelled to address it.

If you agree - as I believe you do - that the WH:LIC site was excluded from the AWNP (and
that there is no presumption in favour of its development) I suggest you are honour bound to
make the position clear to AHL without delay. I have a great deal of sympathy for AHL which
at some point may conclude it has “been sold a pup”.

Your email of 13 October 2016 to Mr Panesar (a planning adviser) relating to the supposed
th
2016 pre-application consultation) states:

“As you know, planning law states that planning applications should be determined in
accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate
otherwise. In this case the development plan comprises the Mid Sussex local plan
(MSLP) and the more recently adopted Ashurst Wood Neighbourhood Plan. In the
event of a conflict between the two it is the more recent policy that takes
precedence.”

You continue:

“[AW] Policy 9 allocates the site for housing development, stating that the site has
capacity for a minimum of 50 dwellings”.

This is not true. Policy 9 of the AWNP contains no such wording and the supporting
Sustainability Appraisal proposes scaling of around 28 dwellings per hectare or a maximum of
23 dwellings.

Paragraph 1.13 of the minutes - delegated to Lytle Associates- of your meeting on 20 August
th
2018 states:
“Stephen King 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”.

Your agreement disregards the AWNP and supporting Sustainability Appraisals and appears to
permit the developer to build as many units as it wanted. So much for “plan led”.

You reviewed the draft minutes and responded as follows:

“I just have a couple of points of clarification. Firstly, in para 1.3 the comment that it Page 3
was an estimate that had not been 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 how this policy (that it the 50+ units)
was arrived at.”