Page 200 - MJC submissions

The agreed minutes of the 15 October 2018 meeting stated:
th
“Darren Page (of Lytle Associates) said that he thought the parties were close to
agreeing a scheme but confirmed that if the Council allowed the substitution of
drawings the applicant would need to be satisfied that there was a prospect of officer
support on a revised package of proposals. He added that if this was not the case the
current application would probably have to be appealed. Peter Owen stated that it
was his preference for a scheme to now be agreed at a local level rather than go to an
appeal (para 1.21)”

Your email to Mr Tillin of APOA on 20 November 2018 states:
th
“The position with the application is that in my judgement the originally submitted
scheme is not something that officers could support. It is for the applicants to seek to
address the concerns that we have with the scheme. If the applicants decide to amend
their proposals, then any new plans would be publicised to interested parties and the
Parish Council (sic= Village Council) could comment on them”.

This implies that the obligation to submit a revised application rests entirely with the
developer and that, in effect, you are an independent arbiter. To that extent it was
misleading and concealed your “proactive approach” and the current position in which you
were close to agreeing a scheme.

Also concerning is your email to Mr Tillin dated 26 November 2018 in which you stated:
th
“I’ve copied the contents of the email I sent to the applicants following our meeting
with them of 15 October 2018”.
th
It is not clear why you thought it necessary to send this email because it was already available
on the MSDC website. The version you provided to Mr Tillin and other members of the
Ashbourne Park Owners’ Association is not a true copy of the email sent to the applicants, but
contains the following addendum:
“The aim of the meetings is to move to a point where the applicants have submitted
an application that officers can support. If we do get to such as point, then the revised
plans will be publicised so interested parties can comment on the proposals. I would
then write a report making a recommendation on the proposals having taken into
account any representations received and the final decision on whether to approve
the application or not will rest with the Members who sit on the Planning Committee.

If the applicants do not amend the scheme to one that officers can support, then the
application could be recommended for refusal at the Planning Committee or it could
be refused by officers under delegated powers. Page 7

This manifestly legalistic verbiage serves to correct the ambiguity in earlier your email by
disclosing the iterative process which leaves all your options open including approval of the
originally submitted scheme.