Page 227 - MJC submissions

2 SUBMITTED APPLICATION
2.1 Original Application
The application (DM/18/1548) was registered on MSDC’s website in May 2018, supported by
an Application Form, dated 13 April 2018 (Folio 1). It records Ashgrove Homes Limited
th
(AHL) as the applicant and GCP Developments Limited (GCP) as the owner of the WH:EDF
site. The application was prepared and certified as true by Darren Page of Lytle Associates –
the design architects - acting as agent:
• Point 5 states that no pre-application advice site had been given;

• Point 14 states that the WH:EDF site was not currently vacant;

• Point 17 proposes 50 dwellings as market housing and 21 as Social Rented Housing;

• Point 21 shows the site area as 1.47 hectares: it does not clarify that 0.597 hectares are
ancient woodland that cannot be developed or that the AWNP shows 1.2 hectares.

MSDC validated the application possibly increasing AHL’s confidence that AWVC was of no
significance and that approval was, more or less, assured. However, on 25 April
th
2018@16.56, you informed Steven King, Planning Applications Team Leader at MSDC, of a
communication (Folio 33) from Jenny Forbes, Chair of AWVC’s Planning Committee that the
developer had not complied with the requirement to consult the Council or local residents.

This was a serious breach of process, which Mr King had not noticed or had been willing to
condone.
Ms Forbes referred to a letter on behalf of AHL stating that “there had been extensive
consultations and that there was no purpose in repeating the process now as the
development has been agreed in principle and any comments or opinions can be considered
during the normal planning process”. She correctly described this as “nonsense”.

There is no record on the MSDC website of any agreement in principle or otherwise.

2.2 Withdrawal of the Application
On 27 April 2018, Mr King responded to your email agreeing that “there was a requirement
th
to produce a Statement of Community Involvement” and continued:
“In my view this planning application should not have been registered as a valid application
and I have advised the applicants of this. I have advised that the planning application is
invalid at present because it does not contain such a statement. I have also said that I did not
agree with their argument that the community engagement had already been done as part of
the Neighbourhood Plan process because in my view, that is a separate process relating to
planning policy rather than a planning application.
I did suggest that as a minimum they should engage with the parish council. They have
advised that they will consider our position and get back to us.”

It is not clear who Mr King might blame for registering the invalid application: if not himself
as team leader. The syntax of his response implies prioritisation of form over substance. Page 21

E:\Cobasco\Personal, House and computer instructions\EDF and WH Development\MJC
Plans theories and Objectives\CONSOLIDATED SUBMISSIONS\4a Mr Ashcroft 7th Dec
2018.docx