Page 229 - MJC submissions
P. 229

The MSDC website records that the revised application (Folio 32) was loaded on 23  April
                                                                                                rd
               2018, but this is unlikely to be correct. It was more likely to have been after the consultation
               report and not loaded until around 11  June 2018. I do not understand the significance of this
                                                    th
               apparent backdating.

               F  DETAILED ANALYSIS OF SITES 13 AND 14
               The Integrated Plan
               I contend that the evidence shows the developers

               Info leaked--- Mr Owen surprised—
               DAS page 36

               1.  The original application included a plan of the rear of Wealden House (Attachment 6)
                   which is relevant only to the integrated development and was probably included in error.
                   The plan misrepresented the WH:LIC boundary in a way that would permit the
                   development to spill over to land belonging to Ashbourne Park.

                       The plan has been removed from the substituted application without comment

                       Submissions to the USA
               Viability and deliverability—already claiming a reduction if affordable housing

               No track record--- AHL financial strength
               Design and access statement and plan--- dodgy explanation--

               Inadvertent plan

               Outside the built up area…AOANB—and
               110== dedman  effect at 2.5 per houise

               School place

               Infrastructure
               AECOM report and fight with MSDC not --- (FOI)

               parking provisions ASW 21 units with one to 3 minimum of two parking spaces
               units with four or more bedrooms a minimum three parking spaces

               ignored in the application and supplanted by the WSE cc: parking calculator the result was----

               Site 13
               1.  The original application to build 71 units on the WH:EDF site is based on four pillars that
                   are manifestly wrong. The application and supporting documentation state or imply that:
                   a)  The site was supposedly designated in the AW Neighbourhood Plan with a “minimum
                       expectation” of “50”+ units which was “indicative” of 71;

                   b)  Affordable housing was additional to the 50+ units;
                   c)  The area is “starkly urban” thereby justifying a “utilitarian” design and excessive        Page 23
                       density.

               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
   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234