Page 230 - MJC submissions
P. 230

This is a circular and fallacious proposition. The only features that might make the existing
                       site “starkly urban” are the EDF building and Seeboard tower. These are to be removed,
                       reinstating the site to it strictly rural character.
               Removal of the seeboard tower--- emergency services== impact degradation

               Owner by GCP--- EDF=-  seeboard tower
               The integrated development would provide 120 dwellings whereas the legitimate local
               demand is minimal. A national property expert described the design of the 71 flats as
               “horrible and unsellable” and predicted that most would be transferred to housing
               associations for rental by transient, out-of-area tenants or sold under the discredited “help to
               buy” scheme (Attachment 20).


               Suppporting reports TRIC and aaa


               G  SITE 13
               Expert reports
               You, as lead officer in this case, should have no doubt how the error occurred. While it may
               be true that you were not involved in the examination, MSDC was intimately involved in the
               AWNP and approved it. The miscalculation is glaringly obvious on the face of the
               Sustainability Appraisal for Site 13 of 0.8 hectares:









               Figure 1: Extract from the Sustainability Appraisal of Site 13
               You should note that the Brownfield Land Register for the WH sites of 1.6 hectares proposes
               50 dwellings  http://online.flipbuilder.com/Cobasco/maee/. (Attachment 9)

               You cannot have it both ways; the capacity cannot be “50+” units on 0.8 hectares and be at
               the same scale as Ashbourne Park. The developable area is not 1.6 hectares unless it includes
               both the WH:EDF and WH:LIC sites.



               Delayed disclosures are potentially critical because of the 42-day limit imposed for Judicial
               Reviews and are a breach of process.
               Lytle Associates complimented you on your “proactive” approach to the application and
               minuted that Mr Dorman, the Urban Design Officer, encouraged “informal” contact with the
               developer’s representatives to find a solution that planning officers could support. I can only
               guess what these words mean, but they are at variance with the assurances you gave to Mr
                                                                                                                  Page 24
               Tillin of Trappist like independence.

               The agreed minutes of the 15  October 2018 meeting stated:
                                           th
               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
   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235