Page 234 - MJC submissions

The WH:LIC site - of an estimated 0.54 hectares - was never fully evaluated;

Sale conditional on planning permissions--- conditional sale
• However, Attachment 7b shows that the Wealden House manorial building, front car
park, drives and back gardens (of an estimated 0.32 hectares) were not “available”,
not assessed, not (or incorrectly) included in referendum and would therefore not
qualify as lawful additions to the AWNP;

• Ashurst Wood Policy ASW 10 relates to the WH:LIC site (14). Map 3 from the AWNP
of March 2016 [Attachment 8] shows that the policy would apply to the entire site of
an estimated 0.4 hectares even though only 0.08 hectares of the Northern car park
were qualified for allocation. The different boundaries of site 14 on Attachment 7a
(identified by site number) and on Attachment 8 (identified by policy reference) have
led an assumption that the entire WH:LIC was validly allocated in the AWNP. This
does not appear to be the case.

• The “Report on the Assessment of Potential Housing Sites”, dated December 2014
states: “There is little information about proposals for site 14. However, it is part of
the overall Wealden House site and access to the neighbouring site 13 is over this site.
Therefore, it should be included in the plan”.

• This is not a valid reason or lawful justification for allocation, because (a) the WH:LIC
site was not agreed as available by the owner, (b) it was not assessed, nor subject to
consultation, and (c) there was no OAN in respect of it. However, its addition did
have potential Community Infrastructure Levy incentives for both MSDC and AWVC;
as does the out of character high density of the WH:EDF site; producing an increased
Gross Development Value;
policy ASW 17 relating to the village businesses states “insofar as planning permission is
required, proposals that would result in the loss of existing business premises (shops, offices,
public houses, schools, light industrial) through redevelopment or change of use will not be
permitted unless an equivalent replacement facility is provided elsewhere in the village or it is
demonstrated that the continued use of the premises for the existing or similar business is no
longer financially viable”

this site was not allocated and was not available--- yet in the conclusions of the sustainability
appraisal it says that site 13 and 14 should be allocated (but not in the plan)

H REACTION BY AWVC
I asked Ms Jennifer Forbes, Chair of the AWVC’s Planning Committee, to expatiate how the
Steering Group reconciled the discrepancy in the capacity figure for Site 13. It was glaringly
obvious that it could not be “50+” when the scaling requirement of 28DdHa was prescribed.
Further, if the distinctive characteristic of Ashurst Wood was reflected in a density of
3.19DdHa - and other sites allocated at an average of xx DdHa - how come a proposed
density of aaaa DdHa was relevant.
Page 28
My first two emails and three telephone messages asking for her to call me so that we could
have a short discussion went unanswered.

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