Page 235 - MJC submissions

On 1 October 2018 I wrote again to AWVC, asking whether the calculation had been made
st
deliberately, or had resulted from a rush or blood or in error.

The reply, dated 4 October 2018, did not accept that AWNP was invalid or that it contained
th
errors. Nevertheless, using wording that would have been applauded by Sir
Humphrey Appleby, GCB, KBE, MVO, MA (Oxon) of “Yes, Prime Minister, Ms Forbes
responded; “the supporting documents cannot be rewritten as they form part of the
background documents to the plan” and continued that “amendment to the plan itself would
involve more consultation, another Examination and another Referendum”

I SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS

J REALITY
I believe the reality is that:

• Development of the WH: EDF site should be restricted to a maximum scaling of 28
dwellings per hectare: meaning to 23 units: subject to compatibility with the
surrounding rural environment, the distinctive characteristics of Ashurst Wood and
compliant with AW Policy 9 and the Sustainability Appraisal for site 13:

• Only 0.08 hectares of the WH: LIC site, consisting of the small Northern car park was
assessed, but was rejected as unsuitable for development. The entire site, consisting of
the manor house, gardens and car parks (of an estimated area of 0.54 hectares) was
never proposed for development, was not assessed, was not subject to public
consultation, nor the referendum. It was therefore ineligible for inclusion in the AWNP
and was not lawfully included;

• Thus, there is no presumption whatsoever in favour of the WH:LIC development as
illustrated in the current Design and Access Statement (Page 28 of the following link).
• I believe that the submissions made by the Ashgrove Homes Limited (AHL) to it
American owners were based on plans and viability assessments for the combined EDF
and LIC sites and that while planning applications may have been kept apart for
tactical reasons they will lead to problems. I believe you have shown reckless
unwillingness to consider the wider picture but that at some point you will be
compelled to address it.

2.5 PRESENT STATUS
2. The statement on both the original and replacement application forms (Point 5) that the
“site was not currently vacant” is wrong and self-serving. Its probable objective was to
establish the foundation for hyperbole in the Traffic Statement (Folio 30) that the
proposed development reduced “existing” traffic flows by 38%. In fact, “existing” traffic
flows from the vacant EDF building were approximately zero and, when it had been
occupied, flows were in the opposite direction (for example, incoming in the morning
rush hour, whereas for residential developments the flow is outwards). The TRICS data
used was not a valid base and the transport reports are farcical (see paragraph 5). Page 29

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