Page 240 - MJC submissions
P. 240

•

                   •  not displayed on the MSDC planning Portal
                   •  nor initially referred to in the current application

                   •  App no per con

               AWVC objected on 25  April 2018  withdrawn 27  April 2018
                                     th
                                                                th

               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. It is construed as evidence of his intention to bludgeon the application
               through.


               and AHL was compelled to hold formal consultations with AWVC and residents on 29 May
               2018 and xxxxxx.  In the meantime, the application had been rewritten in the names (redated
               on xxxxx ) of AHL and ccccc claiming that a consultation had taken place in 2016  and was
               resubmitted to MSDC on xxxxx.

               On xxxx ASWVC opposed the development.  This is the current position and it is interesting
               that Mr Taylor’s updated report refers to AHL as the sole applicant. So was GCP put into play
               to ----

               Thus, from the above it is not clear, whether GCP is involved as a developer or not.

               Suggests
               GCP owner and was not a party to toe application- name added only to link the pre-app.

               Comment in order of Taylor












                                                                                                                  Page4





               E:\Cobasco\Personal,  House and computer instructions\EDF and WH Development\MJC Plans theories and
               Objectives\CONSOLIDATED SUBMISSIONS\5 Response to disclosures of 8th December.docx
   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245