Page 261 - MJC submissions

• Car parking inappropriately dominant
• Lack of central open spaces
• Monolithic looking buildings
• Policy 9 allocates the site for development capacity for a minimum of 50 dwellings
• No problem with a 3+ storey scheme
• Contemporry design—high density (
• Trying to get too much on the site departs too much from ASW9
• Difficult to accommodate parking without an underground parking hidden podium
level car park
• “We also need to understand the position with the potential development site to the
north (also allocated in the NP) as it would be best if this could be dovetailed as one
scheme or at least this scheme must be planned so that it does not prejudice the
adjacent site…
• 3 MSDC District Plan policies have little weight—therefore MSLP and AWNP H4 in
MSLP requires 30% affordable housing on site
• The views in this letter are at an officer level only and do not prejudice the council
from making whatever decision it considers appropriate on any application
subsequently submitted
the overriding was density and underground parking

the meeting was held on 20 August 2018 between Mr King, Frank Taylor and a number of
representatives of the developer. A note of that meeting prepared by Lytle associates stated

SK agreed that the allocation of 50+ units to the site originated in the neighbourhood plan. It
was an estimate that had not been subject of detailed analysis. Agreed that the eventual
number of units would be a product of the design process. Mr King objected to this minute
stating “this comment was expressed by yourselves. As I was not involved in the process of
the neighbourhood plan examination I can’t comment on how this policy was arrived at.

SK queried the position regarding the neighbouring allocated site (i.e. the WH: LIC site).
Darren Page state that the applicant does not have an interest in the site at this time and that
the sketch scheme in the design and access statement for the site was only to illustrate that the
application scheme does not inhibit the neighbourhood site coming forward in the future.
This approach was suggested in the previous pre-application response

minutes also stated “regarding sustainability, there is no policy requirement. However a
written statement could be provided explaining best practice and have building
regulations/sustainability is to be applied to the development, with a particular view to
energy conservation. Mr King responded “there is a general policy in relation to sustainable
development in the district plan (policy DP 39). The NPPF, neighbourhood and district
policies all priorities sustainable development”

a further meeting was held on the 15 of October 2018 and a note of that prepared by Lytle
th
associates stated (paragraph 1.16) “with reference to the neighbourhood plan and the
quantum of 50+ units, DP referred to the application scheme of 71 had been reduced to 58.
Steven King advised that it was his view that the neighbourhood plan had received little
examination and that more weight should be given to the council’s adopted district plan. FT
pointed out that the neighbourhood plan had been adopted following consultation and Page25
examination. In addition, the original pre-application had made reference to a recommended

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