Page 265 - MJC submissions

57 PRE-CON DIFFERENCES
8. The Design and Access Statement continues: “whilst the layout and [current] proposals are
very different from those submitted in 2016, every effort has been made to incorporate
the advice provided—". In fact, most of the 15 points of “advice”, “specific requirement”,
“feedback” or whatever terms MSDC used were ignored: including underground and
concealed parking and the need for open spaces.

The architect’s admission that the proposed scheme was “very different” from the pre-
application design destroys the claim that there was no requirement to consult AWVC

58 EXPLANATION FOR THE LIC SITE PLAN
The “sketch plan” was “only to illustrate that the application scheme does not inhibit the
neighbouring site coming forward in the future. The approach was suggested in the previous
pre-application response”. This is not strictly true.
Mr King appears to have accepted this explanation, without question, but it is not credible,
and it is much more likely that the integrated plan was included by accident:

• It is the only mention in over 2,000 pages of application data of any intention to
develop the WH:LIC site;

• It is not a “sketch plan” but a detailed drawing. The numbering of plans in the Design
and Access Statement suggests that large blocks of drawings had been redacted:
probably because they related to the WH:LIC site;
• The plan of WH:LIC site enclosed with the original application (Attachment 7) –
which was the only clue of the integrated development - was removed from the
revision;

• There was no requirement in the pre-application meeting to produce drawings: the
advice was to ensure that “consideration should be given to the “adjacent allocated
site”. It is difficult to accept that “consideration” was achieved by destroying the
manor house and over-building its entire boundary with blocks of flats without a
word of explanation.

9. The file note also states that it was none other than Mr King (“SK”) who had taken part in
the 2016 consultation and:

“SK agreed that the allocation of 50+ units to the site originated with the Neighbourhood
Plan: it was an estimate that had not been the subject of detailed analysis. Agreed that the
eventual number of units would be a product of the design process.

10. This is a serious allegation: that Mr King had agreed that the “50+” figure was an
“estimate without the detailed analysis required” and that density would be dictated
entirely by design.

59 DETAILED ANALYSIS OF SITES 13 AND 14
59.1 The Integrated Plan
I contend that the evidence shows the developers Page29

Info leaked--- Mr Owen surprised—

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