Page 271 - MJC submissions

• 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)

1.1 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).

Page35

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