Page 273 - MJC submissions

My earlier submissions to you set out detailed evidence indicating suspected unlawfulness of
the AWNP and gross breaches of planning principles and processes: which you seem not only
to have ignored but omitted from the MSDC planning portal .
4
The reality is that the AWNP is seriously defective and probably unlawful, as explained in
earlier correspondence and summarised below. Page | 2

The EDF Application: DM/18/1548
~ The sustainability appraisal of the EDF site (on which DM/18/1548 relies) specified the
potential for development as follows:

~ The “similar scale” referred to (the adjacent development of 14 apartments at
Ashbourne Park) is at a density of 28 dwellings per hectare (DdHa). The EDF site
measures 0.84 hectares: meaning 23 dwellings might be “acceptable” providing, they
were carefully designed and“respected the character of adjoining and neighbourhood
buildings including the adjacent Victorian Manor House ”;
5
~ It is glaringly obvious that the calculation of the “Potential Housing Capacity” of
“50+” conflicts with its “explanation/justification”. BOTH CANNOT BE CORRECT.
What’s more, the proposed “utilitarian”, four storey boxes could hardly be
described as carefully designed in character with the neighbourhood buildings.

~ It is unsurprising that developers have chosen the higher capacity figure and, at various
times have proposed 91, 71 and now 54 dwellings at densities of 108DdHa, 84DdHa
and 64 DdHa: all of which violate the character of a rural village, where the average
density of Category 3 habitations is 1.12DdHa;

~ The error was not corrected by Ashurst Wood Village Council (AWVC), MSDC or
even by Mr Andrew Ashcroft , who examined the AWNP. I contend failure to
6
reconcile the density figure was at best negligent and is the cause of the current
impasse;

~ AWVC has refused to discuss how the error occurred but has never denied it nor – in
the alternative - suggested that a deliberate decision was taken to support a
development of 20 times the density of the village and 57 times that of Category 3
villages. Instead it has given a “Yes, Minister” gobbledegook explanation of the
processes, excusing the inconsistency by stating that it has objected to the current
proposal. This is not good enough.

4 Which is required to be a full and frank disclosure of all relevant information: but is not. For example,
th
my detailed letter of 28 November 2018 has been excluded
5 Clearly, the AWNP expected the “Victorian Manor House” to remain after any development of the
Wealden House sites.
6 I have written to him as well as to Mr Mark Fessey of AECOM who provided specialist support for
the AWNP and sustainability appraisal