Page 207 - All files for Planning Inspectorate update

The District Councils car parking standards are contained in the Councils

Infrastructure SPD and are expressed as a minimum indicative standard.

The County Council have their own parking demand calculator (PDC). The Highway
Authority has stated that 'the parking allocation is in accordance with the demand
from the PDC.

Development proposals that generate an increased need for parking must provide
adequate and suitable off-street parking in order to minimise obstruction of the local
road network in the interests of the safety of all road users, including pedestrians and

cyclists. In the case of residential development, a minimum of two parking spaces will
be required for units with 1 - 3 bedrooms”

What, in principle, has changed since then?

DM/19/1025 proposes the provision of 67 parking spaces. This is justified by reference to
the WSCC Parking Demand Tool. However, as indicated above, this only identifies minimum
requirements. Full provision in accordance with council policy would require 108 spaces;
there is thus still a shortfall of some 38% in provision.

9. The proposals have a number of other design deficiencies, many of which also appeared in
DM/18/1548.

 The design of the buildings, while maximising the utilisation (indeed the over-
utilisation) of the site, is completely inappropriate to the rural nature of the area.
Irrespective of the subjective views of the design panel, it is difficult to see how
“contemporary modern design” is relevant to the Ashurst Wood environment. The
developer has illustrated examples of earlier design treatments from developments
in London and Cambridge – which have already been dismissed as deficient in your
letter of 11 March 2019 rejecting DM/18/1548, in which you said:-

“The removal of the existing building provides an opportunity to enhance the
site, which this proposal does not achieve. The reference to developments in

Cambridge and London as precedents for this scheme is inappropriate, as
those developments are in cities which are obviously not comparable to a
village located in the High Weald AONB.”

Again – what has changed?

 The new plan still envisages all but two of the seven buildings being of four stories.
This was firmly rejected by AWVC in their letter of 29 April 2019 when they said
“There are no circumstances in which a 4-storey block of flats is

5