Page 35 - All files for Planning Inspectorate update

o The scaling of the two apartment blocks referred to is approximately 28 dwellings per hectare.
Thus a similarly scaled development of the WH EDF site (of 0.80 or 0.84 hectares, depending
on wind direction or curvature of the earth) would support 22 to 23 dwellings and not
as stated. This is 18 times the average density of dwellings in Ashurst Wood and 8
times the density of other sites reviewed in the course of the AWNP.

o THE SCALING CANNOT BE 50+ UNITS AND MATCH THE 14 APARTMENTS IN TWO
BLOCKS;

o The gross area of the WH:EDF site is stated variously in MSDC files as between 1.20 and 1.60
hectares including ancient woodland of 0.40 hectares. The application forms submitted by
Ashgrove Homes Ltd (AHL) show the area consistently at 1.47 hectares with no
mention of reduction for protected ancient woodland. Thus 51 units on such an area implies
a dwelling density of 35 per hectare, when it would be over 64. This is not consistent with a
rural environment: national, district or local policies and the National Planning Policy
Guidelines. I suggest the site area in the current application is amended to show the
developable and net hectares.

o It should be noted that there is no evidence in any of the application papers to confirm that
the gross and net areas of any site in the AWNP was independently measured;

o Also on the original application for the WH:EDF site submitted by AHL a Land Registry Plan
was adapted to show the proposed revised boundary of the WH:LIC site. It is not permissible
to use Land Registry Plans for such a purpose. The plan inadvertently revealing the

integrated development - was removed from the revised application for the WH:EDF site;
o I have repeatedly asked MSDC and Ashurst Wood Village Council (AWVC) to review the

density calculations and if they are not as I believe - simply a mathematical error to explain
their reasoning for what dreadful and unsustainable development of a rural site. AWVC
responded that the plan was examined so, in effect with it and refused to add to this
evasion on the ground that since the village council had refused the application no harm
would be done. MSDC has remained silent although paragraph 1.13 of the minutes -
th
delegated to Lytle Associates- of Mr King meeting on 20 August 2018 states: King
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
o This supposed agreement (which Mr King did not contest) disregards AWNP supporting
Sustainability Appraisals and appears to permit the developer to build as many units as it
likes. So much for led and need
o Mr King reviewed the draft minutes and responded as follows: just have a couple of points
of clarification. Firstly, in para 1.13 the comment that it was an estimate that had not been
subject of a detailed analysis was expressed by yourselves. As I was not involved in the
process of the Neighbourhood Plan examination, I can comment on the details of how this
policy (that it the 50+ units) was arrived at. BUT HE SHOULD HAVE RECOGNISED IT
WAS EXCESSIVE!

o While it may be true that Mr King was not involved in the examination, MSDC approved the
AWNP and in the pre -application meeting encouraged over - development. It set expectations
at a false level.
3. Explain why the earlier reservations in Mr Dorm an Design Observations have been

omitted from his recent submissions. See his email of 16th January 2018 at 12.37 and Mr King mail

of 21st January 2018 at 18.05 which both state if it was not for the NP allocation, the density and
scale would normally be considered too much for this type of location IN OTHER WORDS, THE

ERRONEOUS CALCULATIO N OF UNITS HAS BEEN CONDONED AS DETERMINATIVE,
WITH NO EFFORT MADE TO CORRECT IT. THIS APPEARS TO BE A SERIOUS BREACH OF
PROCESS AND IS RELEV ANT TO THE REVISED AND ALL FUTURE APPLICATIONS ON THE SITE.

4. Confirm the accuracy of the viability calculations and a suggested Gross Development Value of
}15,808,426 (for 54 units) and the impossibility of providing any affordable housing when you are

3