Page 48 - All files for Planning Inspectorate update

proposal before the planning application was prepared. The public exhibition on 29th May was not a
meaningful consultation as it followed the submission of the planning application and no changes
were made to the scheme as a result of feedback received.

The applicant mentions the pre-application consultation DM/16/2845 several times, saying that the
advice given has been incorporated into the scheme. It should be made clear that the proposals that
were the subject of this consultation were never published or seen by the Village Council or residents,
and therefore this advice does not constitute community consultation.”

We are of the view that the above extracts better characterise the true nature of this so-called
consultation exercise. The truth is that this “consultation” was an exercise the developer never
wished or intended to undertake. When pushed into it they paid lip service both to the process and
the comments they received. Nothing changed as a result of the consultation and it was abundantly
clear that AHL never had any intention of changing anything as a result of it.

In spite of these criticisms, as noted later in this submission, AHL have conducted no public
consultation on this new application.

Section 2 of the Statement addresses the issue of the Neighbourhood Plan.

2.2 “The key policy document that has been consulted for guidance is the Ashurst Wood
Neighbourhood Plan (2016), which is the most recent policy document published for the area”

Nowhere in this Statement do LA acknowledge that they may have consulted the Neighbourhood
Plan but their proposals are (as they were with the previous DM/18/1548) completely non-
compliant with Policies ASW 10 and ASW 14, and nor do they address policies ASW 9(i) and ASW
9(k).

We shall deal with this more fully in our submission in response to the new application itself.

Section 3 addresses the 2016 pre-application process DM/16/2845.

We are at a loss to see why this is being referenced. This was solely a pre-application process that
never reached the stage of becoming a formal proposal. It was never put out for public display or
consultation and is therefore irrelevant to this new application. But, since they have raised it, it is
worth pointing out that in paragraph 3.2 LA state that “Whilst the layout and proposals are very
different from those submitted in 2016, every effort has been made to incorporate the advice
provided following the previous application.”

Immediately above that statement LA list items of feedback from the pre-application process. They
include:-

“30% affordable housing requirement”.

All affordable housing has been eliminated from DM/19/1548

“Efforts should be made to prevent over-dominant parking” and “Underground/Podium level parking
preferred”

All parking is at ground level; it is still too dominant; and is inadequate for the number of units
envisaged and non-compliant with policy 21 of the Neighbourhood Plan on parking provision.