Page 10 - John Belsey

Paragraph 2
Minimum Expectations or Requirements

14. It lists 15 points that supposedly emerged from the consultation including:

• The scheme was for an eclectic mix of 90 town housing and apartments:
• “Feedback stated that the proposed layout was unsatisfactory and gave the
22
23
following advice”:
a) A minimum of 50 dwellings would be expected;

b) 30% affordable housing requirement;

c) High density supported (3+1 storeys);
d) Recommend a contemporary design approach;

e) Consideration of adjacent allocated site

The design could not have been unsatisfactory (point a above) because it had too few units
when it already had 90. The syntax suggests that the objection was that there were too
many units.
15. The Design and Access Statement continues: “whilst the layout and [current] proposals are
very different from those submitted in 2016, every effort has been made to incorporate
the advice provided—". In fact, most of the 15 points of “advice”, “specific requirement”,
“feedback” or whatever terms MSDC used were ignored: including underground and
concealed parking and the need for open spaces.
16. The architects admitted that the proposed scheme was “very different” from the pre-
application design. This destroys the claim that there was no requirement to consult
AWVC.
The Third Reference: Application Forms
17. The third reference appears on the Application Forms. The first form, dated 13 April
th
2018 (Folio 1), states that no pre-application consultation had taken place and the
replacement form, dated six days later on 19 April 2018 (Folio 32) states that it had and:
th
“Feedback stated that the proposed layout was unsatisfactory and gave the following
advice. A minimum of 50 dwellings would be expected. 30% affordable housing
requirement. High density supported (3+1 storeys)------ recommend contemporary
design….. etc”.

The form stated that the meeting had taken place in October 2016 with Mr King. He
processed the application and did not deny being involved in the consultation. His tune
changed later on (see paragraph 2.21).

18. Both forms were certified as true and correct and submitted by Darren Page, of Lytle
Associates. The revised version states that there had been proposals for 70 and 68 units
whereas the Design and Access Statement says the pre-application had been for 90.

The Fourth Reference: File Note of 20 August 2018 Meeting
th
19. The fourth reference to the consultation was in the file note prepared by Lytle Associates
of a meeting on 20 August 2018 (see the summary at Attachment 5 and folios 100-103)
th
to explain why a detailed schematic of the WH:LIC development had mysteriously
appeared at page 34 of the Design and Access Statement (Attachment 12).

Page | 10