Page 3 - John Belsey

You can imagine the Sunday Times - not to mention the Daily Mirror or Sun - building on the
recent expose (Attachment 20) of gullible planners and “fat cat” builders who exploit
affordable housing and fuel the “help to buy” debacle.

You are correct in sensing that the tone of correspondence has hardened. This is the inevitable
result of recent additions to and omissions from the MSDC website. These confirm a hell-bent
determination to bludgeon through plans in the absence of a properly evidenced Objectively
Assessed Need (OAN), contrary to planning visions, the National Planning Policy Framework
(NPPF), district and neighbourhood plans, policies and processes and against the wishes of
Ashurst Wood Village Council (See Folio 67), local residents, the Design Review Panel,
environmental agencies and MSDC’s Urban Adviser.

Genuine and major objections are being brushed aside in a race to disaster.

I accept that developers are entitled to present applications in the best possible light and to
maximise their financial returns. However, my submission to MSDC detailed objections and
suggested ways forward. It is linked here:
(http://online.flipbuilder.com/Cobasco/rqng/).

There is a fine line between making slick presentations and misrepresentation. This is
especially true in the planning area where professionals and developers, with deep knowledge
of excessively complicated processes, are under an obligation to be honest and transparent
with members of the public and to make sure human rights – for the enjoyment of assets - are
protected.

I am sure you are aware that a Private Member’s Bill was introduced to clarify the law on
false and misleading planning applications. Bob Neil, the then Parliamentary Secretary of State
for Communities and Local Government stated:

Planning applications are publicised during the determination period so that any
interested parties have the opportunity to comment. If any party considers that the
application includes deliberately misleading information or lacks important
information that would be material to the decision, they should report this to the
relevant local authority who will decide what, action is appropriate. Planning
permission can be refused on the grounds that information provided was insufficient
to accurately describe the nature and anticipated impacts of the proposed
development.

I maintain that the “proposed development” includes both the WH:EDF and WH:LIC sites. The fact
that AHL chooses to hold one in the background does not alter this position.

The Bill was vacated when Parliament dissolved and was never reinstated, mainly because it
was argued that the Fraud Act 2006 (See Attachment 3) already dealt with misleading
declarations generically.

I am not alleging that the current application breaches the Fraud Act, although it is relevant
and everyone concerned with planning should be aware of it .
7

Page | 3