Page 288 - All files for Planning Inspectorate
P. 288

Statement of Case
                                              EDF Energy, Wealden House, Lewes Road, Ashurst Wood



               6.0    THE APPELLANT’S CASE



                      Principle of Development


               6.1    The Ashurst Wood Neighbourhood Plan was made in 2016 having found to be sound

                      after  Examination.      The  Neighbourhood  Plan  allocates  a  number  of  housing  sites,
                      which were selected following an assessment of potential housing sites, as being the

                      most  appropriate  sites  based  on  suitability  and  availability.      Policy  ASW9  of  the
                      Neighbourhood Plan allocates the appeal site for residential development subject to a

                      number of criteria that are set out in the policy.      The  table accompanying the policy
                      indicates the suitability of the site for a scheme of 50+ units. It is important to note

                      firstly that the Council’s reasons for refusal do not identify conflict with any specific

                      criterion of the policy.   However, the Officer’s Report suggests that, whilst there are
                      larger flatted buildings immediately adjacent and the substanital Wealden House Life

                      Improvement Centre building, which clearly are part of the existing character, because
                      the appeal proposal is not of the same character as nearby two storey houses, there is

                      not full compliance with Criterion (a).


               6.2    Similarly,  the  report  suggests  that  there  is  not  full  compliance  with  Criterion  (b)

                      despite  the  fact  that  the  development  is  set  back  from  the  road,  as  the  criterion
                      requires.      It is noted in the report that the scheme is supported by the Council’s

                      Urban  Design  Officer  and  that,  overall,  the  proposed  development  is  reasonable  in

                      terms of the design of the building.   None of the other criteria in ASW9 are breached.


               6.3    Yet, curiously, the second refusal  reason  alleges conflict with Policy ASW9 on the
                      grounds  of  insufficient  car  parking  despite  none  of  the  criteria  in  the  policy  being

                      directed towards car parking provision.




               ___________________________________________________________________________

               10 December, 2019                                                                    Page 18

                                                     Bates No  000287
   283   284   285   286   287   288   289   290   291   292   293