Page 292 - All files for Planning Inspectorate
P. 292

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



               6.18  Rather oddly, the Council’s refusal reason in asserting that the level of car parking is

                      insufficient,  does  not  allege  that  there  would  be  any  adverse  impacts  in  relation  to

                      highway safety or to the surrounding highway network as a consequence of the level
                      of    car  parking  that  is  proposed.        The  allegation  of  harm  appears  to  be  that  the

                      inadequate level of car parking is an indicator of overdevelopment.


               6.19  This  assertion  appears  to  be  based  solely  on  the  fact  that  there  is  a  shortfall  when

                      measured  against  the  District  Council  standards  and  a  larger  shortfall  against  the
                      Neighbourhood  Plans  parking  standards.      Yet  if  there  are  no  severe  impacts  on

                      highway safety or the road network (as per paragraph 109 of the Framework) and the
                      scheme is acceptable in design terms in meeting the requirements regarding separation

                      distances, provision of amenity space, providing good living conditions for future and

                      neighbouring residents etc (all the normal measures of overdevelopment),  I cannot
                      see how this refusal reason translates into demonstrable harm.


               6.20  In  order  further  to  assess  this  issue,  the  appellant’s  Highway  Consultants,  Motion,

                      have  produced  a  further  assessment  and  this  statement  is  attached  as  a  separate
                      document  as  part  of  the  submission.      The  assessment  concludes  that  there  is  no

                      evidence to support the contention that there is insufficient car parking to meet the

                      needs/demands of the development.


               6.21  In addition, to  assess the design  aspect of this refusal  reason, a statement has been

                      prepared by the appellant’s Architects and this is also included as a separate document
                      in this submission.   This reviews the normal indicators of overdevelopment in relation

                      to scheme design concludes that there is no tangible manifestation in design terms of
                      the Council’s assertion of insufficient car parking.







               ___________________________________________________________________________

               10 December, 2019                                                                    Page 22

                                                     Bates No  000291
   287   288   289   290   291   292   293   294   295   296   297