Page 40 - All files for Planning Inspectorate

3.0 SCOPE OF STATEMENT

3.1 My statement is in two main parts;

▪ It sets out the chronology of the design evolution and the detailed
interactions with officers of MSDC which ultimately resulted in a design
and layout that was supported by officers and the MSDC Design Review
Panel.

▪ It considers reason for refusal no. 3 concerned with the level of parking
provided for the scheme and that the perceived insufficient level of
parking is an indicator of overdevelopment.

3.2 In order to place the statement in context, I will first present a description of
the site and its character.

3.3 I will then describe the design solution put forward on the first application for
71 dwellings which followed a pre-application scheme. This was the starting
point for the discussions that were to follow with the MSDC officers, both
during the first application and into the second application.

3.4 Following this I will describe in detail the chronology of the design solution
resulting from those discussions and presentations with MSDC officers and
the MSDC Design Review panel, that began during the first application and
continued throughout the second application. It will be demonstrated that the
final scheme design that was developed from these interactions was
supported by the MSDC Planning Application Team Leader, Urban Designer
and Design Review Panel when the application was determined.

3.5 Finally, I will consider the reason for refusal no. 3 which states that there is
insufficient parking on the site and relates this to there being, ‘too many units
on the site.’ In a separate statement, the applicant’s highways consultants,
Motion, have justified the quantum of parking provided. That aside, I will
show that the Council on the basis of car parking alone cannot say the site is
overdeveloped when it has also recognised the scheme as being well-
designed in terms of layout, height, scale, mass, amenity and so on, the
normal indicators against which overdevelopment is measured.

1809 Appeal Hearing Statement_FINAL_191212 Page 6 of 17
Bates No 000039