Page 45 - All files for Planning Inspectorate

6.0 CHRONOLOGY OF DESIGN EVOLUTION

6.1 This section of the sets out the various exchanges with the Council that
resulted in a fully supported design solution for the appeal scheme (Appendix
F). These discussions began during the life of the first application, informed
the design of the appeal scheme as submitted and were further fine-tuned
during the second application.

Discussions During First Application

6.2 After registration of the first application in June 2018, we were invited to
present the scheme to the MSDC Design Review Panel in July 2018 (DRP Panel
notes, Appendix G). We then met with the Planning Officer Steve King in
August (meeting note, Appendix H). The overall opinion of both the DRP and
officers was that the site was overdeveloped and should be reduced in
quantum to nearer the ‘50+’ designation in the AWNP. Although proposed
building heights were acceptable, it was suggested buildings be separated
further along the spine road and eased away from boundaries. Parking and
hard surfacing was considered too dominant and should be removed from
the Ancient Woodland buffer area. Albeit contemporary design was
encouraged, it was noted that the framing device was over-used, the top
floors appeared too dominant, and there was an absence of balconies and
roof terraces.

6.3 Following these meeting LAA prepared an alternative reduced scheme
(Appendix J), reducing overall quantum to 58 addressing the comments raised
by the DRP and officers along with an elevational study.

6.4 We met again with both Steve King (SK) and the Urban Designer Will Dorman
(WD) in October 2018 to discuss these changes (meeting note, Appendix K).
Although the amendments were welcome, it was considered they did not go
far enough. There was insufficient open space provision and all parking
should be removed from AW buffer area, to be demarcated with a post and
rail fence and providing visual amenity only. Otherwise, WD accepted that
parking was now tucked away and not overly dominant. Elevational treatment
was improved however WD had some further comments with regard to
improved verticality, partially inset balconies and brick choice.

6.5 We submitted a revised layout (1809_05p18, Appendix L) to address the
comments raised in the meeting and resulting in a further reduction in
dwellings numbers from 58 to 54 to accommodate these changes. The
th
officers responded with some further feedback on the 8 November and we
updated our layout accordingly. At this time, we included further elevational
studies to address comments raised by Will Dorman with additional
rd
elevational material provided on 23 November 2018 (Appendix M).

1809 Appeal Hearing Statement_FINAL_191212 Page 11 of 17
Bates No 000044