Page 50 - All files for Planning Inspectorate

8.0 CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY

8.1 In the first section of my evidence, I have set out my qualifications and
experience and their relevance to my role as architect and agent for the
planning application and subsequent contributor to the appeal.

8.2 In sections two and three, I set out the nature of my appointment, my brief
and the scope of evidence which covers the following;

▪ 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.

▪ Consideration of reason for refusal no. 3 concerned with the level of
parking provided for the scheme and that the perceived insufficient level
of parking is a consequence of overdevelopment.

8.3 Section four provides a description of the site, a large parcel of land
measuring approximately 1.473 hectares containing a large office building
previously occupied by EDF Energy, sitting within a large expanse of
hardstanding and well screened from its nearest environs. The site is allocated
for 50+ dwellings in the Ashurst Wood Neighbourhood Plan.

8.4 In section five I have described the scheme design for 71 dwellings, i.e. the
previous application (DM/18/1548) which in turn had evolved from a pre-
application response in 2016 (DM/16/2845). This was the starting point for
design negotiations with MSDC officers during the first application which
went on to form the basis of the second (appeal) application for 54 dwellings.

8.5 I set out in section six the chronology of the design evolution from
submission of the first application (DM/18/1548) through to determination of
the second application (DM/19/1025). This covers detailed discussions with
both the Planning Applications Team Leader, the MSDC Urban Designer and
two presentations to the MSDC Design Review Panel over a period of 15
months. The result of these consultations was a design solution the was fully
supported by officers and the DRP.

8.6 Finally, in section seven I consider the third reason for refusal concerning the
amount of parking provided for the scheme, and the Council making the
connection that this is a consequence of overdevelopment when all the
normal indicators of overdevelopment such as density, height, scale, massing,
private and public amenity are considered acceptable.

1809 Appeal Hearing Statement_FINAL_191212 Page 16 of 17
Bates No 000049