Appeal on Proposals for 52-73 Wilton Road, 10 am on Tuesday 19 October at 64 Victoria Street
The Planning Committee did not approve Vitcorp’s planning submission for development of the site. It involves demolishing the existing properties and erecting a slab-sided office block, with a few flats, and provision at street level for some retail and hospitality premises. The Chairman of the Committee encouraged Viticorp to engage with residents. Vitcorp have not done so and instead appealed against the decision.
FREDA and ESRA have been objecting to this proposed scheme and PNF considers it is not compliant with the spirit of the Neighbourhood Plan.
We as residents need to support WCC in this appeal so please may we urge you to attend the start of proceedings next Tuesday, 19th at 10 am at 64 Victoria Street, if you possibly can, which will show the Inspector, the community’s strength of feeling against Vitcorp’s proposals.
Please see below email which provides more detailed information about the proposal and the appeal.
Subject: 52-73 Wilton Road: Can you attend Planning Appeal Hearing at 10am on Oct 19 in WCC offices? Dear Pimlico Residents, Please attend at least the start of this hearing, more if you possibly can. It will be held in person, at WCC offices, 64 Victoria St, 18th floor. No booking needed; we can just turn up, as in pre-Covid times. Or you can apply to join virtually by emailing Emma Cox (ecox@westminster.gov.uk). The Inspector will start by setting out how he intends conducting the hearing and will make arrangements for interested parties to speak. Unlike a planning committee, a planning inspector may interrogate speakers. The hearing may last up to three days and is a quasi-judicial process in which the Inspector tests the basis on which an appeal has been made against a refusal of planning consent. It isn’t primarily a re-evaluation of the merits of the planning application, though the Inspector has wide discretion. Hopefully, you’ve been following the saga and were one of the eighty or so who wrote letters of objection. For about the past five years and several iterations of their proposal, Vitcorp have been lobbying our Councillors and the planning officers, but conspicuously ignoring the views of the community. They are near-desperate for WCC approval to demolish the existing properties and erect a slab-sided office block, with a few flats, and provision at street level for some retail and hospitality premises. So they were not best pleased to have their application refused by the planning committee on 10th Nov last year, especially as the officers had recommended approval. But instead of doing what the Chairman told them to do in his concluding remarks, which was to engage with residents, they decided to appeal the decision. Thank you to all who have put pen to paper or fingers to keyboard and expressed their opinions. Our views have been very influential in the process so far. It would be good to keep up our involvement. If a significant number of us turn up at the hearing, it will be a powerful demonstration to the Inspector that the future of Wilton Road is important to us Pimlico residents, and we still care. Just being there will make the point, even if no-one says a word, though if anyone is brave enough to do so, he/she needs to attend at 10am next Tuesday. It will be an interesting contest, with a lot at stake on both sides. All the appeal documents are in the public domain, here: https://idoxpa.westminster.gov.uk/online-applications/appealDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=QTEVUKRP0N300. The Statement of Case (SoC) by Vitcorp, and WCC’s SoC in rebuttal are the important ones to read. I think they must have been written by high-powered planning lawyers. In a nutshell, Vitcorp’s complaint is that the planning committee’s decision was ‘unreasonable’ because it didn’t go in their favour. That’s a bit like claiming that you lost an election because the result was stolen from you. WCC’s response (also in a nutshell) is that the officers’ advice is just that — advice to the committee. After careful deliberation, the committee disagreed with it, which they are at liberty to do. There is much more to it than this, of course. Both sides make good points and it will be fascinating to observe how the Inspector gets to the heart of the matter. Please spare some time to attend and demonstrate our continuing objection to this proposal. best to all, Anthony Smith
Comments