The latest public enquiry into the Gondar Gardens Reservoir proposed development (refused by Camden) was heard by the Appeal Inspector at the beginning of April over 3 days. The result was promised by the end of May - not long to go then!
Flick Rea writes : "The residents, led by GARA's Chair represented themselves magnificently and, as local Councillor, I also made a statement opposing the development. The developers used the full line up of barristers and clerks and piles of papers and, I'm sure thought they'd got a walkover. But the opposition was terrific and just as competent without expensive legal help as it came from the heart. Fingers crossed the Inspector felt the same!"
GARA reports:
"It is impossible to read the inspector’s mind. We think we did as well as we could have expected. We put across all of our key points and we stood up well to being questioned. We also “scored some points” during cross-examination. Camden worked hard to demonstrate that the reasons for refusal are valid: loss of openness from the street / western end; and poor design. The developer will also think that they have got their points across. Their professional advisers were kind enough to complement us privately on the presentation of our case and our performance at the inquiry.
The inspector will make up her mind on the evidence in front of her. Judging by the previous appeal, which the inspector granted after citing all the reasons against it, we cannot predict the outcome.
What next?
Just to reiterate what you already know:
If the “frontage scheme” (scheme #2) is approved at appeal, LW (Linden Waites) can choose whether to proceed with #1 or #2 or submit a third scheme. So we would need any approval to come with conditions that protect the remainder of the site - for its own sake and to help secure refusal of a possible third scheme.
If scheme #2 is refused, then LW can choose to proceed with #1 or could submit a modified version of #2 which addresses the inspector's reasons for refusal.
We don’t even know whether LW might seek to capitalise on any permissions and sell the site to another developer – then we would almost certainly get another proposal.
So we were not expressing a preference between the two proposed schemes. Our aim is to maximise protection for the site and minimise a developer’s options. "
No comments:
Post a Comment