22-28 Paddington Street Ref: 10/10305/FULL (click on link to see application details)
Objection
The Marylebone Association remain opposed to this application in its current form. The revised proposals do not sufficiently address the fundamental objections made in February.
1. The Association remains totally opposed to any new buildings being built on the consecrated groundof the Old Burial Ground part of the site. The historic boundary (see 1870 OS) to the burial groundshould be reinstated as the building line for the new development. By so doing, the relationship of thenew building to the Gardens would be greatly improved and the Public space given more prominencefrom Paddington Street, the current proposed design seriously damages this relationship. This would also improve the setting of the Listed Building to the north, and allow a better more sympathetic relationship of the North Gardens to public realm in Paddington Street.
2. We are unconvinced that the building can be constructed retaining the existing Apollo pub. The Proposal is not clear how the design at ground floor is to be resolved since two different visualisation of the corner are shown, neither of which are satisfactory.One shows the pub retained unaltered with a four storey building uncomfortably cantilevered over the top; while the other visualisation shows columns in front of the existing façade and therefore beyond the building line.It is our firm belief that without a fully resolved structural engineering scheme to demonstrate how the building is to be constructed with the Pub retained, the applicant is not demonstrating a fully realisable design. This lack of resolution leaves serious questions about the appearance of the building and the veracity of the drawings.
3. Even if the applicant can resolve the structural issues indicated above, retaining the pub compromise the design of the corner and is not a good long-term solution. The applicant should not be using the planning system to attempt to resolve legal / financial disputes with adjoining landowners. Negotiation is required with Pub leaseholders before Planning permission is sought for a revised scheme so that the design is not compromised
.4. The location of the WCC depot compromises the Chiltern Street Elevation and sterilizes the streetscape. A basement relocation of the depot should be investigated, or possibly a permanent relocation to the basement of Crammer Street, when that site is redeveloped. The proposal for the temporary facility at Crammer Street is accessed by a ramp therefore there should be no objection to a similar ramp solution (or a lift) being adopted at Chiltern Street to access the depot at a basement level.
5. The size of the WCC depot is considerably larger than the facility currently on the site and contains many more vehicles and hand-carts. In spite of this obvious change the applicant is claiming there is no increase in the number of vehicular and pedestrian movements.WCC cleansing department and the applicant needs to justify this substantial increase in the size of the facility and the inevitable increase in activity that will result.
6. The setting of the listed building (78 Chiltern St) is seriously compromised. The application pays very little attention to this building and ignores some key issues in their Design Report. The proposed flats project forward of the Listed building thus diminishing its relationship with the Park.The height of the block adjacent to the Listed building is well above the Listed building ridge line and so seems to dwarf its sensitive neighbour.
7. We are not convinced that the two large plane trees need to be sacrificed to enable this site to be redeveloped. A redesign of the north-east corner could save the trees and address the setting of the listed building.
8. The proposed upgrade for Paddington Gardens north is weak and un-convincing, it is too formal and not ambitious enough. The current proposals do not form part of the application and in our view the design is not acceptable to move forward to a future Section 106 requirement. The redesign of the Gardens needs to integrate the north and south parts of the gardens across the road and the opportunity taken to dramatically improve the urban environment by incorporating proposals for theLuxborough Tower environs and proposals for the Luxborough Street “ playground” site. The Association would support the creation of new pedestrian links through these sites and particularly between Chiltern Street, across the Gardens and on into Luxborough Street.
9. If the North gardens are to have a fountain, then who is to maintain it? Unless long-term funds are made available this will be left unused.
10. The South Elevation (facing Paddington Street) has a very unsatisfactory balance of window to wall,and the large expanse of plain wall at the west end is out of scale and proportion and should be cutback, in our view.We understand that the applicant is proposing some form of Public Art on this elevation. The Marylebone Association believes that the design of this elevation cannot be accepted as it stands and that a redesign incorporating the Public Art proposals must be submitted as part of the application.
11. The Association considers that a firm new design for the gardens and their integration into the area should form part of the application and not be the subject of a payment under a Section 106 to be spent at the discretion of WCC’s Parks department. The Parks department do not need to apply for Planning permission and they have a poor record of listening to the local community. The Marylebone Association expect to be fully involved in any plans to redesign the Gardens.
12. The Council should be seeking assurances from the applicant that Squire & Partners will be retained as Architects post planning.Quality must be maintained during detailed design and the construction phases, and this only occurs when the same Designers are retained throughout the process.
13. Affordable Housing.
The application is proposing only 27% of 59 total units as affordable (ie 16 units). The tenure proposed is 85:15 intermediate to social. The more usual split is 40:60 as laid down in the UDP. Therefore thereare only 2.4 genuine social housing units (15% of 16), and these have not been identified on the plans.The Intermediate social rented flats have been designed to a very high standard (with en suite bathrooms etc) and would therefore command an extremely high rent on the open market in this area(approx £1000pw for a 2 bed flat). Since Intermediate flats are usually rented out at a small discount to the market rent (20% or so) these flats will still be extremely expensive (£800pw) and therefore cannot possibly be called “affordable”.Such a derisive number of social units makes a mockery of the policies intended to create mixed communities, policies the Marylebone Association supports.
14. Car Parking The Association considers that the proportion of the basement car parking designated as Commercial Letting spaces (23 spaces) should be allocated as Zone F Residents parking to compensate for the loss of local parking in the existing NCP car park. These spaces should be provided free of charge as part of the section 106 Agreement.
15. The Council must ensure that the temporary WCC Cleansing depot proposed in a separate application (Ref:10/10550/FULL) is inextricably linked to the construction of the new facility, and that the temporary facility is not constructed until it can be fully justified, not just to enable the Chiltern Street site to be cleared for sale. The existing depot must be retained until all the planning issues are fully resolved (including the discharge of all conditions)
The Association has serious concerns that these two applications have been separated and that the very complex issues (including legal disputes) still to be resolved on the Chiltern Street Car Park site will not be resolved in the three year timescale suggested for the temporary facility, and the temporary permission will therefore have to be extended.The Association considers that the Cramer Street application should be withdrawn or not considered until such time as all the Chiltern Street issues have been resolved.
The Councils lack of a carefully thought out land use strategy for their key landholdings in Marylebone could end up compromising both sites.
Philip Vernon, Chair, Planning sub-committee, The Marylebone Association.
For queries on planning matters, please contact 
Jan 2012
