In The News

Please find below responses to planning applications by the Marylebone Association Planning sub-committee. Any comments should be referred to Neil Wilson. planning@marylebone.org

3 MANDEVILLE PLACE 19/000978/FULL/PP-07570962 External alterations comprising replacement of the front door and basement lightwell entrance door, replacement of windows to the front and rear facades, installation of roof lights and new automatic opening vent within the upper mansard and replacement of rooflights at basement and ground floor level

No Objection : TB: 5 March 2019

18 WIGMORE STREET 19/01390/FULL/PP-07546707 Erection of an extension at the rear of the property at first to fourth floor levels to provide additional residential floorspace for the existing flats, including the infilling of an internal lightwell adjacent to 16 Wigmore Street and the installation of a new lift. Alterations at basement and ground floor level including the infilling of a rear lightwell at basement level to create additional office (Class B1) floorspace and installation of plant at rear ground floor level. (AMENDED DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT)

Comment: The proposal involves an extension/ projection of the entire rear elevation by 2.5m to 3m in parts over four storeys. The new rear façade is a bland and pastiche facsimile of the existing. The CGI provided is not representative, not least because it shows false windows as if they had a room behind them. DM: 15 March 2019

BASEMENT AND GROUND FLOOR 90 YORK STREET 18/10655/FULL/PP-07390427 Use of part of the basement floor medical treatments (Class D1)

No Objection: DM: 15 March 2019

50 WEYMOUTH STREET 19/01218/FULL/PP-07570620 Erection of a new mansard roof extension at rear second floor level to the Beaumont Mews elevation to create a self contained flat. (part of a land use swap with Blocks A-C Ossington Buildings and Ground floor of Moxon House and Osbourne House, Moxon Street).

Comment: It is difficult to comment on this application due to the lack of and poor quality of information. No Design & Access Statement is provided (despite reference to one in the planning statement). The CGI’s are not in fact CGI’s but poor, low-resolution screenshots that add little to the application. Use of the roof in this location to create an additional residential unit is, in principle, a good idea. We would, however, expect to see a higher level of thought , design and communication of the key issues – all items lacking in this application. DM: 15 March 2019

I CHILTERN STREET 19/00948/FULL/PP-07529786 Erection of a glazed canopy (cloister) in the front courtyard. (Linked to 19/00949/LBC)

No Objection: DM: 15 March 2019

MARBLE ARCH APARTMENTS 11 HARROWBY STREET 19/00261/FULL/PP-07533284 Erection of a single storey roof extension to provide eight additional residential units (Class C3) (2 x 1-bed, 3 x 2-bed and 3 x 3-bed units). Relocation of existing water cylinders to new roof level. 

Objection: We object on the following grounds:

1. Impact on adjoining properties:  the information supplied in the application is insufficient to adequately assess the full impact of the proposals on the neighbouring properties.  Plans and sections showing the relationship of the proposals to existing neighbouring properties should be included.  

2. Daylight/Sunlight:  the additional height and bulk and the impact that this would have on the daylight and sunlight for nearby properties.  A daylight and sunlight analysis should be submitted as part of the application to show the impact the proposals would have on nearby properties. It is mentioned in the attachments summary, but is not evident in the documents on idox.

3. Parking: We request that, if consented, restriction is imposed in perpetuity that no additional parking permits are allowed for these proposed dwellings, as indicated in the transport statement, as this is very well served by public transport and there is considerable residential parking stress in the local area.

4.Sustainability: The sustainability report claims that 1KWP of renewables are incorporated into the design, yet no PVs are shown on the roof plan or sections.

5. Construction Logistics: Given the significant impact that the development would have upon the existing residents, a Construction Management Plan should be included with the application.

6. Community Consultation: The applicant has not engaged proactively with the local amenity society or the local residents, who have deeply held concerns about the proposals.  We request that any subsequent revisions to the proposals are presented to the local community at a suitable public consultation event, to which all objectors and the Marylebone Association are invited.

7. Because of its height, bulk, and detailed design, the mansard roof extension would harm the appearance of this building and fail to maintain or improve the character and appearance of the area. This would not meet DES6.

We ask that WCC requires the applicant to address these concerns before the application is determined. LT: 21 March 2019