Log in

In The News

Planning Application - MA Responses for September 2019

Mon, September 30, 2019 12:00 AM | Anonymous

13 BRYANSTON MEWS EAST  19/06171/FULL/PP-07937722  Replacement of timber upstand to front terrace with galvanised steel railings, demolition of the existing timber pergoda over the terrace to the front entrance, replacement of timber front entrance staircase with new galvanised steel external steps and guarding, replacement of windows and front entrance door with timber casement window and timber door, replacement of the existing open riser internal staircases to all floors with traditional staircases and balustrading, layout alterations, and associated works. (Linked to 19/06172/LBC) 

No Objection:   The proposals result in a modest improvement to the exterior appearance of the application site which we generally support.JT:  4 September 2019

103-105 CRAWFORD STREET 19/006163/FULL/PP-08061307  Erection of a rear extension at first floor level, relocation of the existing office accommodation (Class B1); and use of the existing office area as 2 residential units (Class C3). Relocation of existing plant items to the side of the new rear extension with associated screening and acoustic requirements. 

Comment:  It's not apparent how the narrow north terrace at first floor is to be accessed. The acoustic report appears to have used 19 Upper Montague Street, but it appears occupants 102 Crawford Street are likely to be the worst affected by the plant relocation.

We note objections from existing residents over the quality of maintenance.JT:  5 September 2019

LUXBOROUGH TOWERS  LUXBOROUGH STREET 19/06451/COFUL/PP-08054000  Redevelopment of existing playspace and the erection of a part one, two, three and six storey block with a flexible Class D1 (non-residential institutions) unit and 14 x Class C3 (affordable) units (7 x 1-bed and 7 x 2-bed); associated access and other works including landscaping, cycle parking and refuse storage. Removal of existing boundary railings and brick wall base adjoining Paddington Street Gardens North and construction of new boundary wall. (COUNCIL'S OWN DEVELOPMENT). 


1 - We have been consulted many times over many years about this site, and every time we have gone to great lengths to explain that we feel it is extremely important that the development of this site should create a carefully designed pedestrian connection at ground floor level between Luxborough Street and the northern portion of Paddington Street Gardens.
The northern portion of Paddington Street Gardens has only one entrance/exit and as a result there is no pedestrian traffic passing through. As a result of this it is a dead-end space which attracts anti-social behaviour. The creation of a route through the gardens would activate the space, attracting ‘normal’ people, and making it less attractive for those wanting to use the space for antisocal behaviour.
During our consulation with this new applicant their response to our request to do this stated that they would need to take a slice off the entire height of the building. This is not accurate, and the creation of a well-designed collonade at ground floor level would be perfectly serviceable. Moreover, we do not accept that the economics of the ground floor of the development should compromise the greater good of the use of the the northern portion of Paddington Street Gardens for the entire community.
We have pointed out to the applicant that a sum of money was allocated for the re-landscaping of the northern portion of Paddington Street Gardens when the site on the other side was redeveloped some years ago. Obviously this should be looked into as part of a follow-on, associated scheme.
2 – The nursery at ground floor level is separated from the northern portion of Paddington Street Gardens by a solid 2m high wall. We believe that the applicant’s reasoning for this is to protect the children from on-lookers in the garden. There has got to be a way to allow the staff and children in the nursery to at least see the gardens adjacent to their building, and there should also be a way for them to use the gardens for playing in. This requires thorough thinking from the applicant, and a might involve slightly unconventional or even controversial approach in terms of safeguarding children, but common sense needs to prevail. We cannot see a new nusery built on the edge of a park and not use the park for playspace.
3 – We believe the building should be one storey taller, allowing an extra number of units
4 – The internal arrangement of the building on the upper levels proposes a stairwell on the ‘prime’ location of the site, facing the park and the south-west. The internal arrangement should be re-thought to give the highest possible quality accomodation with living space overlooking the park and not the blank walls of the adjacent telephone exchange on Luxborough Street.
5 - We support the proposed use on the site.         SQ:  12 September 2019


The Marylebone Association

6 Wimpole Street




Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software