|
|
 |
| |
Open the Oxford Street debate
• DAME Judith Mayhew Jonas, the new chair of the New West End Company (NWEC) quotes the support of West End groups for Westminster’s Oxford, Regent and Bond Street Plan (ORB) in her letter in response to that from our ward councillors the week before, and refers to the consultation which preceded ORB (All change in Oxford Street, October 24).
We were all in broad support of ORB, but the issue goes beyond that plan to the disturbing statements made by Dame Judith about the eastern end of Oxford Street in the recent double page spread in the Evening Standard, which differ from that plan.
If the NWEC does not support that agreed plan they should clarify this.
She made three points, all of which appear to indicate an agenda driven by the major freeholders for demolition well beyond that required by Crossrail, and which are at variance with her comments about “organic growth” last week when she referred to Carnaby and Regent streets and Marylebone High Street.
In the Evening Standard she advocated “much larger retail units with bigger footplates”, bemoaned the fact that rentals are 50 per cent lower at the eastern end of Oxford Street with many narrow frontages, and she said “these narrow shops… are exactly what we don’t want”.
This “vision” is the standard one promoted throughout the UK for large retail units, almost always with the same brands as one finds everywhere else and with the same anodyne buildings.
It would involve the demolition of many of the fine late 19th and early 20th-century façades (whether narrow or
not) which give east Oxford Street its eclectic flavour and are a key part of the West End’s character.
It will (intentionally) drive up rental levels to the benefit of a small number of major freeholders and not to the benefit of the wider public as consumers.
It will also involve the floor-plates being taken backwards into Soho in the south and Fitzrovia in the north.
This is an archaic vision and we argue instead for the refurbishment of the many fine existing façades, the retention of those “unacceptable” narrow shops for smaller, more specialist uses paying (horror of horrors) less than the expensive end of Oxford Street, and proper investment in public realm improvements, not primarily dependent upon the city council obtaining funding via planning agreements.
Let’s work with the existing physical fabric and make it attractive as redevelopments in Covent Garden, Seven Dials, Carnaby and Gerrard streets and Marylebone High Street.
Marylebone has an eclectic mix because there are many narrow-frontage sites unsuitable for chain stores.
Do past statements by politicians that tens of millions of pounds will be needed via planning agreements from the private sector for public realm improvements mean that the city council is supporting the dame’s “vision”?
This would turn the planning system on its head since planning matters should be dealt with on their merits and not on a possible financial outcome.
It also raises the delicate issue of whether councillors involved in such discussions would be eligible to consider related planning applications.
We welcome Dame Judith’s call for a debate, but let’s have it out in the open and not behind closed doors.
We believe that our elected city council should lead on these complex issues, and do so in openly so as to encourage legitimate debate.
Bloomsbury Association, Covent Garden Community Association, Fitzrovia Neighbourhood Association, Marylebone Association,
Mayfair Action Group,
Seven Dials Trust, Soho Society
|
 |
|
| |
| Your comments: |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|
