Tuesday22 August 2017

Objections to Renzo tower pile up

  • Email
  • Comments (23)
  • Save

Ed Jones, Terry Farrell, Labour councillors all write in to complain about Paddington plan

Architects including Ed Jones and Terry Farrell along with Westminster’s Labour councillors are among those who say Renzo Piano’s plans for a new tower in Paddington should be booted out.

More than 300 comments have been made about the proposals on the council’s planning website with close to 90% objecting to the plan to build a 72-storey tower a stone’s throw away from Paddington station.

Piano’s development will include 330 apartments, 10,000sq m of office space along with 4,600sq m of retail.

Last month, the architect said the only way to improve access to Paddington station and improve public realm around it is to build a tower.

But dozens of objections have been sent in to Westminster council, the local planning authority, which is hoping to make a decision on the scheme on March 11.

Among those is Dixon Jones co-founder Ed Jones who said the building would cause “substantial harm” to its immediate surroundings, branding it a “blight” and adding: “The building, if permitted, will become a precedent for further inappropriate tall buildings in the area.

“The type of expensive flats in the tower are not needed in this area and the owners and occupiers will contribute little to the local economy.”

He dismissed a planned shopping mall as “unnecessary” and complained the developers behind the project were attempting to speed up a decision – an accusation made by Historic England who said the scheme is at risk of being rushed through planning while Boris Johnson is still mayor before he steps down this May.

Jones said: “There is a distinct lack of due process and public faith in the manner in which this is being rushed through with inadequate exposure, discussion and debate. This is a major scheme of wider than local significance.”

And he said if the scheme were allowed, it would be another example of London’s skyline being ruined by “the indiscriminate imposition of tall buildings” and that the capital was “being mistaken for Manhattan. This is not to say that tall buildings should be excluded but rather that London should have a policy of where to put them.”


Edward Jones the 71 year-old founder of London practice Dixon Jones

Jones said Piano’s tower was a “blight” and the scheme was “being rushed through”


Farrell said he was objecting because there was no need to build a tower so high, having already worked for scheme’s developer Sellar Group in masterplanning the area around the station.

“There is no capacity advantage to building high as there is ample space to get the area needed to comprehensively renew the station and area around, without going higher than 18 storeys maximum in a mix of mid-rise buildings,” Farrell wrote.

He said that while he supported Piano’s Shard “the circumstances are very significantly different here at Paddington. It is a much more sensitive site, given the proximity to Royal Parks, domestic scale squares and terraces and houses in conservation areas and the closeness of listed buildings.”

And he said the plans involving the station were not up to the same standards in other areas of the capital.

“Paddington must aspire to an integrated comprehensive scheme like that at Broadgate/Liverpool Station and at King’s Cross/St Pancras. This piecemeal, opportunistic scheme falls well short of these precedents.”

Also objecting is Westminster resident and Fereday Pollard senior project architect John Attwood who is working on the new Crossrail station at Abbey Wood in east London.

He wrote: “The tower is much, much too large for its site and location. It is not a central business district. If approved, it would act as ‘storm trooper’ development, creating a precedent for future over scaled redevelopments in west London.”

Westminster’s Labour group – which accounts for 16 of the council’s 60 councillors – has also condemned the plans and echoed Farrell’s point that the same amount of housing could be spread across much lower buildings.

Group leader Adam Hug said: “The developers need to go back to the drawing board and come up with a scheme that can really respond to residents’ concerns about the proposed design and delivers real benefits for our community.”

A spokeswoman for Sellar, which is developing the scheme with Great Western Development, a subsidiary of Singapore firm Hotel Properties, said the developer was not trying to rush through the scheme and had kept councillors and local residents informed throughout via briefings, exhibitions and consultations.


Terry Farrell

Source: Ed Tyler

The proposals do not merit a tower of 72 storeys, Terry Farrell said



Readers' comments (23)

  • If you don't like the Kitchen Roll, object here:


    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • We've seen what Farrell etc can do in Paddington with the awful, sterile Paddington Basin & Paddington Central developments in recent years. If it's a choice between more of the same or the Tower - I'd prefer the tower frankly.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I'm not sure it is, David, that's a false dichotomy.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The Skyline Campaign is running a petition with Change.org against the Paddington Pole with nearly 1200 signatures. THIS IS UNPRECEDENTED AND VERY IMPORTANT! The link is http://chn.ge/1RRuMYo. Please sign and leave a comment, and then also write to the Council. PLEASE SUPPORT THE SKYLINE CAMPAIGN. Thank you Barbara Weiss - Co-founder

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • SomeoneStoleMyNick

    I'm sure if Terry Farrell was asked to design a 100-storey tower on this site, he'd do it.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • All I can say is this part of London needs to re developed as it looks like a shanty town, people object to what ever you build but I don't see them making a suggestion.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • A shard too far

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I don't recognise Lyndon's description of Paddington. It has some of the most consistent and attractive terraces, squares and places. Like many railway stations it also has a mix of activities. Maintaining this mix of attractions will be undermined by this proposition, never mind the potential environmental effects at street level.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Be in no doubt; if this tower is consented it would open the floodgates to multiple towers in Paddington and elsewhere. If a 72-storey tower can be consented in a mainly residential low rise area against all Westminster's historic planning policies there will be no mechanism to resist the worst kind of towers everywhere. At the last count (more than a year ago) there were already 260 consents for tall buildings in London. The city is losing its distinctive character.

    Moreover, the public consultation for Piano's tower is being rushed through. The first public consultation was at the end of October; the height was then increased by 9 floors and the application lodged in mid-December so the formal consultation period was mainly over Christmas/New Year. It has now been extended after protests but only to the end of January. This just isn't good enough; it's a scheme of huge importance for the whole of London, not just the surrounding streets.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The building itself looks good to me. I don't live in London, but I thought new high rise was supposed to be pushed out Canary Wharf way, leaving old London alone?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

sign in register
  • Email
  • Comments (23)
  • Save
Sign in

Email Newsletters

Sign out to login as another user

Desktop Site | Mobile Site