Consultation report

November 2022

Consultation to date

Consultation overview

1,181 unique visitors to the website

23 stakeholder meetings

06 meetings with St Peter’s Church

3,879 flyers distributed to the local area 

02 in-person exhibitions 

01 webinar

68 people attended in-person exhibitions

Two ads on Facebook and Instagram reached of 11,682 with 285 click throughs 

Youtube ad reached 1,370 people

Survey

Q1. Which of the following best describe your relationship to this location?

50 out of 52 people answered this question

Local businessperson / employee
42%
Visitor
30%
Local resident
22%
Community representative
4%
Local councillor
0%
Other
2%

Q2. Do you agree that there is a need to redevelop the existing building al One Chapel Place when the current tenants leave in 2028.

51 out of 52 people answered this question

Q3. Which of the principles guiding this redevelopment are most important to you?

51 out of 52 people answered this question

Enhancing and celebrating St. Peter's Church
39.2%
Recognising the climate emergency
23.5%
Providing modern workspace
13.7%
Pursuing exemplary and innovative architecture
9.8%
Improving the townscape
7.8%
Creating a new destination just off Oxford Street
5.9%

Q4. Do you agree that there is a need to improve the area sorrounding St Peter's Church?

51 out of 52 people answered this question

Q5. Which aspects of our public real improvements do you welcome the most?

50 out of 52 people answered this question

Improved public realm at Chapel Place (between One Chapel Place and St Peter's Church)
70%
A public accessible roof garden
42%
An active Chapel Passage alleyway
24%
Animated ground floor
14%

Q6. Which of the two options for the public realm do you prefer?

48 out of 52 people answered this question

Option 2 - Secret garden
62.5%
Open 1 - Church plaza
31.2%
Other
6.2%

Q7. How likely are you yo use the proposed public rooftop garden?

50 out of 52 people answered this question

Q8. Overall, how would rate our proposals?

51 out of 52 people answered this question

0

9.8%

1

2

15.7%

3

5.9%

4

2%

5

3.9%

6

5.9%

7

15.7%

8

15.7%

9

13.7%

10

11.8%

Responses

Do you have any further comments of the application? Or have any questions for the project team?

  • Too tall
  • Don't think the proposals sensitively respect the setting of the church. Partly the massing and lack of set backs or stepping , partly the facade treatment.
  • You should put this design in for the carbuncle cup as it’s so hideous. I agree the modem part of the building isn’t great but at least keep the old part
  • I am unconvinced that the redevelopment project of a much higher building that its immediate neighbour is "pursuing exemplary architecture." The site of No .1 Chapel place is not extensive. Being on the South Side of the place, it will overshadow Chapel Place and the Grade 1 liste d St Peter's Church, designed by James Gibb in 1722 - and this celebrating its 300 years. Although deconsecrated, the Church deserv es a more sympathetic development scheme than the proposed - and one that does not dominate over Chapel Place. The policy of avoiding the demolition of buildings is a more appropriate response to the climate emergency.
  • The proposed building is too high - must be reduced to reflect nearby buildings and critically the Grade I listed church
  • Delighted that new businesses are coming back to the West end. Enterprise is key to generate growth and dynamism to the West end
  • Very good!
  • So what about co2 emissions which will be higher in other areas. It's good now for this specific area, but how will the CO2 leve ls be reduced in surrounding areas? If that is even considered?
  • The only concern I would have would be on the height of the build
  • The narrow alleyway needs sorting.
  • Too overdeveloped. Not ascetically pleasing. Dominates the Church too much.
  • Really like how modern it is.
  • It would be great to see more light in the building. Habitat creation would be good - ie bee hives, wild flowers.
  • It may be worth considering a glass covered space (such as at the British Museum Great Court) to help mitigate the negative effects of such a proposal on the microclimate and useability / attractiveness of the space for outdoor events, restaurants etc.
  • I have now seen the Before and After pictures and I have to say that it looks better Before than After - the proposed new building looks like a multi-storey car park. Please can it be reduced in height and less utilitarian-looking? Thank you.
  • Most of the pictures avoid showing the church and the full extent of the new development looking west. The picture of St Peter's and the proposed building shows clearly that the height of the development should be controlled, as it towers over St Peter's and the surrounding area would be dark and unwelcoming.
  • From the scant information provided the proposal is too big and overpowering in relation to the church and therefore unacceptable.
  • You've given me a giggle at least; 1: "the building is green as a complementary contrast" -yeah, if you're a Christmas elf.  2:"Respectful of heritage context" - Whilst demolishing heritage buildings of merit? Doesn't make sense. 3: "The proposals respect the heritage significance of the adjacent Grade I listed St Peter’s Church and enhance it’s setting. " - With an eleven story office block? U Ok Hun?
  • You literally cant improve the church setting by building something taller and overbearing next to it. Its nonsensical.  The proposal looks nice as a standalone building,  in concept/theory, but that height overshadows the church, no matter how pretty the building is. Its not necessary - It only serves developers £, not the community, streetscape or architecture. We already lost the iconic car park, the HoFraser store is a standalone, and the church is beautiful.... lets not add to the mess. PLUS we'd lose another heritage building in this process, something your plans are overlooking. I'm not a nimby or a traditionalist, but this really is a bit too much.
  • The height of the proposed building detracts attention from the church. It is far too tall. The ground and lower level designs are sympathetic to the surroundings and the church but the higher floors (ie those floors above the height of the existing structure and the height of the church) are completely out of line with what you are trying to achieve. The 11 floor height removes light, open-ness and takes away the ability to appreciate the architecture  and beauty of the church. Also - questionable whether the area needs yet more office space.
  • Design something in a traditional style.
  • We do not need a taller building that will dwarf the church. This is nothing more than a veiled attempt to fool people into supporting your greedy redevelopment.
  • I've regularly used the Santander cycles station there for shopping nearby. It would be important to me that the station, if moved, by moved somewhere suitably near. Perhaps at Cavendish Square?  I'm otherwise a fan of the pedestrianization/transformation of Vere St. It's not a particularly useful street for the vehicular network, and may even be harmful overall for traffic flow (Braess's paradox). However, please not that it is an important cycling connection for those cycling from Marylebone to Mayfair (connecting onto Bond Street). Please preserve a bi-directional cycle path through the public space.
  • Would you be interested in organising an open day for a group of graduate environmental designers.
  • Surrounding the chapel with taller buildings and making the area denser won’t improve it. It will just make it busier and more hectic. I doubt the newer building will make the area more attractive, and building a newer taller building doesn’t sound like the most environmentally friendly thing that could be done. How long will it take for the low energy office space to offset the carbon footprint of the destruction and rebuilding? Is renovating the existing building not the greener option?
  • I don’t think the white building should be demolished for modern architecture. If you are to build some modern , build around this building and try to make sure the modern architecture isn’t bland as much of it is these days. This little enclave SHOULD be  an oasis of calm.

Further Engagement

Following the closing of the first round of public consultation we will continue our engagement with interested parties and key stakeholders in order to ensure that our proposals will maximise benefits for the local community.