Public parklet at Marylebone Library, London W1G

What was proposed

A public parklet would replace two paid visitor parking spaces outside Marylebone Library for 12 months.

“The application relates to 2 existing parking spaces located on the east side of Marylebone Street outside of Marylebone Library which is located on the corner of Marylebone Street and New Cavendish Street. Planning permission is sought for the installation of a parklet across 2 parking spaces for a temporary period of 12 months.”

Officer report

The site

The site is outside Marylebone Library on Marylebone Street, within the Harley Street Conservation Area.

“The application relates to 2 (paid for visitor) parking spaces located on Marylebone Street outside Marylebone Library.”

“The application site is located in the Harley Street Conservation Area, Basement Article 4 Area and Central Activities Zone (CAZ).”

Officer report

Officers’ recommendation

Officers considered the temporary proposal acceptable because of its design, public benefits, greening and measures addressing safety and amenity concerns.

“Whilst highways raise an objection, supporting paragraph 28.2 of policy 28 does acknowledge that there may be circumstances where a minor loss of highway land may be appropriate to deliver benefits. The loss of the parking spaces would be temporary and would allow for a seated area to be created providing an improved area of public realm with greening which would be seen as a benefit.”

“Given that the loss of highway would be temporary, and the applicant would have to secure the relevant separate highways permissions prior to the installation of the parklet, officers are of the opinion that the loss of the highway would be acceptable to deliver these benefits for a temporary 12 month period. A condition will be included requiring a Management Plan to be submitted prior to installation of the parklet.”

Officer report

Design and neighbourhood effects

The structure would cause less than substantial conservation-area harm, while its public benefits and amended design were considered sufficient for 12 months.

“The proposals involve the temporary installation of a parklet structure in place of existing parking bays on the east side of Marylebone Street. The site is located within the Harley Street Conservation Area. The proposed design consists of decking bordered by steel railings and incorporated foldable timber seating and planters accommodating planting and trees.”

“Whilst the proposal represents an unusual and uncharacteristic addition to the public realm, it is compactly and neatly designed. It will also add greenery and planting in place of vehicles which currently accommodate the space. Whilst the uncharacteristic structure would cause less than substantial harm to the character and appearance of this part of the conservation area, the temporary 12 month period proposed is afforded appropriate weight.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Consultees and residents objected to parking loss, waste, litter, noise and anti-social behaviour, while crime-prevention advisers later raised no objection subject to monitoring.

“Marylebone Ward Councillors Objection – The scheme is in the wrong location. Will attract littering and anti-social behaviour and will impact on available parking spaces.”

“The objections received relate to the loss of the parking spaces, increase in rubbish, littering, noise and the potential for the parklet to attract anti-social behaviour.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A representative supported the application, while two objectors and a ward councillor spoke against it.

The committee vote

The committee refused the application unanimously.

“Provision of a public parklet replacing two existing car parking spaces for a temporary period of 12 months. Additional representations have been received from a resident (21.11.25) Sefinat Otaru, Cross River Partnership, addressed the Committee in support of the application. Brian Bickell, Shaftsbury, addressed the Committee in objection to the application. [name withheld] addressed the Committee in objection to the application.”

Minutes