Staines Town Society objects to this application for the following reasons:
The buildings are much too tall and out of scale with the townscape, contrary to Policy EN1. The picture on page 45 of the Design & Access Statement shows clearly that they will stick up incongruously among their neighbours in Thames Street. Reason 2 for refusing the previous scheme was that it was ‘visually obtrusive’. This version will be visually obtrusive on a much larger scale.
In recent months there has been a realisation that the character of Staines as a pleasant riverside town will be irretrievably damaged by the proliferation of high-rise blocks of flats. At present they are confined to a patch north of the eastern end of the High Street, with the Majestic development looming over our modest shops & houses, and the Renshaw & Centrica sites to come. Allowing towers of 13 and 15 storeys on the Masonic site will bring ‘high rise hell’ into the heart of Staines and to its precious riverside, which should be particularly protected.
Although the flats are very small, being only just over the legal minimum size, there is only a limited amount of open space for the residents. Covid has made it clear that people need access to green space for their health & happiness. The SBC amenity space requirement for 206 flats is 1,205 sq.m. but the ‘podium’ open space is only 950 sq.m. The rest of the claimed amenity space is composed of balconies, but these, particularly as they are all inset, are merely parts of the flats which happen to be exposed to the outside. They are no substitute for soft green landscape and sociable contact with neighbours.
Policy CO3 requires developments with 30 or more family dwellings to provide open space for a children’s play area. D&A sec 5.16 claims that the development has no family dwellings, contrary to Local Plan para 9.12 which states that units with 2 bedrooms are family dwellings. This development has 101 2-bed flats, so there may be about 100 children living here. The nearest play space is about 1 km away through the busy town centre at the Lammas, but the only on-site provision is a miserly 105 sq.m. containing apparently a table and two logs – the application does not bother to specify the play equipment. The residents require a proper play area, with equipment, and with seats for parents supervising.
Seating here and in other parts of the podium garden is not specified. It should be comfortable as well as attractive. The pictures show hard backless benches at the tables, and a large and ugly squared-off bench. These are not suitable.
The pictures on p 46 of the D&A , showing wavy balconies and large terraces, are misleading as these do not exist in this scheme.
Most of the diagrams and pictures show the podium garden from above. The public view from street level will be much more stark, just the buildings and the wall running between them. Training a few climbing plants up the wall will not be enough to soften the appearance of the scheme. The claim in D&A 3.3 that the site will become a green lung in the town is far-fetched. It is more likely that the existing green space in the Memorial Gardens will be degraded by overuse.
We are surprised at the intention to build a large residential development in Flood Zone 3, contrary to Policy LO1, and wonder if the proposed escape route under the service ramp and into Goodman’s Place will be adequate.
10 disabled car spaces sounds inadequate for 206 flats and there is no drop-off area for disabled visitors.
The design has some good points, and we commend the provision of 45% affordable housing, though it is a pity that the entrance to the affordable housing block is a ‘poor door’ tucked away under the service ramp and leading to a back alley to the High Street..
Since Grenfell, evidence has emerged that many of the large housebuilders have not complied with building regulations on fire safety, with combustible materials, omission of firebreaks, and inadequate alarm systems. What is Inland Homes’ record on these issues?
Recent Comments