We are very much in favour of the retention of the old Debenhams building, with its low level and elegant lines, but we remain totally unhappy and opposed to the tower at the rear (or any tower for that matter). However, it has been made very clear that the developers cannot retain the old Debenhams building without building a tower, on cost grounds.
It seems we are left with the option either to keep the existing building plus the tower at the rear or alternatively lose the old building and have an even more prominent, larger, more unsightly, modern development made up of several tower blocks – even worse!
We dislike towers and we certainly don’t believe any tower should be built this close to the river. The Environment Agency has made objections in the Local Plan process, to development in Thames Street because of the flood risk, and although it’s slightly uphill this is one of the sites they are querying.
We would much prefer retention of the old building but appreciate there’s a cost involved in bringing it up to current spec. The government have imposed housing numbers on Spelthorne and without a ready pot of money or a wealthy benefactor to step in and fund the up-dating of the former Debenhams building, the council can only hope to achieve both these aims (retaining Debenhams and complying with government) by allowing extra development.
Earlier this year we suggested to Spelthorne that the former Debenhams building would be a perfect site for the Spelthorne Museum (giving them more much needed space than the former Decathlon site will provide) together with a cafe & facilities providing an interesting focal point for the town centre (which many town centres are striving to achieve, following the demise of more stores and shops) but unfortunately this idea has fallen on stony ground.
The developers prefer instead to have two smaller shops at the front, either side of the corner (High Street, Clarence Street and Thames Street).
Another problem is that currently developers are encouraged to provide lots of cycle storage but only limited parking; resulting in a serious lack of incentive for them to build too far away from the town centre and bus station or railway station.
A minor point regarding the latest offering from these developers, if the appearance of the frontage as depicted (or something similar) were to be adopted, regarding the design of the top front corner; the windows above it, will need to reflect the style of the existing (below), by including and reflecting the feature of the slim brick pillars.
We have also made several comments to the developers about the layout particularly at the side and rear of the building. However, we mustn’t lose sight of the fact that this is not yet a planning application but a further step in the consultation process. The developers may hope that people will feel that by responding at this stage that they’ve had their say and then they may not bother to object to the one that really counts, which comes at the end.
Please do respond but don’t forget we have yet to see and comment on the version put forward as a Planning Application.
Recent Comments