Staines Masterplan

Draft response to Staines Masterplan Consultation

Staines Town Society response to Objectives and Options consultation June 2021

We thank SBC for providing this opportunity for residents to give their views on the future of Staines town centre.  The questions are sensible and wide-ranging, and we hope the answers will be taken seriously.

Staines Town Society cannot agree with the support for growth expressed in SBC’s aspirations and Statement of Intent.  The quantity of additional housing already proposed cannot be accommodated without serious adverse impacts on the town and its residents.  It follows that any further growth cannot be sustainable and should be resisted.

STS aspirations for Staines town centre are

(a) a limit to the amount of extra housing and a ban on high-rise development

(b) enhancement of the centre with community & cultural uses as retail shrinks

(c) reduction of congestion by relocating through traffic to the bypass.

Question 1

The concept of a ‘good mix of uses’ in the town centre being limited to businesses, shops, hotels and housing is dispiriting.  Even if e.g. was intended rather than the prescriptive i.e., this is a very narrow vision, failing to contemplate community and cultural uses such as an expanded museum, theatre/public hall, health or education premises, or open spaces.

We would support protection of valued parts of the built environment and green spaces, preserving and enhancing the historic buildings and spaces, and encouraging better access in and to the centre for pedestrians, cyclists and people with disabilities.

Another issue not mentioned is reduction of traffic, and hence of noise and pollution.

Question 2

STS does not agree with the Statement of Intent as it places too much emphasis on growth.  Further growth will not be sustainable or inclusive, will not benefit the community, and will not enhance the attractiveness of the town centre.

Question 3 (what do you like?) can only be answered by individuals, but we might suggest the strong community spirit and ethos of volunteering, as evidenced in the pandemic.

Question 4  (what don’t you like?)

The level of air pollution.

Question 5

We agree that Staines is facing housing pressures, from government policy as well as natural factors, and that new development must protect the natural environment and what makes the town attractive, but believe this is incompatible with further growth.  

What measures will be taken to ensure sustainability and inclusiveness, and prevent them being mere token concepts?

Question 6 can only be answered about specific sites.

Question 7

Answer depends on the site and the size & nature of the development.

Question 8 – valued places

The Conservation Area

The open view along the High Street, reminding us of its history since Roman times

The bus station

The river frontage

The Oast House

Question 9 – things to be improved

Two Rivers, a desert of car parking.

Traffic lights outside Debenhams and outside the library, which make no provision for cyclists on the road but assume they are on the pavement with the pedestrians, which is inconvenient and illegal.

Inadequate and poorly maintained signage in Station Path which results in walkers straying on to the cycle track, after which frustrated cyclists use the footpath.  This is also true on the dual paths between Gresham Road and the Leisure Centre, outside the study area.

Insufficient provision of public lavatories.  They are needed at the west end of the High Street (loss of those in Debenhams), in Memorial Gardens and other parks, in Gresham Road near the station, for taxi drivers and others. And in other locations.

The Hy-Ten site at the station, no 7 on the map, is noisy and has created a nuisance for many years.  The neighbours would cheer to see it go.

The condition of many roads and pavements is a nightmare for people with mobility problems, and too many shops still have doorsteps.

Question 10

Terraced housing, particularly if well-designed like Goldsmiths Street in Norwich, would be suitable for the Hy-Ten/Jewsons site at the station and in the Oast House car park.  These sites are outside the central shopping area, and are situated in residential areas in which tall buildings would not be appropriate.

The station is well situated in the middle of the built-up area of Staines, convenient for residents.  It is the High Street which is off-centre, for historical reasons: the Victorian town expanded to the south west, upwind from the lino works.  For this reason the standard argument for building tall round transport hubs does not apply here.

Town houses are a bad idea anywhere.  They are all stairs, inconvenient when residents are young and becoming impossible as they age.

Flats of up to 5 or 6 storeys are acceptable, but no higher.  Any more towers will overwhelm the town and be out of scale with the existing buildings.  The effect is bad enough in the area already lost to the Majestic development, but will be worse if tall buildings are permitted farther from this central core north of the High Street, such as at Thames Side House (BUPA building).

Questions 11 and 12

As stated above, we object to anything over 5-6 storeys, particularly near the river and in the Conservation Area.  

The stark squared-off look of many modern buildings sits uneasily with our traditional townscape.  Any development must come with sufficient green space to give residents a reasonable environment.  Balconies are neither green nor sociable and are no substitute for outdoor space to walk about in.

Question13

All the suggested measures sound reasonable.  Plants on walls and roofs are nice, but no substitute for green space on the ground.

We also support

(a) better cycle parking in new developments to encourage more people to use bicycles, i.e. proper Sheffield stands not those double-decker arrangements only usable by large fit men.

(b)  stricter requirements for accessibility in new buildings (higher level of M-regulations).  Many being permitted just now barely satisfy the lowest standard, of visitability.

Question14

All the measures suggested to increase resilience to climate change sound reasonable.

We also support a 20 mph speed limit in the town, and a Low Emission Zone.  The single most effective measure would be limiting the amount of development.

Question 15

We agree with the statement about diversifying the town centre, but it should also include cultural uses and open space.

Question 16

From the suggested options, we would like to see more

cultural events & facilities

elderly care or sheltered living, as then the residents have access to the town centre instead of being shut away in an enclave requiring transport to get anywhere

youth facilities, and children’s centres

health centre: Staines is getting a new expanded health centre, but it will almost certainly be at Knowle Green.  But if that is the hub, there could be a spoke in the High Street

informal green spaces.

Other facilities we would wish to see in the town centre:

More lavatories – free, not those 20p jobs.

A larger museum

Question17 requires an individual response.

Question18, main development sites

The Elmsleigh Centre doesn’t need development

The Oast House complex could become a theatre/arts complex & to reflect its origins – a micro brewery.

Housing would be reasonable on the other sites, but nothing over 6 storeys.  We hope the iconic Debenhams building can be retained, especially as the change in Permitted Development rules means that any conversion would have to be to flats satisfying national space standards.

Question 19

We agree with the principle of improving vehicle-free linkages.

Question 20

Pedestrianisation has to be done with care.  Removing traffic from street A must not mean dumping it on street B.  The best option may be restricting vehicles to those required for access, and reallocating parts of the street to pedestrians & play spaces, as in the very successful Home Zones established in many towns in the UK on the model of the Dutch Woonerf.   We suggest

much of the Conservation Area

Moor Lane

Richmond Road

Cherry Orchard

other residential streets which do not need to be through roads.

Pedestrianisation and its effect on the flows of traffic need to be considered over a wider area than just the town centre.

Question 21

Most of the suggested options for improvements are desirable.  We are not sure about making streets ‘more overlooked’: there are several references in the documents to Station Path being ‘not overlooked’ at the Oast House car park, but it can equally be argued that this lets some welcome sunshine in on an otherwise shaded path.

Our top choices are lavatories, seating, green spaces, surfacing and cycle parking.  Seats should be comfortable, with backs, not like the cold hard ugly concrete blocks in the Memorial Gardens.

Suggested other improvements:

When the High Street was first pedestrianised the Council put a great deal of effort into securing rear access to all premises so that delivery vehicles did not need to use the High Street.  Over the years this has slipped a bit and several retailers now claim they do not have rear access.  A full review of rear access is needed to resolve any problems and keep the High Street truly pedestrianised.  Stronger reminders that it is closed to cycling are also needed.

Removal of the ugly advertising poles at the ends of the pedestrian area, and other large adverts such as the Two Rivers banner at the entrance to Norris Road would improve the street scene.

Question 22

All the suggested changes to improve the environment for people with disabilities are welcome.  Visual impairment should be added.

Pavements and roads present many barriers to people with impaired mobility or vision: obstacles, potholes, kerbs, changes of level, uneven slope, narrow pavements, steps up to shops etc., which may not be apparent to fully able people.  It would be beneficial if a small team including at least one wheelchair user, one person who walks with difficulty, and one blind or visually impaired person could go round and record all problems, and if funding could then be found to fix them.

People with autism or dementia, among others, can be distressed by excessive noise.  Blaring pop music and clattering street surfaces & furniture should be avoided.

The recent proliferation of outdoor cafe tables and chairs is pleasant, and desirable in reducing Covid risk, but must be designed carefully to avoid causing harm to people with mobility or vision problems, particularly on market days.  A clear passage of at least 2m width is needed for safety.  Barriers round outdoor seating should be clearly visible, and substantial enough to support anyone who stumbles into them.  A-boards are an unnecessary hazard and should not be permitted.

When the Bridge Street car park finally closes there will be no public car parking at the western end of the centre, which means that that whole area becomes inaccessible to those who cannot walk from more distant car parks.

Question 23

The second paragraph of the access statement should read ‘enhancing access by sustainable modes of travel’.  Enhancing access by private car makes the congestion & pollution worse for everyone, and needs no encouragement.  Choice of travel mode appears to be an unnecessary frill.  Safe and pleasant access to the town centre for all is sufficient.

Question 24 requires individual response.  

Question 25

An overall 20 mph speed limit, relocation of through traffic to the bypass, and cycle parking under cover might encourage cycling and walking.

Question 26 – awkward spots

(1) There is a cycle path on Mustard Mill Road, ending at the Premier Inn corner, and a cycle path in Station Path, but no safe way from one to the other.  Going south, either turn left, cross Mustard Mill Road, then attempt to cross the High Street, or continue across the end of the pedestrianised High Street, cross South Street at the lights, then squeeze along the narrow pavement under the Iron Bridge, causing nuisance to walkers.

The cycle option in Station Path begins with a large patch of ribbed paving.  This ribbed paving is  a universal failure, being ignored by almost all, and the patch in Station Path is dangerous, as the cyclist approaches it at an angle and when the wheels catch in the ribbing, the remaining sideways momentum tips bike and rider over.  This is not theoretical – it has happened.

The alternative southbound route after crossing South Street is to negotiate various bumps and stray walkers on the cycle path to the car park, then through the car park to the underpass to Station Path.  This does not work in the other direction as part of the car park is one way, but the route Station Path – High Street is better northbound as the cyclist can use the road and avoid the pavement squeeze.

(2) Outside the study area, but note that the Crooked Billet junction has always been difficult for pedestrians and cyclists, and Highways England are making it worse by removing the subway, which was a safe crossing.

Question 27

The bus station should stay where it is, convenient for the Elmsleigh Centre and reasonably close to the High Street and the station.  It is easy to use, improved with the introduction of real time information at the stops.  It should not be compressed, as it may accommodate more services in future.  It would be improved with lavatories and more seats.

Question 28

New bus routes and more frequent services would encourage people to use the town centre.  More importantly, they would improve residents’ access to other places.

Question 29

We agree that Spelthorne should be included in TfL Zone 6.

Question 30

A light rail link to Heathrow has some advantages over heavy rail or road links, but we do not support it as Staines would be overwhelmed by the thousands of parked cars of the light rail travellers.  The link is planned to stay close to the M25 to minimise the impact on Staines Moor, but the impact will still be significantly adverse.

The impacts of Covid and the dangers of climate change make any expansion of Heathrow much less likely, so further links may be an unnecessary expense.

Question 31

As Thames Street has three pedestrian crossings, it is less of a barrier than the statement claims.  The proposed tall buildings on the Riverside car park, and Thames Lodge hotel would disconnect the river from the town much more seriously.  We agree that creating well-designed links to the riverside is desirable.

Question 32

We have argued for an overall height limit of 5-6 storeys.  To protect our pleasant riverside, limits on height and bulk of buildings should be stricter than that.  Design and materials should be in keeping with long-established building styles – one bad new building should not open the door to others.

Question 33

There are certainly places along the riverside that could be spoiled by new development, such as the Bridge Street car park and the area behind the Town Hall.  Cutting back encroaching vegetation (not trees) would improve the towpath in places.  

Question 34

Lavatories and proper seating with backs, including some under cover, would enhance the park areas.

Question 35

We have no objection to the recreation facilities statement.

Question 36

The suggested options for enhancing health & wellbeing are reasonable. We would prioritise play spaces, tree & shrub planting, and improving green spaces.

Other changes to leisure & recreation facilities: expanded museum.  The Museum has a fine collection of artifacts, and grossly inadequate space to display them.

Question 37

Not cramming tower blocks into the centre, and reducing air pollution by reducing traffic, will have more beneficial effects than any of the above, if they can be achieved.

The remaining questions require individual responses.