We note there has been an amendment to Ex-servicemen’s Club 19/01237/FUL however, no notable Design & Access update or any other text, merely a series of plans, actually mostly elevations. It’s hard to see what the difference is from the original but the elevations look worse. They are now even larger and squarer.
No amount of tweaking the details will alter the fact that this is overdevelopment of the site – too big and blocky, not in scale or character with the neighbourhood, oversized footprint leaving no amenity space, etc.
This development could be a superb opportunity to develop a smaller number of outstanding apartments but once again the external design has an extremely unattractive roofline, making general appearance too square, blocky and ultimately unattractive in addition to not blending with the pitched rooves on surrounding housing or buildings on either side of the river. Internally, the rather neat internal design fails in the sense that the lift shaft & staircase are adjacent to some of the bedrooms – who would want either themselves or their children disturbed/woken by the noise of the lift workings or people using the stairs, late at night. The lift shaft would be more suited if positioned adjacent to the living areas rather than bedrooms.
There are still too many flats, more than the space adequately allows for! Internally everything is very cramped, these are riverside apartments that could easily command a higher than average price if they were larger & sufficiently well appointed (although during the summer months when windows are open, noise from live bands playing in the club below, could prove disturbing).
Within the flats, there is minimal storage space, an awkward shaped cupboard in a tiny hallway or small wardrobe in the bedroom, everything crammed in very neatly but people do need sensibly adequate storage, in addition to wardrobe space.
The provision of outside amenity space for flat occupants is scant, a tiny balcony or virtually non-existent outside space on the towpath side of the development, totally unsuitable for children and could not be recognised? as an adequate play area.
Inevitably balconies will be used for storage if insufficient is provided internally, making the overall general appearance of these riverside apartments scruffy, rather than prestigious or up-market.
There is adequate provision for bin storage but where is the laundry area? Or do the small kitchen areas also have space for a washing machine & dryer in addition to the necessities for storing food, cooking, washing up etc.?
Provision of bike racks in addition to parking are welcomed but the style of the racks although space saving, will be almost impossible to use, except for someone of the right size & strength.
The Staines Town Society strongly object to this application, which contravenes policies EN1 a) b) d) on new development respecting the scale etc. of its neighbours, and having landscaping, and also under Policy HO5, the density should be 35-55 but is 107 dph.
Recent Comments