Staines Town Society commends the SDF as a thoughtful attempt to minimise the damaging impact of the Government’s housing requirements, and to make some real improvements to the townscape. We do however formally object to the intense urbanisation forced on us, and would like lower heights and densities throughout.
This response will focus on particular issues in the document, against a background of support for the general themes of reducing traffic and increasing open space in the town.
On a planet with finite and diminishing resources the pursuit of growth is destructive and should be abandoned, whatever the NPPF says. We support the rest of policy SP1 but not the references to growth.
Sec 1.11. The framework will be valuable if it gives councillors and residents a clearer understanding of future options for the town.
2.2 We are content with Staines as an everyday shopping centre, rather than a major shopping destination like Kingston, which would increase congestion and pollution. It would be nice to get Marks & Spencers back, though.
2.38 and 5.83
Removing through traffic, mainly on the A308, would indeed be of great benefit and would transform the streets near the river. This issue has been prominent for at least the last 30 years but so far no initiative has succeeded. Making Clarence Street and Thames Street harder for vehicles to negotiate may be beneficial, with the side effect of making them cleaner and more pleasant, with trees, pavement cafes etc; but there must also be a sustained effort to deter through traffic much further back. This is not in SBC’s powers, so negotiation with Highways England, Surrey Highways etc will be necessary to look at the wider road network, identify junctions at which drivers have a choice to go through Staines or by-pass it, and alter the signage to discourage the former. This would benefit travellers as well as lightening the burden on us of congestion and pollution, and is vital to the success of the entire plan to improve the town centre. All these ingenious schemes will be wasted effort, and indeed will make congestion much worse with consequent misery for town centre residents, if the through traffic is not removed.
2.42 and 5.12 and 5.44
The bus station needs lavatories, cycle parking and more frequent bus services. It does not need gentrification, or compression into a bleak tunnel like Guildford bus station. Real time information at the stops is more useful than a clock tower. Splitting it across sites (5.47) would be a nuisance for anyone changing buses.
2.44 ff and 3.16 and 5.29 ff
Reduction in vehicles and a shift to other transport modes will be welcome. Cyclists and pedestrians must be involved in decisions, and in particular SCAN (Spelthorne Committee for Access Now) must be consulted about the needs of those with impaired vision or mobility.
2.72 and 5.12
Two Rivers is an ugly desert of car parking and any improvement would be welcome.
We strongly support opening up the river Colne as a public park, and improving access to the Wraysbury river. There is of course a third river, the unfortunate Sweep’s Ditch whose route in a culvert under the car park is marked by a few studs in the ground, but perhaps there is no hope for its resurrection.
4.11 We support the idea of an open space in the middle of the Elmsleigh Centre, as advocated by us in the 1970s when the centre was being planned.
4.13 and 5.12
We agree that the Thames Street frontage of the Elmsleigh Centre is horrible, but doubt that a high-rise development would be any better. The drawings show mid-rise buildings but they are only indicative, and over-optimistic if the 15 storey Debenhams towers are allowed on appeal along with the 15 storey Masonic towers.
We support the enlargement of Memorial Gardens but not the proposed 35 flats at the south end. This prime riverside site should remain as open space. The claimed benefit of overlooking is very dubious: the actual effect will be urbanisation and loss of daylight.
5.12 Thames Path at Staines Bridge
Widening the riverside path and reopening the bridge arches which were closed off for the Bellway development in 2009 would be very agreeable, but may depend on the expected Arora development on the Bridge Street car park. Will it be possible to ‘minimise heights along the river frontage’ when the principle of a 12 storey building on the car park was agreed in 2009? The suggestion of a ‘distinctive building providing an end point to Clarence Street’ is rather dangerous – that argument nearly inflicted Bellway’s 12 storey stranded lighthouse on us in 2009.
5.12 Station Path
It is extraordinary that the document focusses on overlooking, which would turn the path into a sunless canyon, and completely misses the major problem. SCC put in the dual path to make segregated foot and cycle ways, but never completed the signage and has not maintained what there was. There is now almost no indication apart from the useless corduroy paving, with the result that pedestrians block the cycle path, and frustrated cyclists then ride on the footpath, causing nuisance to all users and wasting the investment on parallel paths.
5.12 Railway Station: Hy-Ten and Jewsons
Hy-Ten have caused considerable nuisance over the years, making a lot of noise at unsocial hours, and the neighbours will be delighted to see them go. Housing will be beneficial – but not so much. 343 units on 1.36 ha is a density of 250 dph which implies a high-rise block. The station may be a transport interchange but it is in a residential area, not a town centre, and a tall block will be out of scale with the neighbourhood.
We are puzzled by the ‘expanded bike hub’. The station already has an extended cycle parking area, which most people avoid because the double racks are so hard to use. What is needed is more convenient cycle parking.
5.12 We object to a tall building in Hale Street, impinging on the Conservation Area.
5.13 ff
We strongly support the zoning approach, with the caveat that all the heights are too great: 3 storeys in the Conservation Area, 5 elsewhere would be much better for our historic town if not forced by external pressures.
5.29 Improvements are needed for cyclists travelling north – south at the Iron Bridge, not just east – west. There is a cycle route along Mustard Mill Road, and two routes on the south side, Station Path or through the car park to the underpass (southwards only). But there is no good way to connect these across the main road.
5.31-37 Traffic flows and capacity must also be considered over a much wider area, to deter through traffic before it gets anywhere near the gateways.
5.83 ff
The proposed changes to the High Street, Clarence Street and Thames Street are ambitious and would be a major improvement. We welcome the aim to reduce clutter at the ends of the High Street, starting with the advertising poles. However it is worrying that the illustration of Thames Street at 5.93 shows no consideration for people with impaired vision and/or mobility. Pavement tables and other street furniture need to be placed to leave clear passage for pedestrians. SCAN is aware of hazards created in the pedestrianised High Street. New facilities should be planned to avoid hazards.
5.92 Single-stage pedestrian crossings, possibly with a small central refuge, are much more people-friendly than the double-stage ones which trap pedestrians in railings like sheep being herded about.
5.97 Should ‘Laleham Road’ be ‘Gresham Road’?
5.104 Improvements to Memorial Gardens should include replacing the hard cold concrete slabs with proper outdoor seating, with backs.
7.12 Fig 55 makes very clear the adverse impact of the Masonic towers on the planned Elmsleigh/Tothill area. The likely Debenhams towers and the projected numbers of flats in this area mean that heights will be greater than shown here. The multi-storey car park in the far corner of the Elmsleigh surface car park will significantly reduce the openness of the street scene.
Recent Comments