Old Fire Station / rear of old Town Hall

Planning applications 19/00239/FUL and 240/LBC: Land behind Staines Town Hall and Old Fire Station

Staines Town Society, objects to this application, as follows:-

This proposal is better than the previously rejected scheme. It has some good features and has the potential for improvement. But at present the buildings are too large and bulky, filling the site and dominating the Fire Station and the riverside, contrary to Policy EN1 a) b) and d) of the Local Plan. The top two floors of the block beside Colnebridge Close should be removed, and the lower floors given low pitched roofs to match those behind the Town Hall. We agree that low pitched roofs are preferable to flat roofs here.

The decision to aim for a ‘clean modern bold’ look was a fundamental mistake. A scheme which ‘blends in sympathetically’ would be more appropriate in this sensitive area, in line with Policies EN1 and EN6. The applicant has said that the colour scheme can be altered, and we suggest that a set of colour tones to match those shown for the Fire Station would be much more attractive than stark black & white. In particular the big black stripe down the Market Square side of the block beside Colnebridge Close stands out garishly and should be changed.

The use of ‘charred black timber’ is not appropriate in this upmarket urban area. These are houses, not boathouses, and should be built of traditional materials like brick. The use of a graffiti-resistant surface coating is an excellent idea, but if the side wall facing the London Stone and Memorial Gardens were not such a long blank facade it would be less tempting to daubers.

Incidentally, it is curious that the replica London Stone, a heritage focal point for the area, is not only ignored in the layout of the buildings but actually missing in all the plans and views, and apparently also missing from the enormous gazetteer in the Heritage Statement. We hope there is no intention of moving it. The five swimmers are also missing in the plans and views, which is perhaps understandable during their temporary absence. The whole development seems to turn away from this interesting corner of the river bank.

The Fire Station still looks hemmed in by the new flats, as they project further towards the river. However the overbearing effect will be reduced if the two top floors are removed from the block beside Colnebridge Close. We are pleased that the original window shapes and the Doulton mouldings on the Fire Station will be restored.

The view of the river from the new rear windows of the Town Hall will be adversely affected by this development.

Para 6.22 of the Heritage Statement says that the overall effects on character and appearance of the area are neutral, in that the negative impact of the modern design is balanced by the advantages of restoring a derelict site and listed building. With a more pleasing design the overall effect could be positive. It is certainly true that restoring the listed building and using the derelict site are desirable. But this is true of any redevelopment of the site. It doesn’t have to be this particular scheme.

The lower rear wall of the Town Hall will be obscured by this development – but to be fair, it is plain and undecorated, and has been hidden for many years by the Day Centre and then the hoardings. We regret that this is a gated development, so only the residents can see the Town Hall from the courtyard.

There is presumably no way through the complex, as the Fire Station touches the Town Hall. So the residents will be in two separate groups, and anyone with mobility problems must live on the Colnebridge Close side in order to use the car spaces off Market Square. We accept that the deficit of 20 parking spaces is unavoidable, and recall that the Town Hall development 17/01143/FUL was approved with no parking at all. Nevertheless, there will be overspill parking causing a nuisance in surrounding streets unless spaces can be negotiated in a nearby car park.

Para 5.2 of the Planning Statement says there are eight 1-bed flats, four 2-bed, and two 3-bed, but the plans show six 1-bed, six 2-bed and two 3-bed. Para 5.5 says that the sizes of the flats exceed the requirements of the Mayor’s London Plan. We cannot find any list of flat sizes. The boxes on the plans that usually contain the schedule of unit sizes are empty, and the scale of the plans is not stated. The CIL document says the total floorspace is 995 sq.m., which suggests abut 70 sq.m. per flat. Specifically the Fire Station size is given as 149 sq.m., so its two flats must be about 74 sq.m. each. From the plans, some of the flats behind the Town Hall are a little smaller than the Fire Station ones, and the flats in the block beside Colnebridge Close are about the same size as the Fire Station ones, though some of them are very awkwardly shaped. From this we conclude that the flat sizes are indeed above the national space standards published by DCLG. This information should have been stated in the documents.

In conclusion, we believe that this scheme is unsatisfactory at present, but changes could be negotiated to make it acceptable.