Staines Town Society objects to this application.
We appreciate that at 35,604 m² GEA this scheme is smaller than the 39,750 m² scheme allowed on appeal in 2011 after your refusal, and that you may therefore find it difficult to refuse on grounds of size. Nevertheless, we wish to record Staines Town Society’s objection on grounds of excessive size and bulk. These huge blocks are far too large for Staines High Street, entirely out of scale with the rest of the street, dominating and adversely affecting the streetscape, contrary to policy EN1 a) and b). The design is fundamentally misconceived in that the office element should be on the High Street frontage, with the flats at the back protected from the worst of the noise and traffic fumes.
The design, in brutally rectangular blocks, is out of character with the irregular High Street skyline. Each block is ugly, clad with pre-cast concrete in different mock stone colours, with windows and balconies in a jumble of styles and materials, including the unpleasant dark balcony railings. The southwest corner of the residential block is shown in the Design & Access Statement with a pattern of thick black vertical and horizontal stripes on the frontage. This makes the building even more prominent and unnecessarily increases the dissonance between it and its neighbours, again contrary to EN1 a) and b). This should not be permitted.
The application is incomplete as it does not include the Residential Scheme for affordable housing and the Financial Assessment to demonstrate the viable level of affordable housing provided, as required by the Sec 106 agreement accompanying the existing permission. No indication is given of the number of affordable units, and therefore the application does not demonstrate compliance with Policy HO3.
The residential accommodation is not of a good standard. Many of the flats are small: 52 of the 2-bed flats are below the 70m² minimum standard, and there is a substandard 1-bed flat of 46m². Designation of these units as for fewer people is spurious as the seller has no control of occupancy. The lifts and stairs are fitted in by taking bites out of neighbouring flats, leaving them oddly shaped. It is not true that all flats have a balcony or terrace: consider for example flat A47.
Amenity space is grossly inadequate. The residents have use of a small garden on the 4th floor, shadowed by the 8/9 floor block to the south, two small patches of grass on the 9th floor, and a sliver of ‘accessible roof’ in the northeast corner. Describing a small lawn and a few trees and shrubs as ‘lush planting’ does not make it so.
There appear to be no seats in the ground level area other than concrete edges of shrub beds, and only two very square uncomfortable-looking benches on the 4th floor (D&A 4.39). A planning condition to provide proper seating would make an improvement.
The scheme has 163 units of family housing, as defined in para 9.12 of the Local Plan (2-bed or greater). Policy CO3 therefore requires 0.5 ha of public open space and children’s play area. The only public open space is the path through the site and the small lawn beside it, which appears to be about 300m², as D&A 4.42 states total amenity space, including the residents’ gardens on 4th and 9th floors, to be 845m². The public open space is less than a tenth of the policy requirement, and there is no children’s playground at all. A small patch of grass is not a children’s play area even if it has a bumpy surface. The breach of policy is particularly serious as this site is right in the middle of the busy town centre with no parks nearer than Birch Green or the park behind Moormede, both a fair distance away. This is a wretchedly poor environment for children to grow up in.
The Transport Assessment justifies the provision of 217 car spaces for 260 flats by claiming in 4.4.13 that a survey shows average car ownership in Staines town centre is 0.83 cars per household. The exact survey area is not defined but is presumably the various flats squeezed in over shops in the High Street. This is not a representative population. We may all wish that residents of town centres would forego car ownership, but in practice the over-spill parking from this site will cause significant nuisance, especially as there is a dearth of on-street parking nearby (para 3.2). A permit-free agreement to prevent residents of the site from applying to park in the nearby CPZ, as suggested in 4.4.17, is essential to maintain the viability of the CPZ, and should be a planning condition.
The site has no visitor parking, even for disabled visitors.
The two-tier cycle racks shown in 4.5.2 are difficult or useless for everyone except strong men. Use of the upper tier requires the rider to lift the cycle off the ground and balance it on a sloping groove. Even the lower racks are awkward to use, as the upper racks get in the way. This is not the way to encourage cycle use. If the LPA can swallow the complete disregard of policy CO3, it can reduce the required number of stands, and accept a smaller number of Sheffield stands, which take up more space but are much more welcoming for most adults and children.
The Air Quality Assessment confirms that the nearest monitoring device to the site recorded mean annual concentrations of NO2 well above the target safety levels in 2013 and 2014. This is not a good place for children or adults to live.
Recent Comments