Staines Town Society objects to this proposal for a block of 9 flats on the site of the former ex-servicemen’s club.
Whilst not large, the site is sensitive (riverside) and very prominent, sitting as it does on the riverside and at the eastern gateway to Staines town centre, near to the end of Gresham Road & there is an opportunity now for some good quality riverside apartments; the Council (planners) should be pushing for a well designed, high quality and aesthetically pleasing design, in this riverside setting.
We object to the increased height & bulk of the proposed building and in particular, its flat roof and “metal” cladding, which further promote the industrial appearance of a much too blocky lump and simply put, it does not blend in any way, with the surrounding domestic vernacular. The proposed industrial metal-looking cladding is similar in appearance to the style found on the buildings in the Church Street Industrial Unit.
The Design & Access statement covers a vast detailing of “blending in” with the surrounding domestic properties, yet visually (“stepped-up” or not) this block is nothing but a block; too large and bulky on this small and sensitive riverside site.
The focus of the planners is on increasing the numbers of dwellings and squeezing in as many as possible to meet government requirements, whilst the focus of the developer is on the “bottom line” but this results in the residents of this lovely town of Staines being left with the worst of an
oversized, industrial style design crammed onto this small, riverside site.
This flat-roofed building is quite out of place in both this street scene and towpath setting. Far from the detailed “blending in” with the surrounding domestic houses (described in the Design & Access statement) it over shadows those nearest and without a pitched roof, is completely at odds with all other surrounding buildings, including those across the river.
The building should properly blend in and reflect the style, including the pitched roofs, not just the number, position & style of windows etc. of the adjacent residential properties on Laleham Road and across the river on the Runnymede bank.
However, contrary to this, the D&A statement makes a point of saying that the design of the block reflects the railway bridge, which quite frankly, is an unsightly large lump of metal and it really doesn’t warrant reflection in this scenario, where people will be making their homes. The proposal for exterior metal cladding is extremely unattractive and is totally unsuited to a small residential development in this riverside location.
We commend, from a safety point of view, the proposal to reinstate the pavement and a safe pedestrian crossing, at this point, should be given serious consideration.
Arguably (from an average citizen point of view) the additional pavement and the green roof are the only minor positive characteristics, of this application. Unfortunately, the proposed building is ugly; the flat roof and “metal” cladding serve to increase the blocky and industrial look.
There appears to be ample provision of parking for residents & their visitors etc but only 2 blue badge spaces, which is inadequate and they are positioned too far away from the entry door. But where is the parking for delivery vans, tradesmen and large refuse vehicles? Delivery vans are increasing in popularity with residents having everything from groceries, hot meals and other shopping items delivered to their front door – a suitable lay-by or similar MUST surely be included to accommodate these vans and really should be incorporated into the plans, especially in this narrow part of Laleham Road, with it’s close proximity to the Gresham Road junction. Why is the bin store located on the opposite side of the building to the parking area? Don’t people usually take their rubbish out when they are going out?
This application may be small fry by comparison to the existing horrible towers, the looming plans for Debenhams etc and you may also be fed up with the sight of a burnt-out building but that’s no excuse for an equally ugly replacement! Come on Spelthorne, let’s get it right this time. We very much hope you will refuse this application without, at least, some serious and sensible modification.
Recent Comments