Unlike the organisers of the Green Belt petition, Staines Town Society does not support the idea that Staines should bear a disproportionate share of the burden imposed by the Government’s housing targets. Staines is a comfortable riverside town, not an inner-city jungle of tall towers. A cluster of tower blocks is rising north of the High Street, but we object to the extension of high-rise buildings into the rest of the town, and in particular to this site which is on the edge of the town centre and backs on to a traditional residential area. Anything over 6 or 7 storeys is going to stick up incongruously, contrary to Policy EN1
The views in Design & Access chapter 4 (4) and repeated in the Heritage Statement show clearly the adverse impact of the Tall building on the townscape. In every case the appearance of the Tall tower harms the outlook. View 11, looking down Thames Street from Debenhams corner, shows that the proposed buildings will have a huge impact. There should be a view from Gresham Road/Richmond Road area, as this is the closest residential area and possibly the worst affected. The railway embankment may provide effective screening, or it may not – it is not possible to judge in the absence of a view. The new buildings will dwarf the synagogue and the hotel, and take morning sunlight off the hotel.
We welcome in principle the use of the site for rented housing managed by SBC. This will meet some housing need as well as contributing to the target required by Government. However we object to the lack of affordable housing, as required by Policy HO3. Full market price rented housing will be out of reach of many Spelthorne residents in housing need. The Design & Access statement chapter 4(1), page 37, says the scheme will deliver affordable housing, but this seems to be an error. The letter from Design SE describes this as a Build-to-Rent scheme but this does not seem to preclude the provision of affordable housing.
The design has been considered very carefully and has many good features. But the overall impression is of a rather drab, square and plain structure, particularly the four houses in the Riverside building, with their square tops and large blank side wall facing the library, in ironic contrast to the agreeable angles of the existing building, nestling into its corner. The NPPF para 127 says that development should be visually attractive, but this isn’t. We would not of course advocate adding twiddly bits to large buildings, but it should be possible to soften the starker facades. The use of warmer, darker brick colours, all over or selectively, might help.
We regret that only 4 of the 136 flats are adaptable for wheelchair users, but leave detailed comment on access to SCAN. Level access to and within buildings seems to have been achieved. The 7 accessible parking spaces in Westbrook Road are too far from the residential entrances. Chapter 5 of the Design & Access statement lists various ‘parameters’ for the public realm, which ‘outline a residential approach’. This vague wording does not specifically say the recommendations will be followed. They should be mandatory.
The flat layouts look reasonable, though small. There are no studios and very few single bedrooms, which suggests that attention has been paid to the actual type of housing needed. We hope that the statement in Planning & Affordable Housing, section 5.1 Noise that ‘open window ventilation is not suitable’ does not mean that residents cannot open their windows.
The scheme contains 69 family units, so there will be about 100 children living there. The flats are cramped, being at the legal minimum size or barely above it, and the amenity space is skimpy and not laid out for children. The map on page 64 of the Landscape Statement part 2 shows that there are no playgrounds within 1 km of the site, as the crow flies, rather longer distances on land. We object to the lack of a proper play space on site, contrary to Policy CO3. The provision of a few odd shaped artificial boulders in an adult area is no substitute for a designated area with proper play facilities, and seats (with backs) round it for parents supervising small children.
We request that you ask the landscape planners not to have gravel surfaces in the outdoor areas. Gravel, particularly loose gravel, is a horrible surface to walk on, uncomfortable and unsteady for children and those with mobility problems. People are more likely to fall, and then impact with gravel is more likely to cause injuries. Please ask them to use paving or permeable rubberised surfaces instead.
We welcome the proposed improvements to the setting of the Grade II listed coal tax obelisk, which incidentally is not a replica as stated on page 13 of the Landscape Statement. The improvements should include a plaque giving a brief history of the obelisk and its link to the four coal tax posts and one other obelisk situated around Staines, as indicated in the booklet on the London Stone published by Staines Town Society, 1994.
Recent Comments