that leads up to the Listed Staines Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . and we hope you do too.
Please join us by emailing your objections to the recent proposals
Application Number: 17/00810/FUL
Re: 25 – 27 Clarence Street, Staines-upon-Thames, TW18 4SY
Proposal:
Application for planning permission for the demolition of existing building and erection of a 4-storey building comprising 309.2 square meters ground floor and basement commercial floor-space (Use Class A1/A2/A3) and 6 no. residential flats on the first and second floors, and other associated works (17/00810/FUL).
Staines Town Society comments:-
The Design & Access statement repeatedly refers to this as a high quality design, but Staines Town Society sees no evidence of good quality. The scheme is a rather bland imitation of the rest of the Georgian terrace, similar to the 2009 proposal. If it is to fit in, great attention must be paid to materials and details of design. We can find nothing in the documents detailing the materials to be used. They should be yellow stock bricks to match the rest of the terrace, and we commend the practice of re-using as many of the existing bricks as possible, reversing them so that the previous external face becomes internal.
The proposed elevations give no detail of the style or materials of the windows. The change from two wide windows per floor in the Clarence Street frontage to three narrower ones is acceptable, as the existing front windows of 25-27 are wider than those of the neighbouring houses; but they should be sash windows, with panes of suitable size, and made of wood not PVC.
The ground floor shopfront doors and windows are equally unspecified, being merely plain rectangles in the elevation. It would be too much to ask for restoration of the pretty bow window which used to distinguish the end of the terrace, but the design of the ground floor doors and windows should be appropriate to its surroundings.
An application to replace a listed building, one of a matching group, which fails to specify details of design and materials is inadequate.
We have no objection to the principle of residential development, but cramming a minimum-size 2-bed flat and 5 tiny ‘studios’ into the space is over-development. They may be (just) at or over the legal minimum size, but they are poor quality accommodation.
The deplorable state of the existing building is not sufficient reason for accepting a mediocre replacement, and nor is the ugliness of most of the other side of Clarence Street. The Georgian terrace on the north side is worth cherishing, and should not be spoiled by an unsuitable end-piece.
Recent Comments