Spelthorne Partnership Assembly Questions from residents for Spelthorne Borough Council 12 August 2024

1. Staines Village Residents and Traders Association  

The Staines Conservation Area, originally designated in 1975 as an area of special architectural and historic interest, was reviewed in 2023 and the resulting Appraisal formally adopted by the council. The Appraisal includes a Management Plan (see Extract below) which sets out principles for determining appropriate new development within the Conservation Area.

Question

The Bridge Street Car park site lies at the heart of the Conservation Area and impacts all three "character areas" identified in the Appraisal.  Can the council confirm that the Development Agreement currently being negotiated with Arora will contain conditions which reflect the Management Plan principles, especially in relation to building heights, views and riverside?

Extract from Conservation Area Appraisal

Management Plan General

Through the development management process retain existing road frontages, building lines, plot boundaries and front gardens which are typical of each character area;

The open spaces and trees that have been identified as being important to the special character and appearance of the Conservation Area should be preserved;

Staines Conservation Area has relatively low buildings, the majority of which are two, three or four storeys in height. Any new development should respect the heights of existing buildings in order to protect the Conservation Area;

The design and materials of any new build should generally accord with those traditionally used, unless it can be clearly demonstrated that an exception should be considered;

The siting of new development should be carefully considered to ensure that it preserves or enhances the existing grain of the Conservation Area;

No new development should obstruct views of importance into, out of and within the Conservation Area;
Maintain the riverside verges, walks and paths that characterise the Staines Conservation Area, where possible improving them through the Development Management process and conditions imposed on new development.

Protect the setting of the Conservation Area through the development management process; the significance of the setting of the Conservation Area varies from different vantage points.

Character Area 1 - St Mary's Church

• Any new buildings or extensions should reflect the small-scale, low height, simple forms of the existing historic buildings in this part of the Conservation Area;
• Use materials which reflect the predominant palette of materials in this area - red brick, buff brick, render, slate or tile;
• Where they exist retain soft front gardens and resist hard-surfaces in gardens;
• Resist additional on-street parking through the development management process;
• Retain the strong building line and plot boundaries;
• Development which blocks or impedes views of the Church will be resisted;
• Resist the use of box dormers through the development management process since these would alter the small-scale appearance of the buildings in this area.

Character Area 2 - Two Rivers

The environmental quality of this Character Area has suffered with a wide variety of inappropriately sized and scaled signage, the use of materials of poor visual quality and poor maintenance. To prevent further degradation the following should be adhered to:

• Prevent inappropriate advertising and signage through the development management process;
• Properties should only have one main fascia sign; multiple fascias will not be permitted even if there are additional businesses within the building;
• Existing fascias of architectural and/or historic interest should be incorporated into design proposals and not be covered by a new fascia sign;
• Fascias on historic buildings should be timber with hand painted signage;
• Fascias which extend across multiple buildings, even when incorporating a number of commercial units, should respect the depth and proportions of the historic fascia;
• Where large modern fascias may be covering earlier timber fascias of appropriate proportions. Proposals for the changing of signage should investigate the potential to restore traditional shopfronts, and where they survive, their restoration should be encouraged;
• Hanging signs should respect the character of the individual building and adjoining properties. Businesses should adapt their corporate style to preserve and enhance the integrity of the shopfront and the wider streetscape;
• The design of the sign should complement the colour scheme and design of the fascia, so that it appears as part of the existing shopfront;
• Projecting and hanging signs should not be located above fascia level;
• Projecting and hanging signs on historic buildings should be timber with hand painted signs;
• Improve the riverside properties, verges, walks and paths that characterise this part of Conservation Area, where possible improving them through the development management process and conditions imposed on new development;
• Enforce against unauthorised works to listed buildings.

Character Area 3 - Market Square and Memorial Gardens

• Development which negatively affects the loose grain and visually permeable character of this part of the Conservation Area will be resisted through the development management process;
• Views to and from the Thames will be protected through the development management process;
• Views across the Thames towards the Egham and Hythe Conservation Area (Runnymede Borough Council) will be protected through the development management process;

Any new shopfronts within numbers 1-23 Clarence Street shall retain and reuse any architectural features of historic interest and shall be a traditionally detailed shopfront in all respects. Stallrisers, columns, consoles, fascias and materials shall be of a form, detail, scale and appearance appropriate and proportionate the host building and taking precedence from remaining historic examples within this group. Any proposals which would result in the loss of any traditional or historic shopfronts or remaining elements of shopfronts should not be permitted.

Response

Until the Corporate Policy and Resources Committee and Council make a decision on whether to proceed with an agreement for lease, we are not able to comment on the provisions to be comprised within that agreement.

Any future planning application that is submitted for the Bridge Street Car park/Hanover House site will be assessed against all the relevant legislation, policies and guidance in place at the time (both national and local), including the Staines Conservation Area designation.  A full application will be required, and it should be noted that within conservation areas there is a legislative requirement for an application to demonstrate that it preserves and/or enhances the character and/or appearance of a conservation area. The applicant will be expected to demonstrate this with documentary evidence, and this will be assessed critically the Local Planning Authority.

Any application will be subject to assessment against the Design Code (and the appropriate weight will be applied to that Design Code depending on how far it is through the adoption process).

Clarification question 12/8/2024

From announcements made at open council committee meetings we know that the draft Bridge St development agreement incorporates a "demised building envelope" to limit the height of the development. This limit was announced to be 30 metres (approximately equivalent to a 10 storey block of flats) which would clearly be inconsistent with the Conservation Area management principles. Is the council still sticking to this approach and the 30 metre limit?

Response

Until the Corporate Policy and Resources Committee (CPRC) and Council make a decision on whether to proceed with an agreement for lease, we are not able to comment on the provisions to be comprised within that agreement. This is due to go to CPRC on 9 September.

2. Richmond Road Residents Association

Question

Thameside House is a Council Owned site and, we understand, is scheduled for redevelopment within the first five years of the Local Plan. Does the Council intend to impose a limit on the height of any new building on the site to that of the current building bearing in mind that it site outside the Councils intended high-rise zone and is next to existing low rise private housing? If not what constraints on height and other aspects, does the Council intend to insist on this and for the immediately adjacent site?

Response

The type of partnership arrangement the Council may enter into on this site has yet to be determined as does the actual detail of future use.  It is therefore not possible to provide any definite clarity on suitable height restrictions currently.  Should a Landlord and Tenant form of transaction be progressed, this will not enable the Council to input into the detailed design of any scheme, however there are mechanisms that a Landlord can include within a lease agreement that control the mass and height of proposed development, this is known as a demised building envelope.

If the Council enters a different form of partnership arrangement, where we are more actively involved in progressing a scheme, then this does provide the ability for the Council to input into detailed design and have more influence over the number of floors of any scheme etc.

Thameside House is being proposed as a site allocation in the Local Plan (years 1 - 5), and this was confirmed at Environment and Sustainability (E  and S) Committee on 8 July and Council on 18 July 2024. However, the exact timing of any development coming forward on the site will be informed by the Councils development delivery strategy, and a final decision will be made by councillors.

On 29 February 2024, councillors at the E and S committee made the decision to withdraw the Staines Development Framework (SDF) as a core document (which refers to height and density zoning). This request to withdraw the SDF will need to be considered by the Planning Inspector, and it will be for him to decide on the matter if and when the Council gets back to Examination. If the SDF is withdrawn, it will not be a material planning consideration for any future planning applications (i.e. a scheme will not be assessed against the zoning plan). At the moment it carries very limited weight in decision making.

The Council is currently developing a Design Code. This will be used to determine whether planning applications are acceptable in design terms, and will contain simple, concise, illustrated design requirements for streets, open spaces and buildings, and set out expectations for good design process. This will be one of the material planning considerations looked at as part of the assessment of any planning application.

Any planning application will be considered in the light of national planning policy, the local plan for Spelthorne and any other guidance which exists at the time of determination.  There are no policies which have a height restriction on planning applications, but we would need to be satisfied that the impact of any proposal on all surrounding properties and the character and appearance of the surrounding area is acceptable.  This would be assessed in detail with any planning application.

Clarification question 12 August 2024

The Thameside House site is owned by the Council which can therefore determine the conditions of any sale or joint-venture. The type of agreement the Council enters into with a developer (sale or joint-venture) is wholly irrelevant to a clear commitment on what height and mass of any new development would be acceptable on this site. Why is is not entirely in the gift of the Council to decide a limit on the height and mass of any development on the site, given its context immediately adjacent a low-rise residential area and just a few metres from the riverfront and is not in the intended HIGH RISE ZONE shown in the Councils last draft LOCAL PLAN? 

Response

As there is no specific development proposal being considered on the site currently. The given answer can only be based on general principles.  The form of selected partnership approach dictates the level of input the Council has into a building design i.e. the grant of a long leasehold interest would not permit the Council to input into the design aspects, to do so would stray into a different form of legal transaction by statutory definition. So, in this scenario the Council could have the ability to limit the mass and height of any proposed development, (this is known as a demised building envelope), should it consider it appropriate to do so. Any such decision would formally be taken by the appropriate Council Committee i.e. Councillors.  If the Council progressed a joint venture partnership, taking the role of development partner this has completely different legal parameters and the Council could then actively participate within detailed design discussions and influence the detailed design decisions.   

As a wider consideration, there are many aspects that influence the viability of developments. As landowner and local planning authority the Council has different considerations in respect of the viability to bring any scheme forward.  In a landowner capacity, differing uses i.e. hotel vs residential vs office etc - all have totally different building forms in terms of height and mass.  So, until the use is known, and any outline design parameters are understood/agreed, we could never ensure what we set now would be suitable as we bring sites forward and this would risk adversely impact achieving best value, attracting developer partner interest, financial viability of proposals and so.

Any application would have to adhere to planning guidelines and policy or face the prospect of not achieving planning approval. As stated previously, if the Staines Development Framework is withdrawn then zoning no longer applies.

The Council is currently developing a Design Code. This will be used to determine whether planning applications are acceptable in design terms, and will contain simple, concise, illustrated design requirements for streets, open spaces and buildings, and set out expectations for good design process. This will be one of the material planning considerations looked at as part of the assessment of any planning application.

It will be for the Local Planning Authority to assess a scheme in the normal way against policy, and the context of the surrounding area. As a general principle, all development proposals will be 'joined up' with the Local Plan objectives, policies, and delivered in accordance with design codes.

3. Lower Sunbury Res Assoc (LOSRA)

i) Community Toilet Scheme.

Question

What prompts my question is that, as you may be aware, there have been problems in the past with bus drivers on the 216 and 235 routes using Sunbury Park as an 'emergency' lavatory. At one time, there was an informal arrangement that they could use the Three Fishes pub opposite, but this seems to have fallen by the wayside. I have spoken to Cllr Buddhi Weerasinghe about this in the past and he said he was willing to contribute towards the cost of a 'portaloo' but arrangements would need to be made for its ongoing costs of regular care and maintenance. I have had correspondence with Tfl and SBC (Alex Lacey) in the past, but no-one seems willing to take responsibility.

If the Community Toilet Scheme could be made to work, this would potentially solve the problem. I looked at the Forward Plan, but I can't see any potential locations; if it hasn't already been identified as a suitable/likely location, how do we get this onto the list of potential locations and what do we need to do to progress it?

Response

The Neighbourhood Service and Environment Committee discussed a community toilet scheme on 21/03/24. It was agreed that officers would further look at what toilet facilities were open to general members of the public in the vicinity of train stations. A community toilet scheme has a cost and the committee did not wish to move this option forward at this time.  TFL are considering their options for providing rest facilities for their staff in this area, as this is not a Council responsibility. Sian Bowen, Asset Manager and Asha Hunjan, Property manager met with Senior Property Surveyor (TfL Property Services Business Services) at the beginning of May.  TFL have confirmed that they would look to install a permanent facility for their bus drivers at their own expense and would maintain the facility throughout the term. Their proposals are at a very early stage. 

ii) Littering

Question

There has been a noticeable increase in litter around Sunbury and broken glass and debris. I know it has been incredibly wet but what are the cleaning regimes for the streets and has this changed or is rubbish just increasing. Are there campaigns that can be done to improve education around litter dropping.

Response

There has not been a change to the cleaning regimes in Sunbury and this issue has not been previously reported to the council for action. We would urge anyone noticing litter to report it via the councils e-forms. We have recently been asking residents via our different communication platforms to report any issues including littering and dog fouling on our `Report It' platform Spelthorne report, which has seen a 50% increase on reports received year on year for the first half of 2024, resulting in the Council being able to take swift action.

Earlier this year we launched Keep Spelthorne clean - a community campaign which aims to encourage everyone to take pride in Spelthorne by helping to make a difference in our neighbourhoods, town centres, parks and open spaces. We worked with local primary schools and ran a poster competition with the winners featuring in our Spring Bulletin magazine and winning designs are featured on new banners which are displayed at over 30 locations around the borough. Later in the year we will be holding our Eco Conference with local school children which will also address the issue of littering and the importance of protecting our environment.

Some actions we have undertaken include:

• implemented a Public space protection orders on the misuse of public land for taxis, tents and BBQs following a residents' consultation
• secured funding to install CCTV cameras to manage fly-tipping hotspots
• trialling new ways of working to address the issues of street sweeping in difficult to access roads such using parking suspensions in partnership with Surrey County Council
• responding to requests to remove public facing and offensive graffiti within 48 hours and removing chewing gum from pavements in the key shopping areas
• We are also continuing to work with community groups in the borough:
• we can supply a range of equipment including bags, litter pickers, signage and gloves and our teams can collect and dispose of litter collected as part of your community litter pick.

If you are aware of specific areas where some additional focus may be needed to tackle local issues please let us know. This could include extra street sweeping if the residents can arrange for their road to be kept clear of cars.

If groups are working on a project to tidy up or improve their local area, they may wish to approach their Ward Councillor who may be able to support you with a Better neighbourhood grants

iii) River Thames Scheme (RTS)

Question

Does SBC believe that the River Thames Scheme will bring any benefits to Sunbury-on-Thames?

Does it support the proposal that the 'Sunbury Crossing' should be part of the RTS in order to give Sunbury residents access to the scheme's Active Travel Route?

Response

Spelthorne Borough Council believes that the River Thames Scheme will bring benefits for communities across our borough, whether it be flood risk reduction, access to active travel routes, new open green space or improved biodiversity.

While the greater reductions in flood risk are in proximity to the flood alleviation channel, communities further downstream will still benefit from a more modest reduction in flood risk. Modelling from the River Thames Scheme (available on their website) shows there will be no increase in flooding across the scheme. In Sunbury the reduction in flood risk varies between a couple of centimetres cm and 12/15cm, depending on the location.

While a bridge at Sunbury is not within the River Thames Scheme proposals, following the close of the consultation, the project team have been reading, reviewing and analysing all the feedback received from all residents. I know colleagues from the River Thames Scheme are engaging with residents and will continue to do so, in order to keep them updated on how the scheme develops.

Clarification Question 12 August 2024

Residents of the Lower Sunbury community will be unable to benefit locally from any of those actions (1st paragraph above) unless a new bridge is provided to enable them to access the Active Travel Route on the south side of the river.  Lower Sunbury will, on the other hand, be burdened with the view from Kings Lawn of a new industrial weir structure to be built on Sunbury Lock Ait.

We have now read through all 414 pages of the full RTS Flood Modelling Report in order better to understand the various proposed 'downstream measures'. The headline projected 'reduction in flood levels' for the modelled ISIS nodes that are relevant to Lower Sunbury range from 0.00 to 0.17 metres.  HOWEVER ... that is before one considers the relative accuracy of the model, given by the RTS team as ±0.01m. It is also significantly dependent on 'enhanced extractions' downstream by Thames Water .These will require a legal agreement between Thames Water and the Environment Agency whereby, some time in advance of a predicted flood, Thames Water agrees to reduce its water extraction rates from the river in order to lower the level of its reservoirs. This should then enable it to increase its extraction rates at a critical time during the flood in order to remove significant amounts of water from the river between Walton and Surbiton and thus achieve the projected level reductions. There would appear to be several obvious points of potential failure in that process which could result in it being ineffective. If it does fail, then, with the accuracy metric also applied, the projected changes in level will range from an increase of 0.01m to a 'reduction' of 0.14m (using the Report's data tables (p403) for a 1 in 20 flood projection). These projections are surely so small as to be academic to Lower Sunbury, leaving the proposed Active Travel Route and its associated new open green spaces and improved biodiversity as the only potential benefits - except that of course they are not accessible by any current reasonable means from Lower Sunbury, being more than 3 miles away by road, across Walton bridge.

Does Spelthorne Council support the proposal that the long-proposed 'Sunbury Crossing' should be part of the RTS in order to give Sunbury residents access to the scheme's Active Travel Route? Yes or no?  And please give reasons for either answer.

Response

The bridge is a good idea but there is no money for one from within the RTS  (or it seems elsewhere) to pay for it.  The RTS are paying for 2 bridges one just above Chertsey Bridge and another across the river at Shepperton near to the Spelthorne channel exit into the Thames.  Those are costed and paid for but as the changes downstream of those points are minimal it is difficult to include (let alone budget for) another bridge.

We asked the RTS to contact you and sorry to hear that they haven't done this.  We will chase our contacts and it might be worth also contacting  enquiries@riverthamesscheme.org.uk or Contact | River Thames Scheme

4. Riverside Residents (Staines) Coalition

Question

The government has made it clear that it has concerns about aspects of the Council's finances and governance and has sent in an expert to help resolve these. Not a problem created by the current administration, of course. Presumably the publication of the Council's annual financial statements for the year to March this year will give some indication of the financial difficulties. Although high-rise developments in sensitive areas of Staines would have unwelcome generational consequences, to what extent will Council decisions relating to these sites be influenced by the need to resolve what are hopefully relatively short-term financial problems? We recall one of the officers telling a Council meeting a while ago that sites like the Station car park and Thameside House should be regarded as "cash cows".

Response

The previous government on 8th May announced a Best Value Inspection process. This was not a surprise as one of the key parameters of the Best Value regime as set up by the previous Government, is gross level of outstanding debt. As one of the councils with the highest level of gross outstanding debt, it is unsurprising that a review was initiated in order to provide reassurance to ministers. The Best Value parameter only focused on the gross level of debt and not the income stream being created by the assets financed by the borrowing. In Spelthorne Borough Council's case the investment assets generated on average approximately £50m gross rental income per annum which comfortably exceeds the interest payable on the loans and the annual payment down of the loans., enabling these investment assets on average to make a £10million contribution per annum towards the cost of discretionary services such as day centres, meals on wheels (the charges for which the Council has frozen for a number of years), community alarms etc. The loans were fixed over 50 years at an average of 2.33% until the loans are paid off, so the Council is not impacted by the higher interest rates of the last few years.   The Council set a balanced budget for 2024-25 and is on track to set a balanced budget for 2025-26.  Having said that the Council cannot indefinitely sit on regeneration/housing sites within the Borough and it will need to demonstrate to its external auditors financial outcomes on those sites which represent value for money. The Administration working with officers is looking to balance ensuring appropriate regeneration housing outcomes, being mindful of residents' concerns whilst seeking to minimise adverse financial outcomes on the sites.

The Council published its draft Statement of Accounts at the end of May in line with national guidelines.  The Council achieved a net financial surplus for 2024-25 which enabled it to increase its General Fund contingency reserve by £1m to £3.1m and to overall increase its cash backed reserves by £3m to £77m.

We are not aware of any officers ever referring to either Oast House or Thameside House as "cash cows".

5. Riverside Residents (Staines) Coalition

Question

Staines sits on a layer of gravel (2 - 10 metres thick), which lies above impermeable London clay. The findings of research earlier this year into flood risk in Staines by Royal Holloway, University of London, are clear, unambiguous and material. They describe flood risk from ground water as being at least equivalent to that from other sources (the river and surface water). They set out the potential impact of below-surface barriers (eg foundations, basements, car parks) on increasing flood risk. If and when validated by full peer review by at least three independent expert scientists: 

i.     Will the Council accept the findings of the research as valid and important in relation to the borough's draft Local Plan?

ii     Will the Council commit a) to sending a copy to the Planning Inspector requesting that he consider its findings in relation to his examination of the borough's draft Local Plan, and b) to seeking the opinion of the Environment Agency and Surrey County Council (as Lead Local Flood Authority) on needed revisions to flood mapping for Staines and to the Local Plan's site-by-site housing allocations in the town? 

Response

The research being undertaken by Dr Paul is completely independent of the Council. As such, it will be for Dr Paul to decide whether he wishes to submit a copy to the Planning Inspector for his consideration. We can make the Inspector aware of any publications in any professional Journal, but it would not form part of any Council submission). Both the Environment Agency (EA) and Surrey County Council (as Lead Local Flood Authority) are fully aware of the research which is being done (the EA have advised groundwater flooding sits with the County).

We will need to liaise with the EA and Surrey County Council to ascertain whether the research has any impact which may affect comments and responses given to date.

Clarification Question 12 August 2024

Question

I imagine you already know that the answer provided to my original question on the Royal Holloway research misses the point. There is a statutory obligation for "all sources" of flood risk to be accounted for in allowing a Local Plan to be considered sound. Until the Royal Holloway research, little was known and even less understood about groundwater flows under Staines. The research has determined groundwater to be at least as material a contributor to flood risk in Staines as that from the river and surface water flows. All of this was explained to the full Council in June in a detailed presentation by the scientist who led it. All Councillors were sent a 26-page summary of the findings in advance of that briefing. The research has the added credibility of being independent and from a respected university, and does not depend on peer review to be accepted as reliable. To avoid misunderstanding, can the Council please confirm:

1. that it was entirely the choice of the Council to ignore the Royal Holloway research findings in its representations to the Planning Inspector on proposed Main Modifications to the borough's draft Local Plan;
2. that this decision was taken after the full Council had the detailed presentation in June on the research findings;
3. whether and when it asked the Environment Agency and/or Surrey County Council (as Lead Local Flood Authority) for a view on the Royal Holloway research, given its clear, unambiguous and material findings.

Response

The Council has received a similar set of questions from you under a Freedom of Information Request (FOI). We will circulate the answer to these questions at the same time as the FOI goes out. Cllr Sexton has also exchanged email with Mr Rowe following the meeting.

6. Colnebridge Close Residents Association

Question

The area between Clarence Street and the river, alongside the Old Town Hall, and in particular the fountain feature and area around it adjacent to the old Fire Station site have been poorly maintained. The fountains have been out of action for some time. This area is a prime riverfront public area. What plans does the Council have to revive the area and functioning of the fountains in the immediate future as summer arrives ?

Response

The `five swimmers' statue was removed from Memorial Gardens following a structural defect which saw the statue fall apart within a matter of seconds.  It had previously been vandalised several times and climbed on.  It is planned to allocate this sculpture to a new location in Staines which is accessible to the public. It has not yet been decided how best to use the area in memorial gardens where the `five swimmers' statue once stood. The `reflections' water feature next to the war memorial was switched off due to underground flooding and will require approximately £25k of works to restore it to full working order, an unofficial conversation has been had with a business tenant to provide a potential donation for these works but has not yet been progressed.

Clarification Question 12 August 2024

Question

The" Five Swimmers " statue was impressive and it's a shame that it had to be removed after being vandalised. Perhaps it was too ambitious a project for The Memorial Gardens. Similarly the "Reflections " feature, but when will you decide about the statue replacement and exactly how long will it take to raise £25,000 to restore it to working order ? In other words, when can you progress the initial "conversation?"

Response

It is impossible at this stage to know how long it will take to raise £25,000 for `Reflections' but we will progress the conversation with the business tenant again.

Question

I and other residents have been saying for years, to both the Council as a whole and especially Neighbourhood Services that the area around the back of The Old Town Hall (fronting the Thames )has deteriorated due to minimal or zero maintenance. What exactly do you suggest we at Colnebridge as a residents association and/or indeed part of a  coalition of residents associations can do to influence the owner, (who is?) to implement the planning permission he received three years ago?

Response

The land to the rear of the Old Town Hall (fronting the Thames) is in private ownership. Planning permission was granted in 2021, but has not yet been implemented and expires 28.07.2025. We are enquiring of the owner whether they intend to implement the consent or not.

The planning enforcement team periodically liaise with the owner to repair/maintain the hoarding around the site and to remove any unsightly undergrowth visible from outside of the site. A s215 Notice was issued on 30 March 2021 and the owner complied and the overgrown weeds and rubbish were cleared, and the hoarding replaced.  the site is actively monitored, but as the hoarding has been freshly painted, we are not in a position to issue a further s215 Notice.

In the past we have liaised with the owner regarding the state of repair of the listed fire station. From a legislative point of view, we are limited to ensuring the listed building is wind and watertight. The best course of action would be for the owner to finally develop out the site (but they will only do so if it is financially viable).

From a wider planning perspective, you will no doubt be aware that the Council has embarked on developing a Design Code which will cover Staines and other areas within the borough. It may well be that community thoughts emerge on improving this area as part of that process. I am aware that Mr Rowe has already engaged with the consultants (David Lock Associates) on behalf of the Riverside Residents Coalition as part of the stakeholder engagement process. Everyone is encouraged to take part in the consultation process and more information can be found on

Have Your Say Today- Spelthorne Design Code  

The owners have complied with the s215 notice.   The Council review the site on a regular basis, and if the appearance deteriorated again, the Council would have to issue a further notice.

Clarification Question 12 August 2024

Question

What do the Council suggest is the next step in the process now that they have issued a s215 notice to the owner to repair and maintain the ugly hoarding around the site and remove unsightly undergrowth? 

Response

The owner of the site is Hopetown (Staines) Ltd, but there is no further information on the application form on the planning portal. They can be contacted via their planning agent Mr C Pickering, Fluid Architected Ltd, The Barn, Home Farm, Pippingfold Park, TN22 3HW. You could contact them with your concerns so they can be passed on to the owner.   

Question

Regarding the state of repair of the listed Old Fire Station, what would the Council suggest is the next step, if any for the Council or indeed the local residents to take to influence the owner (who is ?) to finally develop the site and stop it being yet another eyesore? 

Response

It has taken a number of applications and appeal decisions over a long period of time for the owner to bring forward a scheme which is acceptable in planning terms.  The Council are unable to force the owner to develop the site, but we can liaise and encourage them as we have already done.

Clarification Question 12 August 2024

Question

As a coalition, we are already working on design codes but they are going to be based to a large extent on what the Council and developers are already promoting as "Staines' best feature." At the moment, that best feature, in other words, an attractive riverside is no more than what seems to be an unattainable ideal.

Response

Cllr Sexton suggested that the residents should liaise with Cllr Gibson regarding the `Design Code Task Group'.

7. Director for Thames Edge Management

Question

The Council's commitment to improved community communications and consultation is extremely welcome and it is gratifying to see evidence of this emerging. What will the Council's future policy and approach be to consultation on major projects, particularly those for sites the Council owns, such as the Bridge Street car park?

Will the Council undertake its own research or commission independent research? If the intention is to leave consultation to developers, will the Council please insist or urge that the consultation by developers must be comprehensive and cover specific issues of interest to the local community. If the Council is prepared to consider this approach, our coalition of riverside residents' associations will draw up a proposal for your consideration.

Response

The form of consultation will differ from project to project, depending on the nature of the project.  For example, the proposal in this instance is to grant a lease to a third party to develop out a site and the Council is not involved in the detailed design or planning submission, then the Council would look for the tenant/developer to carry out a comprehensive consultation as part of the planning submission.  Whereas if the Council was partnering in a form of Joint Venture and influencing designs and uses, then it may be appropriate for the council to be involved in public consultation.

If the resident's association wants to draw up proposals for consideration around community interest, these could be directed to the proposed developer/operator in due course, but due to the Council's role as landlord, it is not possible for the Council to influence the detailed design and other detail around use and community involvement in the scheme.

8. Local Resident - Ashford

Question

Given the legitimate (but unanswered ) questions regarding Spelthorne Council's role in the Zane Gbangbola story and given to the Government's promise of a new law on Duty of Candour will the Borough agree to make a full and comprehensive statement in answer to the numerous questions that have been raised?

Response

This matter has been the subject for a lengthy and detailed inquest for which the Council has provided the necessary information and since then it is our understanding that the Council has dealt with all Freedom of Information requests received on the subject.