Agenda item

Officer Recommendation: Member Comment Only.

The Strategic Lead, Planning Policy, presented a report outlining a revised  design for  the proposed Queensmere Shopping Centre Scheme. At its previous meeting on 28^th, November, 2014, the Committee had commented on a previous proposed scheme and in light of concerns submitted the detail had been altered.  Changes made to the Scheme were  outlined, and included:

• All towers would now be of the same thickness, barring the circular tower.
• The design of the towers had been changed to provide more natural light and a more distinctive skyline.
• Penthouses were now included on the top floor.
• Better materials would be  used, including greater use of glazing.
• Promise of better internal quality.
• Removal of horizontal dwellings closer to street level, thereby removing ‘clutter’ and improving shop façade.

It was emphasised  that the new plans, incorporating the above changes, were not yet out for consultation.

The Officer  invited  Members  to  comment on the revised Scheme.

In the ensuing debate Members expressed individual views and raised a number of questions/ comments as follows:

•  The Scheme as now amended was a marked improvement, but was not a flagship scheme and there remained a way to go before concerns were fully satisfied.
• Was there a risk of solar gain with the addition of glass? The Officer confirmed that the buildings would comply with regulations to ensure this was not an issue.
• The ‘silver’ theme was an improvement over painted concrete. Could this be extended throughout the scheme? The Officer confirmed this point would be noted for future consideration.
• How confident was the Officer that the Heart of Slough project would increase footfall into Slough? The Officer advised that research and statistics had found that with the addition of big ‘anchor stores’ that there would be a significant return on investment.
• Concerns remained regarding the height of the towers vs. the height of St. Ethelbert’s Church. It appeared that the height was not in accordance with the Council’s Core Strategy which had indicated a limit to 15 floors. The Officer confirmed that professional advice was to make the towers even higher/slimmer, though a medium between the two has been attempted. He also advised that the height had been capped at the height of the church spire. The Design Panel had advised that the height was not a problem but it was important to incorporate good design with the height.
• Members did not feel that the Scheme was retail led, and suggested  that the towers and development of 800 residential units were predominantly designed to attract young professionals who would  look to take advantage of rail links into London. There remained the concern that by attracting this demographic there would  be little positive impact on footfall and successful  retail within Slough
• There also remained concerns regarding the addition of what appeared to be elevator shafts external to the towers, which result in a protruding spike over and above the top level of the towers and it was felt that the concern was that this was not aesthetically pleasing. The Officer confirmed clarity would be sought regarding whether these were a design choice, or  a functional requirement of the buildings.
• Concerns were raised that signposting and sightlines from Slough railway Station to the High Street would be unclear as the towers would be obscuring the view. This could lead to issues with patrons being unsure how to get to the High Street.
• The view from Mackenzie Street towards the towers was also deemed not aesthetically pleasing and it was very important to get this right.
• The single circular tower was deemed not to be congruent with the remainder of the Scheme, though the design of this building was praised.
• Where would car parking be sited? The Officer confirmed that there would be no additional car parking but the existing car park would be re-modelled.
• It was felt that the development would be improved by the provision of some two and three bed flats instead of the predominant one bed design of the scheme.

Resolved-    That the comments and views submitted by the Committee be noted and relayed to the Applicant.