Time has been called on this old alleyway (as you can tell by the ominous white planning proposals pinned to the side), as it looks like the derelict plot where the Floral Arms pub used to stand is finally going to be redeveloped. This blog has mentioned the importance of shortcuts and alleyways before, so it’s a shame to see this one go-- as shown by the picture it’s actually quite a well-trodden shortcut, with no fewer than six people walking up and down it in the half-minute or so friendly-bombs took to get this shot. The notice gives a time period for objections to be made, but since when have local objections made a difference to the Council?

 

 

PS If anyone’s wondering what the story is with the derelict area where the Floral Arms and Nationwide building society branch used to stand, the plan is to build a four storey mixed use building with financial/retail units on the bottoms and flats on top. (there was no room in the brief for one of Slough’s original Victorian pubs, so the Floral Arms came down). The planning brief is from 2008, so why exactly it has taken so long to get things moving is unclear-- surely they’re not sitting on prime town-centre land merely waiting for property prices to rise?

 

 

PPS: Local legend has it the Floral got its name after a visit to the High Street by Queen Victoria, who was looking to buy some flowers and later approved the addition of a flower stall in front of the building. The pub itself was opened in the 1880s, and the stall survived into recent memory as a fruit’n’veg stand. The pub was demolished around 2006, much to the consternation of local drinkers as it had a late license and was often the only option after 11pm for those seeking further inebriation.

 

 

Regeneration in Chalvey

 

The wheels of regeneration have finally started to turn on this plot in East Chalvey, previously occupied by a derelict petrol station (see this post). The plot is predictably and reasonably destined for residential use, but as usual the new rules of redevelopment have turned what should be a simple matter into another forehead-rubbing cause for concern.

 

The plot is of a middling size, and would probably be best suited to a half-dozen or so decently-sized family homes with gardens, but the plan goes much further, with the planning proposal demanding two 3-bed homes plus no fewer than 24 1-bed flats in a 4/5 storey building (the brief says four storeys and a mansard level, which is a sly way of saying, er, five storeys). Parking for 16 cars plus bike storage for 24 bikes is also promised.

 

This penchant for packing lots of people together in tight proximity to neighbouring housing is a feature of the modern style of (over)development. Just a couple of hundred yards around the corner is the stretch of Windsor Road that Slough Borough Council wish to redevelop with three consecutive blocks of flats up to six storeys high, and a few doors up is the massive, looming Aspects Court, one of the first mountain-blocks to be built in Slough and the trendsetter for development in the area- that’s a lot of people and traffic to be adding in a short space of time. As usual, the concerns of the neighbours falls on indifferent ears; certainly some of those living nearby will lose sunlight and privacy in their gardens.

 

The planning brief is predictably sly. It says that a previous bid to build 38 flats on the site was refused partly because it didn’t include enough family homes, and “given the location of the site, outside of Slough Town Centre, new residential development should predominantly consist of family housing”. The accepted plan offers a grand total of, er, two family homes and still has lots of flats (see Planning Permission Tricks #1: Door in the Face Technique”).

 

The main justification it gives for squeezing in a load of flats on this plot is that there are other blocks of flats around, so another one won’t make any difference: “…there are numerous examples of more intensive developments including those for flats in the locality which indicate the transitional and evolving character of the area”, it says, citing the hulking Aspects Court as an example. Somewhat dubiously it also lists the 3-storey Alexandra Plaza shopping arcade some 300 metres down the road as an example, and also a modest residential block on The Crescent street nearby that it describes as having four storeys, but for the life of me I can only count three.

 

“Given the on-going adverse impact on the street scene arising from the existing condition of the site, it is considered that the design and impact on the street scene of the proposal would constitute an enhancement and on this basis would be acceptable”, it says at one point, meaning that because the site is currently derelict their development will be clearly preferable. But this is specious reasoning, as pretty much any development would appear better than a rotting petrol station; it’s a good argument for regeneration, but it in no way justifies the current plan of cramming in two houses and 24 flats. 

 

The importance of blocking and amending insensitive developments therefore becomes clear: give ‘em an inch and they’ll clearly take a yard, with each new developer pointing at the previous development as justification for their own plans. Because it has been allowed once, they argue, it should be allowed over and over again, but this is how areas get ruined, with each development thinking only for itself and not for the area as a whole. And if dubious arguments can be passed off successfully in planning proposals, one wonders why we even have them in the first place.