Brooklands school to be replaced with care flats

joshua

Well-Known Forumite
Brooklands School, in Eccleshall Road, shut down in September 2013 after running into cash problems due to dwindling pupil numbers.
Now developer Adlington wants to demolish the buildings and build 51 apartments to care for those aged 65 and over.
The apartments would be self-contained but managed to provide care and would include eight one-bedroom, 11 two-bed, 24 two-bedrooom with ensuite bath/shower and eight three-bed with ensuites.
Stafford Borough Council's planning committee is set to give the go ahead to the plans on Wednesday.
But the application has sparked concerns, with neighbours fearing it will result in the loss of protected open space and a playing field. They say there is no need for development given other care home schemes at Stone Road and Lichfield Road.
There are also concerns about loss of historic buildings, inadequate public transport, excessive traffic, adverse impact on Doxey Marshes, inadequate parking and loss of privacy.
Stafford MP Jeremy Lefroy has also written to the borough council over residents' concerns about the size of the proposals, traffic, parking and impact on Doxey Marshes.
There are a number of protected trees on the site, which backs onto Doxey Marshes, so the developer is proposing to create a part two-storey and part three-storey building with open areas to the sides and rear and landscaped gardens.
The access would be from the southern entrance to the site, which would be widened and lead to 26 parking spaces on part of the former playground. The second northern access would be closed to vehicles.

In a report to the borough splanning officer Mark Alford said the existing buildings were not worthy of statutory listing and were "not special or unique". The new building would be five metres wider than the existing and it was not considered there would be harm to the street scene as much of the building would be sited westwards away from Eccleshall Road and would be stepped down.
Highways bosses have raised no objections as traffic generation "would be considerably reduced" compared to when the site was a school. They have also raised no objections to the number of parking spaces. Buffer planting would be done up to the Doxey Marshes boundary.
But the council is planning to negotiate compensation of around £80,000 for the loss of the playing field.


Read more: http://www.staffordshirenewsletter....tory-26567785-detail/story.html#ixzz3b9NJtAri
Follow us: @StaffsNews on Twitter | StaffordshireNewsletter on Facebook
 

John Marwood

I ♥ cryptic crosswords
Jeremy The Fry.. hahaha

Build it

Build it to last more than 50 years

It's Building Regs not Planning 'these people' need to interogate
 

PPPPPP

Well-Known Forumite
"... borough splanning officer Mark Alford said the existing buildings were not worthy of statutory listing and were "not special or unique". "

In that case maybe the splanning officer can provide a list of similar buildings? With his wisdom, he could also enlighten us how 26 parking spaces is OK when the regs require more than twice that?

Bank Holiday bumper brown envelope day:)
 

Steve_b

Well-Known Forumite
"... borough splanning officer Mark Alford said the existing buildings were not worthy of statutory listing and were "not special or unique".
His Opinion, but then is seems there has never been Any Building in Stafford worth Statutory Listings, oh aside the Accent High House
 

markpa12003

Well-Known Forumite
The objection from Sport England is odd, however that's not surprising for them.

"There's an objection from Sport England who consider the playing field is not surplus to requirement. If committee grants planning permission the application would first have to be referred to the secretary of state."

The playing fields served the needs of the pupils that no longer attend the school. I would be very surprised if the future occupants of the site / building have any need for the playing fields!

The playing fields are also in private ownership and, therefore, cannot be used by the general public.


Read more: http://www.staffordshirenewsletter.co.uk/Stafford-prep-school-demolition-plans-hold/story-26589821-detail/story.html#ixzz3bXkcydn1
Follow us: @StaffsNews on Twitter | StaffordshireNewsletter on Facebook
 

PPPPPP

Well-Known Forumite
The objection from Sport England is odd, however that's not surprising for them.

"There's an objection from Sport England who consider the playing field is not surplus to requirement. If committee grants planning permission the application would first have to be referred to the secretary of state."

The playing fields served the needs of the pupils that no longer attend the school. I would be very surprised if the future occupants of the site / building have any need for the playing fields!

The playing fields are also in private ownership and, therefore, cannot be used by the general public.


Read more: http://www.staffordshirenewsletter.co.uk/Stafford-prep-school-demolition-plans-hold/story-26589821-detail/story.html#ixzz3bXkcydn1
Follow us: @StaffsNews on Twitter | StaffordshireNewsletter on Facebook

The sports facilities were available for use by the public, apparently. And how do you know the future occupants have no need for playing fields? The proposal isn't for a nursing home. Some 80 year-olds can run marathons, you know!
 

markpa12003

Well-Known Forumite
It was my understanding that the proposal was for an elderly care home. Whilst I'm sure there are some active elderly people, I am not convinced many of the future occupants will require, or want, a playing field. I'm sure they would much prefer a landscaped garden area to enjoy. An 80 year old that can run a marathon is unlikely to be in a care home!

Sport England always object to the loss of playing fields irrespective of its condition, supply and demand or whether the public are actually allowed access to it. My problem with Sport England is that they tend to follow a 'tick box' exercise rather than actually consider the proposal before them. For example, I would argue that if permission is granted for an elderly care home there is NO need for the playing fields.

Personally I would prefer the buildings to remain and the sports facilities to be used by the community.
 
Last edited:

PPPPPP

Well-Known Forumite
Calling it apartments for the provision of care is a way of getting round the regs so the developer doesn't have to include affordable housing, or other profit-reducing measures. The application said it was for those aged 55 and over. Nearly ten years ago the same bunch got planning permission to build another one of these in Stone, but the site is still empty. See 06/07144/FUL and 08/10960/FUL on the council planning web.
 

kyoto49

Well-Known Forumite
The north end is slowely being turned in to one giant retirement village, what with all the old people's homes already on the Eccy Road, the new ones being built on the site of the old Pub/Indian Panache land, and the massive Alzheimers village also on the Stone Road. The good news is that they may be frequent library and Doctors surgery users so might lead to the keeping of those facilities - I hope!!!!
 

kyoto49

Well-Known Forumite
Good! Id rather have OAP's than the current chav/druggie/drunk population!

Sadly the OAP's seem to be replacing posh school kids, community projects and restaurants rather than the chav/druggie and drunk population but i agree with your sentiment as those types do seem rather over-represented locally. As soon as one gets sent down another younger relative replaces the little shite :(
 

markpa12003

Well-Known Forumite
In essence the apartments are an upgrade to the old sheltered housing schemes.

Ppppp your right assisted living apartments and care homes can be classed as affordable housing and some developers provide this housing to meet the affordable housing provision, however not many. In this case the applicant is not seeking to get around the affordable housing provision because 100% of the homes will be assisted living apartments, therefore, there is no requirement for affordable housing.

Out of interest did the applicant submit a housing need assessment? One should have been submitted in support of the application.
 
Top