Defending the Floodplain.

[Glam]

And turn an already expensive waste of money in to an even greater one? The only way to raise the level sufficiently would be to start again and use stilts.

NO!!! we've had enough of this ruddy road. Scrap it, let nature reclaim the land. Don't start it again thank you.

 

[Gramaisc]

And turn an already expensive waste of money in to an even greater one? The only way to raise the level sufficiently would be to start again and use stilts.

 

[proactive]

You can be assured that the civil engineers in charge of the project will be taking a long hard look at that and if plans weren't already in place to mitigate flooding beforehand, they will be doing something about it now. Not to do so would render them negligent. Expect a delay in the completion date.

 

[Glam]

You can be assured that the civil engineers in charge of the project will be taking a long hard look at that and if plans weren't already in place to mitigate flooding beforehand, they will be doing something about it now. Not to do so would render them negligent. Expect a delay in the completion date.

 

[Mudgie]

start again and use stilts.

Just imagine what Queensway would be like now if they hadn't used stilts when building it 45 years ago.

 

[kyoto49]

NO!!! we've had enough of this ruddy road. Scrap it, let nature reclaim the land. Don't start it again thank you.

Couldn't agree more! Currently it will be useful on sunny days. The rest of the time we can add it to Sandon Rd on the list of part time use roads!

 

[kyoto49]

And when ware the local rivers last dredged ?

How much extra water do you think the Sow would take even if dredged? The ever increasing floods indicate dredging would have negligible affect on flood levels. The marshes is dredged most years. Floods every winter. It's not a solution. Better management and joined up thinking of the whole flood plain is the only way to resolve this and no way can our council or wider organisations manage any of that, they are too clueless, and possibly more sinister things.

 

[markpa12003]

I have never understood why developers can get away with building shoddy shit houses with absolutely no requirement to fund proper improvement of infrastructure incl flood mitigation. With all the new houses currently being built in Stafford the planners should have enforced proper recreational spaces, football and rugby pitches etc, proper cycling infrastructure, segregated cycle paths, and proper flood mitigations in exchange for planning permission. Other towns seem to manage this.

They should do.

All developments should provide public open space, affordable housing and other infrastructure improvements (road improvements; funding for local schools / health facilities etc).

With regards to schools & medical facilities a developer is only required to fund improvements if the development causes capacity issues e.g local school has a capacity of 200 pupils but only 190 children on roll, therefore, it has 10 surplus places. If the development generates 20 pupils (based on a formula) the developer will need to pay for those 10 pupils that took the school over its existing capacity. In short, the development should have a nil impact.

The same principle applies for GP surgeries and dentists but unfortunately they don't request the money that they should!

All developments in flood 2 & 3 must be accompanied by a flood risk assessment. Any developments of 1ha in size in flood zone 1 is required to provide a flood risk assessment.

 

[markpa12003]

Ironically, we've actually lost a rugby field and green land due to houses and a retirement village being build in castlefields, ok I'm aware they've just technically moved the rugby club. But still, hardly fair on residents who liked the green area.

It's a shame new houses are getting smaller and smaller with no gardens.

I was listening to a programme yesterday that said having a garden now adds more value onto your property than it ever did .

There are minimum garden sizes and rooms which developers must comply with, which I think are too small.

The government should be pushing for better standard of new builds..

 

[markpa12003]

Well the new roads a disaster waiting to happen, who gave the go ahead thinking it was a good idea building a road through somewhere that always floods!!

View attachment 9830

I believe the road has been built to be 1m above existing flood levels. Based on the photo above it needs to be even higher.

 

[markpa12003]

And of course the government have told them they have to build X amount of houses in 10 years and lessened planning restrictions to ensure it...

All local planning authorities are required to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply. If they can't the housing supply policies are deemed to be out of depth, which in turn increases the likelihood of speculative developments being allowed because it severely limits the councils ability to say no.

 

[kyoto49]

They should do.

All developments should provide public open space, affordable housing and other infrastructure improvements (road improvements; funding for local schools / health facilities etc).

With regards to schools & medical facilities a developer is only required to fund improvements if the development causes capacity issues e.g local school has a capacity of 200 pupils but only 190 children on roll, therefore, it has 10 surplus places. If the development generates 20 pupils (based on a formula) the developer will need to pay for those 10 pupils that took the school over its existing capacity. In short, the development should have a nil impact.

The same principle applies for GP surgeries and dentists but unfortunately they don't request the money that they should!

All developments in flood 2 & 3 must be accompanied by a flood risk assessment. Any developments of 1ha in size in flood zone 1 is required to provide a flood risk assessment.

Can anyone name a housing development in Stafford in the past 20 years that has provided proper green space, not a token swing or kids playpark, but proper sporting facilities? Football and rugby pitches, fields and open space for runners, walkers, space for dog walkers? Nope nor me. Developers do the bare minimum and this council let's them

 

[markpa12003]

Can anyone name a housing development in Stafford in the past 20 years that has provided proper green space, not a token swing or kids playpark, but proper sporting facilities? Football and rugby pitches, fields and open space for runners, walkers, space for dog walkers? Nope nor me. Developers do the bare minimum and this council let's them

Developers do the bare minimum based on the playing field standards. Sadly a developer won't do more than they are required too unless it will get them planning consent.

Notwithstanding the above, Redrow have recently built a very good skate park on the Tixall Road which seems to be very popular by everyone apart from a small number of residents.

 

[c0tt0nt0p]

They should do.

All developments should provide public open space, affordable housing and other infrastructure improvements (road improvements; funding for local schools / health facilities etc).

With regards to schools & medical facilities a developer is only required to fund improvements if the development causes capacity issues e.g local school has a capacity of 200 pupils but only 190 children on roll, therefore, it has 10 surplus places. If the development generates 20 pupils (based on a formula) the developer will need to pay for those 10 pupils that took the school over its existing capacity. In short, the development should have a nil impact.

The same principle applies for GP surgeries and dentists but unfortunately they don't request the money that they should!

All developments in flood 2 & 3 must be accompanied by a flood risk assessment. Any developments of 1ha in size in flood zone 1 is required to provide a flood risk assessment.

The local primary schools near to the st leonards and the soon to be developed Ranshaw Drive area are all over subscribed already. Adding 700-800 houses will only make to situation worse.

 

[Lucy]

It isn't just a Stafford problem, it's an England problem.

 

[kyoto49]

It isn't just a Stafford problem, it's an England problem.

True. But some areas do a better job of preventing this race to the bottom

 

[Mudgie]

There are minimum garden sizes and rooms which developers must comply with, which I think are too small.

in 1967 Parker Morris Standards of 'space in the home' became mandatory for all housing built in new towns and was extended to all council housing in 1969. Thatcher ended the mandatory nature of the standards with the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.
I thought those standards also applied to private housing but maybe not.

 

[Tumble weed]

Say in ten years time part of the new road becomes permanently under water for at least half the year, what's the plan then ? Itd be a pointless road then wouldn't it ?

 

[The Notorious A.N.T.]

Took these photos the other night when the Sow was 'up'. Will probably be the same in a few days when the snow melts.

 

[Tumble weed]

Can anyone name a housing development in Stafford in the past 20 years that has provided proper green space, not a token swing or kids playpark, but proper sporting facilities? Football and rugby pitches, fields and open space for runners, walkers, space for dog walkers? Nope nor me. Developers do the bare minimum and this council let's them

Castle House Gardens up Montville Drive did a fair job, had a large field at the top for the kids to kick a ball round on, and some green areas at the base , facing Newport Road.
That was probably the last real development, that and Castle Fields around 1990.

It's probably only a matter of time before the council sell off those green areas though, especially if they consider them to be under used, considering its mainly just elderly residents occupying the estate now.