ex-EE/GEC/Alstom/GE Main Works Development.

M

markpa12003

Well-Known Forumite
I'm not sure what planning grounds the application could be refused on, so im not surprised the developer threatened to appeal.
 
c0tt0nt0p

c0tt0nt0p

Well-Known Forumite
markpa12003 said:
I'm not sure what planning grounds the application could be refused on, so im not surprised the developer threatened to appeal.
Click to expand...
... Generally I think it was due to over-intensification of the site....
Lack of funding in the 106 agreement for health services, a community centre and secondary school places.
Highway issues.

As the councillor said to us, they could then have come back with a revised plan which would have been better for the community.....
 
M

markpa12003

Well-Known Forumite
c0tt0nt0p said:
... Generally I think it was due to over-intensification of the site....
Lack of funding in the 106 agreement for health services, a community centre and secondary school places.
Highway issues.

As the councillor said to us, they could then have come back with a revised plan which would have been better for the community.....
Click to expand...

An over intensification of the site will be dependent on the proposed density of the scheme, as well as ensuring space about dwelling standards are met and an adequate size / standard of Public Open Space is provided.

Most developers stick rigidly to the standards by providing the minimum standards required, so to refuse it on those grounds would be very weak. Plus if that was a (proper) reason for refusal I would have expected the developer during the determination period to reduce the number of units based on the advice of planning officers or in response to any comments made by councillors.

S106 contributions are based on a calculation formula and must meet the 5 tests - necessary, relevant etc etc. S106 contributions are requested by the local planning authority and they should only be requested to mitigate the impacts of the development or to meet policy requirements e.g. funding towards school places (if required / justified) or providing affordable housing, public art etc.

In terms of secondary school places, a contribution can only be requested if the development will generate demand that will exceed the schools current capacity and this can be justified e.g if the development generates 40 secondary school aged pupils and local secondary school has capacity for only 20 pupils, the developer will be required to pay for the 20 pupils that takes the school over its 'existing' capacity. How much is paid for each pupil is determined by a set formula and a price per child, which is set by council. I have no idea what the local school provision is so I can't provide any comment on this particular application, however i've had a lot of experience of negotiating s106 contributions for developers and councils and I know scc education department tend to request contributions when they can not be justified.

Contributions towards medical provision (dentists / GPS etc) is currently not done often enough because they are often run by trusts or privately owned and they aren't geared up to request contributions from developments, so it's really up to the LPA to do it for them but they rarely do. In determining whether a contribution is required for the aforementioned, developers will typically simply go on 'nhs online' and see whether the local practices have capacity & taking on new patients to refute any request for a contribution and again its based on a set formula. Under the current (poor system) developers do get away with paying nothing or very little towards dentists and GPS which is a national problem that needs to be rectified.

A contribution towards a new or existing community centre would need to meet the tests referred to above. Developers are not able to offer sweetners or be seen to 'buying a consent', hence the need for 5 tests to be strictly adhered to.

Highways - a development can only be refused on highway grounds if it will cause 'significant impact that cannot be mitigated against'. In assessing the Highway impact, Scc and the developers transport planners will assess the proposed scheme against the sites current use / approved use to identify how many additional trips the proposed scheme will generate against the current baseline. The Transport Assessment will also take into account existing developments within the area. As a result of policy changes at a national level (see the nppf) its now very difficult for the council to defend a refusal on highway grounds.

With regards to the councillors comments regarding a better scheme, the scheme is 'often' developed in discussions with the council officers (highways, planners etc) and designed to accord with planning policy, so if its recommended for approval by officers its "job done' for a developer. If the planning committee refuse a scheme against an officer recommendation it is often very easy to win the appeal. Unfortunately, too many councillors play to the public gallery and will find reasons to refuse a scheme when often none exist or for very weak reasons which can't be defended at appeal.

I know some authorities now appoint planning agents to defend appeals where members have gone against an officer recommendation and, in some instances, have made councillors go on the stand to defend their decisions, which (I'm afraid) is often embarrassing and comical because too many councillors don't have good enough grasp of the planning system.
 
M

markpa12003

Well-Known Forumite
Studio Tan said:
. . . so basically the only option for objectors is to lie down in front of the bulldozers (?)
Click to expand...

No, but any objection needs to be based on planning grounds that can be defended at appeal.

For schemes like this one there is a presumption in favour of development and therefore the likelihood of it being refused is slim.

If we want better developments, which we do, it starts with the local plan. The local plan sets out the policies that all developments must comply with. Unfortunately, the planning policies are all fairly generic and don't really push up standards.

Trying to refuse a scheme that accords with a local plan (and national planning policy) is very difficult.
 
Studio Tan

Studio Tan

Well-Known Forumite
“The houses are coming ! The houses are coming !”
Noticed evidence of work going on in the past week. They seem to be laying tarmac near the main gate. Rather than lying down in front of the bulldozers, when they weren’t looking I threw a crested newt over the fence (tee hee !)
 
c0tt0nt0p

c0tt0nt0p

Well-Known Forumite
Studio Tan said:
“The houses are coming ! The houses are coming !”
Noticed evidence of work going on in the past week. They seem to be laying tarmac near the main gate. Rather than lying down in front of the bulldozers, when they weren’t looking I threw a crested newt over the fence (tee hee !)
Click to expand...
They are laying a gas main....I know this because they started on Ranshaw drive and have been working along, adjacent to the retail park yard for the last month or so....
 
gilbert grape

gilbert grape

Well-Known Forumite
I notice it’s been given the grand title of Victoria Gate!
I think everybody left in the existing GE buildings will be sick of the sound of piling and smell of dust in a few months!
 
GNM67

GNM67

Well-Known Forumite
Bellway has bought land for a new development of 358 homes in Stafford.

The 30-acre site off Lichfield Road, previously occupied by the General Electric factory and to be known as Victoria Gate, already has outline planning permission which was granted in October 2021.

The former factory and its associated buildings were demolished and cleared from the site early last year. Bellway has submitted a reserved matters application to Stafford Borough Council and are hopeful to secure approval by the end of the year.

If Bellway’s plans are approved, construction work could begin on the site later this year, with the first homes expected to go on sale in March next year.

Bellway’s proposals will include a mix of two-, three- and four-bedroom properties, comprising 323 homes for private sale and 35 affordable homes for low-cost rent or shared ownership.

https://www.thebusinessdesk.com/wes...housebuilder-reveals-major-scheme-in-stafford
 
Theresa Green

Theresa Green

Well-Known Forumite
gilbert grape said:
I notice it’s been given the grand title of Victoria Gate!
I think everybody left in the existing GE buildings will be sick of the sound of piling and smell of dust in a few months!
Click to expand...
Victoria Sponge Cake

Chairman of the residents association Mr Morris Traveller ( Estate )
 
tek-monkey

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
kyoto49 said:
Another grim cheap shit estate with no green space or infrastructure and identikit over priced boxes . I despair :(
Click to expand...
No doubt another estate where a 2 bed semi costs 10x the average wage, due to its convenient location within the gridlock. Is all traffic being dumped to the Wolverhampton road?
 
tek-monkey

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
Wormella said:
No, Lichfield rd
Click to expand...
Oh! So whats the plan, yet more traffic lights or let them die of starvation in their cars trying to get out?

EDIT: Or onto Ranshaw drive and make the junction at the vets even more terrible? Already backs up to the roundabout blocking KFC regularly, and have got caught in jams trying to leave B&Q car park on several occasions, what can possibly go wrong!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top