Planning in Stafford good or bad ?

[ATJ]

Of course, when the county council does want to build a new link road, its the end of days...

 

[Gareth]

How do we know, when was the last time that occurred when it wasn't part of a new housing area

 

[ATJ]

How do we know, when was the last time that occurred when it wasn't part of a new housing area

I think you meant to say 'when was the last time that occurred where it wasn't part of a vast conspiracy to flood Stafford, destroy habitat, help lord Stafford and botch the design so badly that even an untrained person on the street in a tinfoil hat can see it's just wrong'

 

[gilesjuk]

Gilesjuk, don't ever work in planning. ..pppllleeeeaaassseee !!!

Why? all I said was on that side of town (Baswich) to get to the M6 is a right pain, meaning you have to drive down a country lane not planned for such traffic. It would help immensely if there was a new road that would avoid the need to use that road.

As for West Way. I realise it is traffic calming, but it is currently the only link between Wolverhampton Road/Rising Brook and Newport Road. I quite often need to get from Newport Road to Baswich after going to the RM sorting office and the choice is an awful trip through town or the West way route and wear out my suspension and brakes.

I said there should be an alternate road, no houses on it and therefore no need for traffic calming (which is obviously due to all the kids racing their unlicenced and uninsured cars on that road).

 

[gilesjuk]

The speed bumps were added to stop it being used as a rat run. Acton Hill Road is a country lane not a link road.

A rat run which makes a lot of sense. Most well planned towns have a ring road system to avoid the need to enter the congested centre of a town.

 

[1JKz]

With the Town becoming bigger , houses being built left right and centre , is our borough council doing its job ? Developers Developing saying the need is xyz a huge car park and a ready facility smack bang in Stafford shiny and good to go but still empty any others you agree disagree on ? This post can apply to both Borough and County !

I've said it on here before and i'll say it again (in a grumpy old* man tone) that all development should cease immediately.

Some taking stock and take heed is needed before what we have; becomes what we don't want.

Too many examples of chasing tails is on show and it stinks. All's ya have to do is look at other towns/cities to see what can happen to lovely smaller places that think becoming bigger, is the better way to go.

#shame

*which i'm not!

 

[Yalla]

In my experience the Planning dept at SBC is all for the developers - local residents are consistently ignored. Many people raise valid issues that are frequently glossed over by the Planning Officer. The Highways Dept usually allow most things through even though the infrastructure will not cope well with traffic from new sites. I know that larger sites usually have costs for highway improvements but many small and medium sites appear to get away with building houses without contributions to the local area for infrastructure improvements.

 

[The truth the whole truth]

You also have to realise the investment this brings, as many town and cities (I.e. Stoke) are not getting anything.

The investment brings jobs and security and money into the local economy. ...people tend to forget that.

if such plans and investment were not forthcoming we would certainly be moaning our councils have no plan.

Most people are clued up and like will like a good moan when councils don't get it right, but I also like to give credit where it is due

I would say that the reasons for so much development in our town is down to our Borough and County not doing a proper job , buckling at meetings which I have seen quite many "how much will it cost the council if we don't approve " riding roughshod has been quoted so many times ? I would personally congratulate the councils if they worked together and achieving the correct balance for the Town , going back to the Morrisons development surely guaranties of tenancy when works was completed were attained by the developer ? If not then why not , in the climate we are in and with so many supermarkets in the Town , the development should NOT have gone ahead , The Town is crying out for Car Parking , so why the Car Park not in use , a weak Council , leadership and again not looking at the bigger picture of needs and Balance for the Town . It's not about grabbing the first offer , the Town , The towns economy are suffering .

 

[proactive]

 

[Withnail]

Why do people bother on here , never any sensible comments , always go off esesubject...

One might just as easily ask why anyone would bother to reply to such a lazily constructed question as -

...Developers Developing saying the need is xyz a huge car park and a ready facility smack bang in Stafford shiny and good to go but still empty any others you agree disagree on ?

- which is barely legible.

Having said that, there are two current planning approvals that i would take issue with - one that defies belief, and another that has taken an unusual turn.

The Rugby Club approval is notably wrong, and has so many flaws that it is difficult to believe it has been authorised in any other way than plain old corruption.

The Golf Club has been something of a saga, and despite the intervention of a nationwide regulatory body, has been given the green light to apparently keep on piling up the shit forever - it was recently relieved of the encumbrance of having to work to any kind of 'deadline' to its shit-piling activities.

Without wishing to waste too much good tin foil on a hat that i otherwise might use to keep my bowstring dry, it is worth noting, in passing at least, that both of these developments are connected to a certain Peer of the Realm.It is probably entirely coincidental.

 

[HopesDad]

Stoke on Trent whatever....why do you think the county got rid of them. You really need to spend time in Stoke to realise what disarray they are in, well the council is anyway. Not even a worthwhile housing plan.

Anyway, bar the previous response all posts on here have been valid.

personally I think it is ok. Not really should I entirely agree with the requirement of the number of houses...but this is also not scc or sbc stipulation either.

I think those that have been are right and those not passed also right....for the most part.

investment is also coming to the town. We have new shopping developments, Redhill is taking off, Beacon Barracks has been as success, the extension and investment continues near the uni and the Chinese investors will soon be taking over control of the uni.

Station has been done up internally and are fantastic Victoria Park is about to get an enhanced makeover.

The western access has been needed for a long time.

there is always more that can be done

But little of this has been PLANNED by the council, most of it has happened due to other factors - railway station is a private space nothing to do with the council, beacon barracks is consequent to the RAF moving out - nothing to do with the council. The Chinese investors bought the uni because the uni moved out - nothing to do with the council (although the reason given by the uni was that Stafford was so grotty the students hated it and wouldn't come, so due to the council in a way). Number of new houses is a government directive, not planned by the council.

So in answer to the question 'council planning, good or bad', the answer would seem to be 'what planning?'

 

[Gareth]

Well planning matters were involved in all those aspects you mentioned.

even with the uni the SBC and Lefroy pushed on what Staffs Uni intention was and were instrumental in ensuring Stafford site would continue as an education establishment which Staffs Uni did not due to local competition. So it is never as clear as black and white as you think.

with morrisons, there were assurances but the benefactor of Morrisons opting out were the developer and that the way it should as the agreements are between those parties. SBC while involved in the process but did not invest. The council will benefit with the rates from that site.

you also ignore the work done to get the work done at the RAF and the work that is always done to attract INVESTMENT into the town. Let alone I understand played a significant part in securing extended land for that site

 

[Gareth]

I think most have the same view on the rugby club but at the end of the day this was open to challenge and has been passed at the highest level.

that is the problem I sympathise with for planning councils, open to challenge from both sides (as they should) but it is the government's influence that regulations favour development not local councils.

a fine example would be the golf course. SBC intervened based on residents complaints that muck spreading was outside of the planning conditions. So SBC acting in the interests of resident concerns.

However, a government inspector overruled SBC saying that cannot influence the time parameter, hence why the developer is continuing. So local council planners are damned if they do damned if they dont.

 

[Gareth]

I also agree with a previous poster. The town to be careful and if there is one thing that ruins a town is actually a number of road networks.

who wants lengthy 6 and 4 lane dual carriageways as in stoke and newcastle under lyme. Who wants the whole town outskirts surrounded by a giant ring road.

Stafford's road main are old as in the town which is small by nature. That is part of its beauty and something we have to deal with.

to be fair, bar roadworks and M6 issues Stafford's road system is mostly fine and no worse than elsewhere. People have to expect issues at peak times, it is how it is in this country.

If Londoners can deal with it tiny and thin Roman roads in the city centre, I am sure Stafford can cope

 

[1JKz]

I would say that the reasons for so much development in our town is down to our Borough and County not doing a proper job , buckling at meetings which I have seen quite many "how much will it cost the council if we don't approve " riding roughshod has been quoted so many times ? I would personally congratulate the councils if they worked together and achieving the correct balance for the Town , going back to the Morrisons development surely guaranties of tenancy when works was completed were attained by the developer ? If not then why not , in the climate we are in and with so many supermarkets in the Town , the development should NOT have gone ahead , The Town is crying out for Car Parking , so why the Car Park not in use , a weak Council , leadership and again not looking at the bigger picture of needs and Balance for the Town . It's not about grabbing the first offer , the Town , The towns economy are suffering .

Those trees, oh the poor trees!
Lovely great specimens they were, all stood tall in a row for our eyes to see.

Now look what we have.

Whatever's said, the council is paid for by us (not through choice, granted), if we give them a war to fight on our behalf (with us as soilders), then that's what they should do, for the benefit of this great town of mine/yours/ours.

Private investmenters/development or not, they should have a jolly good say (shout if they have to, throw a punch if needed) in the matter and get stuff stopped.

Soddin'ells jingle bells.

 

[kyoto49]

Stafford roads are nightmare. They keep adding more lights, roundabouts and don't add more roads. There seems to be a never ending amount of water, electric and phone upgrades, construction traffic etc.

Here's a few ideas. The lane from A34 to Wolverhampton road (Acton Hill Road) needs widening or a new road building.

A link road between Newport Road and Wolverhampton Road that isn't covered in speed bumps.

You realise that there are people and kids and pets and cyclist that have to navigate these roads? The speed bumps are there to protect life by slowing traffic. You seem to think that getting from point a to point b at all costs is the only thing that matters.

How do you propose they build your much desired super fast highway across from the highly built up Newport Rd, to the highly built up Wolverhampton Road? Demolish swathes of homes and spend millions of pounds just to speed your journey up by 5 minutes or so?? Or should we jsut allow selfish motorists to tear up and down West Way putting the lives of all who live their at risk every day?

 

[kyoto49]

In answer to the OP, I think the Council planning do an appalling job, there main motivation with regard to town planning appears not to be quality of life, but to make money and take backhanders, allegedly*! Few examples:

Close and demolish a large, popular, if outdated sports centre in the town centre to grab the land, and replace it with a tiny tin shed on a tiny spit of land outside the town centre, which has significantly less facilities than the old centre had when built 40 years earlier, despite the population of Stafford having doubled. 4 squash courts became 2, we lost the diving pool, we lost sportshall suitable for 5 aside etc, Generations of kids used Riverside every holiday for sports activities and swimming. I think the fact that the new centre has the word 'leisure' in it's title says it all, no sports, just leisure, and very few kids attending.

The case of the downsizing and land grab in regard to the leisure centre sums up everything wrong with this rotten council planning. It's all about money and the making of for big business, not about making a wonderful town for the residents to enjoy.

We have no joined up transport network, no bus station, no genuine desire to reduce traffic by providing consistant alternatives to car usage. Yes, I know they built the bridge to nowhere, but where's the joined up thinking? Tixal Road is a death trap for cyclists.

Green space and trees are seen as a pain in the ar*e and need eliminating as soon as possible

Sports facilities are only provided to certain groups with influence, screw you if you aren't the Head of Leisure!

The state of our lovely Library reflects the ineptitude and corruption in our council. Take a wonderful Victorian Library, fail to maintain it for years and then say we need to move the library to justify the use of another building. Spend millions creating a new library, which then isn't good enough becuase we need to move the library again to justify the new white elephant that they have built. All the money spent on library moving in the past few years could have been spent on keeping and maintaining the perfectly good library that we had.

This (lack of) planning is a disgrace!

 

[Sk84goal]

Look at the speed the water rose in the two flash storms!! If the floodplain had already been loaded we would be having a different discussion about Stafford today. Flooding is an economic disaster for any town! We must protect and enhance the floodplains. That should be the planners primary goal.

 

[markpa12003]

I assume this post relates to planning generally rather than the planning department given that the planners have little do with most of things that is being suggested on this post.

Town planners have two distinctive roles; planning policy - prepare a local plan which complies with national policy and provides the required number of houses and employment; and secondly, make recommendations on planing applications which are then determined by councillors.

 

[Gareth]

fair points to be honest Kyoto with the exception of the library.

I not over concerned with the library and its location. How long do 'we' keep footing the bill for libraries when fee people use them as they once did, yet we cannot support vulnerable people.

What the council do with the Shirehall itself is of more concern as this building must 200 be years old yet the library was there for 15/20 yrs ??

it doesn't matter if it is the library or not, so long as it is productive and a reflection of the building itself.