Planning in Stafford good or bad ?

kyoto49

kyoto49

Well-Known Forumite
Gareth said:
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.
Click to expand...


You want to save the Shire Hall cos it's old but not this beauty? We need libraries, every civilised society has them!

http://www.victoriansociety.org.uk/news/stafford-old-library-on-endangered-buildings-list/
 
G

Gareth

Well-Known Forumite
Yes we need libraries, never said otherwise.

bur times have and people..yes that is US are not using them like we did I hate to say.

with government cuts I have no issue with down sizing them which in this county and in most of country this has happened.

with regards to the green, its ok but the back end or mid section if you include the church is shabby and ugly.

this building doesn't compare to the shirehall, let alone the green is not owned by any council I think
 
A

alphagamma

Well-Known Forumite
markpa12003 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Planners don't have much to do with planning? True in Staffs maybe, but in other places they follow all the rules and guidance and make justifiable, informed decisions. Seems pretty simple
 
G

Gareth

Well-Known Forumite
Think you need to expand your beyond Stafford then if that's what you think Pppppp.

Can I ask as you seem to hold such an issue with Stafford planners, you aren't a former Stafford planner who was worse than what we already have and laid off by chance ; )
 
M

markpa12003

Well-Known Forumite
alphagamma said:
Planners don't have much to do with planning? True in Staffs maybe, but in other places they follow all the rules and guidance and make justifiable, informed decisions. Seems pretty simple
Click to expand...

You've failed to understand my post.

The planning department are not to blame for the programming of road works; the closure of the shire hall; the relocation of the library; vacant units and houses; the failure of morrissons to honour their lease; the continual closure of North Walls car park; parking charges; business rates etc etc.

By all means blame the planning department and the councillors that determine planning applications for approving s*it schemes but they are not accountable for most of the poor/ short sighted planning (in general terms) that has been undertaken by the cc and bc. Blame should be directed towards the chief executives and the councillors that should be accountable to the electorate.
 
proactive

proactive

Enjoying a drop of red.
markpa12003 said:
You've failed to understand my post.

The planning department are not to blame for the programming of road works; the closure of the shire hall; the relocation of the library; vacant units and houses; the failure of morrissons to honour their lease; the continual closure of North Walls car park; parking charges; business rates etc etc.

By all means blame the planning department and the councillors that determine planning applications for approving s*it schemes but they are not accountable for most of the poor/ short sighted planning (in general terms) that has been undertaken by the cc and bc. Blame should be directed towards the chief executives and the councillors that should be accountable to the electorate.
Click to expand...
Oh FFS, don't bring facts into this...
 
Withnail

Withnail

Well-Known Forumite
The truth the whole truth said:
Planning should be about the need , not the greed !
Click to expand...
Wasn't there an instance a few years ago when planning for housing up Moss Pit way, exactly because the 'plan for Stafford', or whatever it's called, had already identified the 'need' and, it being satisfied by existing provision, was refused for just this reason?

Sorry for such a tortuous sentence. I have re-read it a few times and i think it sort of makes sense, but at least the boot is on the other shoe.
 
Lucy

Lucy

Well-Known Forumite
And that's exactly how it should work. I spent an evening talking to the planner recently as we were being consulted about proposed changes to the conservation area. A council needs 5 years worth of land available, and if that is available, other permission, even for single dwellings, should be turned down. Apparently Stafford has 7 years.
 
M

markpa12003

Well-Known Forumite
Councils are required to maintain a minimum of 5 years housing land supply. However as soon as sbc could demonstrate 5 years they started refusing schemes, which they are in a better position to do (and fight) because they've got a 5 year hls.

There is also a presumption in favour of sustainable developments. Housing developments are considered to be sustainable.

The Moss Pit scheme, as well as others, were refused because sbc had just adopted the LP which allocated sufficient houses to meet its needs.

I'm not convinced sbc has a 7 year hls, at best I would say it's in the region of 5 years. I believe that because a number of strategic sites have not yet started or are not delivering the number of houses per annum as predicted.
Housebuilders are monitoring the situation.
 
A

alphagamma

Well-Known Forumite
The meaning of 'sustainable' is still a mystery to me, even if it's crystal clear to the council.

What is Sustainable Development

Sustainable development has been defined in many ways, but the most frequently quoted definition is from Our Common Future, also known as the Brundtland Report:


"Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."

This can only be achieved by designing policies and delivery arrangements which create a balance between economic, social and environmental concerns.


Achieving sustainability means:


  • The needs of everyone in the community are met and people feel safe, healthy and ultimately happy.
  • Our environment is appreciated, protected and enhanced and damage to the environment is avoided.
  • Our economy is vibrant, employment opportunities are improved and our working lives are more rewarding.

There have been some key milestone conferences and events that trace the course of sustainable development, which are summarised in the 'From Rio to Rickerscote: the global perspective' section.
 
M

markpa12003

Well-Known Forumite
alphagamma said:
The meaning of 'sustainable' is still a mystery to me, even if it's crystal clear to the council.

What is Sustainable Development

Sustainable development has been defined in many ways, but the most frequently quoted definition is from Our Common Future, also known as the Brundtland Report:


"Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."

This can only be achieved by designing policies and delivery arrangements which create a balance between economic, social and environmental concerns.


Achieving sustainability means:


  • The needs of everyone in the community are met and people feel safe, healthy and ultimately happy.
  • Our environment is appreciated, protected and enhanced and damage to the environment is avoided.
  • Our economy is vibrant, employment opportunities are improved and our working lives are more rewarding.

There have been some key milestone conferences and events that trace the course of sustainable development, which are summarised in the 'From Rio to Rickerscote: the global perspective' section.
Click to expand...

Sustainable development is defined in paragraph 7 of the national planning policy framework.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATJ
proactive

proactive

Enjoying a drop of red.
alphagamma said:
Can you say where, exactly?
Click to expand...
Here you go...

7. There are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and
environmental. These dimensions give rise to the need for the planning
system to perform a number of roles:
● an economic role – contributing to building a strong, responsive and
competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is
available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and
innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development
requirements, including the provision of infrastructure;
● a social role – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by
providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and
future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with
accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its
health, social and cultural well-being; and
● an environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our
natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to
improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and
pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to
a low carbon economy.
Click to expand...
 
A

alphagamma

Well-Known Forumite
Ah, but it's not that simple, even if you never leave England.

The policies in paragraphs 18 to 219, taken as a whole, constitute the Government’s view of what sustainable development in England means in practice for the planning system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top