Stafford Borough Council has added a new page to the Westbridge Park section of its website to respond to frequently asked questions during the current consultation on its redevelopment plans.
You can see the page HERE and the council says it will be updated over the course of the consultation, which ends on 2nd March.
Some noteworthy new information is included:
The council says it would like to organise a ‘liaison group’ of interested people – including a representative from each of the town’s event committees – to work with the council on the detailed plans for Westbridge Park
Many of you have asked about service roads to the proposed supermarket and general transport issues. The council says: “The layout, servicing, access and transport improvements would form part of a planning application. Residents would be consulted regarding this detail and planning permission would not be granted if safe access servicing and road capacities are not proven.”
Some extra information is given about the timescales of the consultation and what happens next – “The last consultation event will be held on the 2 March and following that event, a report will be drafted for the Borough Council detailing the responses. The feedback will be reviewed and a decision will be taken as to whether to progress with more detail regarding the proposals or if further consultation is required to clarify any of the issues raised.”
Click HERE to take part in the consultation on the borough council website
Click HERE to see the borough council’s plan for Westbridge Park
See all of A Little Bit of Stone’s Westbridge Park coverage HERE
Here are the consultation events that will be taking place at the end of February / early March:
- Wednesday 27th February at Eccleshall Community Centre, Shaws Lane, ST21 6AU between 11am and 2pm
- Wednesday 27th February at Barlaston Methodist Church, Park Drive, ST12 9DP from 4.30pm until 7.30pm
- Thursday 28th February at Christ Church Centre, Christ Church Way, Stone, ST15 8ZB between 4pm and 8pm
- Saturday 2nd March at Alleyne’s High School, Oulton Road, Stone, ST15 8DT from 10.30am until 2.30pm.
Why events in Eccleshall and Barlaston? The council says in its new FAQ section: “Villages to the north of the Borough use the leisure facilities in Stone therefore it is only fair that residents living there are aware of the consultation.”
28 comments
Keep Westbridge Park Green
KWPG appointed Peter Weatherhead as planning advisor on 28th Jan 2012. Peter Weatherhead is a Planning consultant with over 40 years experience and has acted as an expert witness in over 200 planning appeals. Peter was until recently head of Planning at Global property advisor DTZ, and based in their London Office. Additionally, as well as his RTPI status Peter is a Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (FRICS). Peter now has his own planning consultancy Peter Weatherhead Planning. Please note Peter was appointed before our leaflets and press release went out.
jay wren
Would it not be possible to have some kind of cast iron clause/pledge created that would protect a definite set amount of ‘green’ to be left untouched. I for one would be more reassured by that than just saying mixed use includes includes non built on areas. It all seems a bit vague at the moment.
Timothy
Yes agreed, it is vague and the debate is whether this is an oversight or an intention in order to provide more leeway as to future use. There are 2 areas that could be adressed: mixed use should be defined as it is on all other plans I have seen (ie either leisure or leisure and commercial or retail or xxx); and the area of the Park to remain protected open space should be clearly defined. The question is: why has this not been done so we can make a sensible assessment?
Andy Osgathorpe
-Interesting to read comments on here some of which are a little
strong; perhaps too strong? I think we have to except that incomplete
information and indeed a different interpretation of information is inevitable
in this debate and it’s important that this is discussed in an appropriate
manner. What we need is an informed debate with helpful contributions from all
sides because no matter what people’s viewpoints are, we all have the interests
of the community as heart.
mark
Andy, I agree with you. However, I would have preferred if information wasn’t circulated until everyone was aware of the facts. This would have saved us from confusion and in some cases undue worry and upset.
Dave
Great post Andy
Jack Taylor
As i said on Facebook:It says “sports lottery money was not provided for any improvements to this swimming pool” after speaking to the head of governer’s at alleynes the sports money DID cover the costs!
Timothy
Gemma, I have read the KWPG leaflet and asked a friend who is a planner to check the comments made. She tells me the the council plan which she has read does not say what mixed use is and mixed use can therefore be whatever they wish it to be. Also the park not a part is covered by mixed use. So these people are right. If you want to trust the next generation of politicians not to exploit that, then fair enough.
Also they say they want a better leisure centre etc. the thing they are anti is loss of the park over time and I reckon many people will agree with that.
mark
Hi Timothy, a mixed use allocation can include a variety of uses, and whilst the draft local plan is not explicit in what uses are proposed at WBP, I believe it does provide a good idea. For your information I have provided an extract from the latest version of the draft plan (para 8.1). Please note this wording has not changed in the various iterations of the plan.
Strengthen Stone town centre’s role as a Market Town within the Sustainable Settlement Hierarchy (Spatial Principle SP3) by:
a. Encouraging the development and expansion of the town centre to provide a vibrant place where people can meet, shop, eat and spend leisure time in a safe and pleasant environment including provision of mixed use development at Westbridge Park;
At no time has the BC ever suggested that WBP would be developed for any other purpose, in particular housing, as such why was a petition set up by Cllr Hood and Henney against a supermarket and HOUSING?. It remains my opinion that these cllrs spread unnecessary worry.
Hi Kate, as mentioned by JVictor can we keep to the debate and not start criticising people. Thank you.
Allan Skerratt
Mark
BUT the BC has modified its position because at the meeting at Alleynes it was taking about a much larger supermarket than the one they now propose. (figures in public domain)
ALSO the current BC may promise no further development on the park but once the park is ‘mixed use’ a future BC may continue to develop further parts of it. I worked for local governments for many years and could make as many posts as you have done about the occasions when politicians have promised one thing and delivered another.
Finally Mark, your sentence:
‘ keep to the debate and not start criticising people’
Shows Irony is not dead, its alive and well in Stone.
mark
Allan, the BC have not modified their position. Their postion has not changed during various iterations of the preparation of the draft local plan. All of the iterations of the draft local plan are included on the Council’s website. Also, the size of the supermarket has not changed, this was first identified in WYG’s report in 2006 and has remained the same throughout the various iterations of the draft local plan.
A mixed use allocation can include BUILT and NON BUILT DEVELOPMENT, as such it also includes the open space. It is also apparent from the draft local plan and consultation leaflets that the BC consider the open space to be as important as the leisure centre and foodstore (and rightly so too). As such, I also disagree with this point.
The consultation leaflets and draft local plan are produced by planners not politicians and the plan must be based on objectively assessed needs, as such if a proposal can not be justified, it can’t be included in the plan. I do agree that there is potential that at the time of the planning submission a developer may try and obtain permission for a larger foodstore, however, this would be very difficult to justify given a need has only been established for 1400 sq.m, therefore the politicians would be well within their rights to refuse this application.
Finally, in light of the indicative plans are you now happy to accept the principle of development. I note you were previously against the development because you felt all of WBP would be lost. Given the BC’s commitment for this not too happen are you now willing to withdraw your criticism of them and fully engage in the consultation process.
Dave
What figures are these Allan, the only figure i have seen is for a 1400 sq.m foot store.
The BC have stated that the park is to be handed over to Stone council. Therefore I would hope this would ensure the longevity of the park
mark
*Kenney not Henney!
Dave
On the Frequently asked questions the BC states that Mixed use for WBP is if for a retail food store and leisure and NOT housing. Also just because the park is designated is mixed use it does not mean all the land will be built as also stated in the BC frequently asked questions. Mixed use is for green fields as well as buildings. The BC have also stated that once the leisure center is developed there will be the option of handing the park over to Stone council which should ensure its long term future.
Timothy
You are misunderstanding the planning process. It does not matter what the SBC says now, once mixed use is agreed ANYTHING could be built. Irrespective of what the current politicians say, future councillors can change this. You may not liketo hear this, but it is fact.
mark
Hi Timothy. if your concerned that all of WBP will be lost then I would urge you to make representations to the draft local plan to ensure that the open space continues to be protected from development. This would safeguard the site from development because as you may be aware planning applications MUST BE determined in accordance with the plan. As such, any application proposing development on the green space would be contrary to the plan and (should be) refused. The greenspace element of WBP is currently protected open space, and has been since 2001, this has safeguarded the site from development up to now as such there is no reason to expect that this would change.
Timothy
Thank you for the reply.
Yes, representations are the way forward. I note that WP is currently ‘protected open space’ but that the draft plan changes this and makes it mixed use. This is why groups like KWPG are arguing against.
Unfortunately some of the posters on here do not appreciate the danger of confusing an adopted legal planning document against which planning applications will be assessed (your point) and the intentions of elected politicians who may not be here after the coming election. If the future of the Park depends on the latter it will reflect poorly on the planning officers at SBC.
richard evans
Can i ask what was the point of the original illustration that was made of westbridge park with the petrol station and stream running through the middle of it. If that wasn’t to spread fear then i don’t know what it was for!
gemma
I have followed the dabate on the redevelopment of WBP with interest, however up to now i have refrained from making any comments until i was aware of all the facts. I have now trawled through all the comments on here, facebook and the press releases on KPWG’s website.
Having now read all these comments I can honestly say that I am thoroughly ashamed and angry by the lies that have been spread by KPWG. KPWG have ran a dispicable campaign which, I believe, has had the sole intention of causing fear and objection. I also note from a number of other pages that some of their supporters have also posted personal insults because people have dared to have an adult debate based on evidence, fact and planning knowledge. I’m glad now i didn’t sign the petition!
It appears to me that the BC and ‘A new leisure centre for Westbridge’ have continually answered all the misinformation, lies and hearsay that KWPG have spread. Notwithsatnding this, I suspect the latest information included in the link above will be met with same sceptism, mud slinging and unsubstantiated comments that have underpinned their campaign. Whatever happened to having a debate based on the truth. KPWG should be ashamed of themselves.
Whilst I am glad that thej BC have released further information to respond to the objections raised, it is apparent to me that most of the contributors that have responded to KPWG supporters have previously made the same comments.
I was previously undecided about the redevelopment of WBP, however I am now certain of where my vote will be going. A huge thank you to A New Leisure Centre For Westbridge and the Borough Council.
Hopefully, now that KPWG have appointed a planning professional we may now be able to have an adult debate based on fact.
A NEW LEISURE CENTRE FOR WBP
We agree that people have been misled and can understand why now people
are so upset about this. People don’t like to be made to look like fools
and this subject has divided opinion very strongly. Thank you for your
comments about our page, we’re glad that we have been able to keep you
informed. We’re not the only people that found the original petition
misleading – see link
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-19840995
Thanks again
Kate
Oh you Silly Billy now try saying KEEP PARK WESTBRIDGE GREEN it just doesn’t make sense now does it ? Lets try together now KEEP WESTBRIDGE PARK GREEN. Now thats it once again KEEP WESTBRIDGE PARK GREEN not KEEP PARK WESTBRIDGE GREEN. KWPG not KPWG !
Dave
Moderator, can we please ensure that these debates are not overshadowed by insults……..
jvictor7
Hi Dave. I’ve been concerned for a while now about the debate on this site. Any comments that are posted are automatically added to the site – there is no pre-moderation. However, we will now be moderating comments before they appear on the site. Hopefully, this will lead to more balance. A Little Bit of Stone is a news website, not an open forum, so I hope everyone understands why pre-moderation is now necessary
Dave
I am really pleased that the BC have finally released this information and answered a number of the arguments against the proposals for WBP. Now these questions have been answered lets all work together to ensure that we can get a park for Stone that we can be proud of.
Kate, I struggle to follow any of your posts, what point are you making?
jvictor7
Thanks for your comment but I don’t think it’s helpful to say that KWPG have been spreading ‘lies’ and that their sole intention has been to create fear. We have to accept that people who are opposed to the plans as a whole, or a supermarket on Westbridge Park, have a right to express their opinions and we should respect their opinions enough to see their concerns as real, even if you don’t agree with them.
I’d ask everyone who contributes to stick to the issues. Calling people liars isn’t constructive. I just don’t think there’s a need to attack people you disagree with. Stick to the arguments and we’ll have a much better debate.
gemma
Jvictor, you may not like the words that I have used but I do feel like I have been lied too and I’m not alone. I have spoken to a number of firends and family that signed the petition based on inaccurate information, which I’ve left later found out was never proposed (housing). Do you consider this to be honest. A number of people that I know have written to the bc to complain about the petition and to request that their names are removed. Finally, when my 80 year old mother was told that all of wbp was going to be lost she was in tears, that’s fear caused by KWPG (thanks kate for your post, I’ve got it now).
Timothy
Gemma, You need to read the petition again as I did. It does not say there will be housing it asks people to affirm that they are against housing. The reason, I assume is that mixed use as in the plan that will be a legal document is not defined and so can mean anything. Rather than attack a group trying to protect a park against developers, you might like to ask why SBC put out such an ambiguous proposal.
gemma
Please see link to KWPG website and the petition
https://www.keepwestbridgeparkgreen.org/The-Petition.html. It states “We do not want retail or housing development to be built on Westbridge Park”. Could you please explain to me in the draft Local Plan where housing on WBP has ever been referred to. It hasn’t, as such why was it referred to in the petition.
Misinformation, scaremongering??
Comments are closed.