The creators of the ‘New Leisure Centre for Westbridge Park’ Facebook page want people to be positive about the plans for the park. Here, they explain why they feel developing Westbridge is vital for the future of the town…
We are a group of local residents who set up a Facebook page offering the people of Stone a place to be positive about the proposed development on Westbridge Park.
Our page is now followed by nearly 200 like-minded people, most of whom are aged between 25 and 45 and live in Stone. After the petition and the Alleynes High School meeting, we wanted to offer a place that people could go to say: “You know what, I would like a new leisure centre, I am open minded about all this and would like to see something positive happen to improve our town!” Continuing with the existing split site (Alleynes/Westbridge) facilites is too costly and there is the possibility that Alleynes will become an academy, so the Council have to do something about the leisure provision. Plus, we must all admit, the current offerings are about due for modernisation!
We asked people what facilities they would like to see and what they thought of the proposals. This has led to some very positive ideas and great debate on our page. It has also been very interesting reading comments from people who now wish that they could retract their names from the petition: they were led to believe that the park would be destroyed to make way for houses and shops. This is not going to happen. In fact, it never was. Instead, we will see new leisure facilities including a modern swimming pool, improved play areas for various age groups, a picnic area, a circular walk, a pool, new facilities for the Guides and some landscaping, paid for in the most part by a legally binding agreement with a food operator worth millions of pounds.
The objectors to the scheme have made the following comments, which we respond to in turn below…
There is no need for a new foodstore
This isn’t true. A research firm called WYG has assessed the existing retail provision, including the (then) proposed Aldi store and identified a need for a 1400 sq m foodstore. It is also worth noting that WYG’s assessment was based on the 2001 Census data and zero growth projections. As such, it does not take into account the number of new homes that have been built since the publication of the report or the 500 new homes proposed in the draft Local Plan. Had it done so, the need could have been greater. The 2010 Census demonstrates that the Stone population has increased by 30% since 2001 and the Local Plan is looking at catering for the next 20 years.
Furthermore, four foodstore operators have expressed an interest in Westbridge Park, these include Marks & Spencer and Waitrose. These operators do their due diligence and would not locate a store in a location if there was no demand or need. Just look at the congestion Morrissons causes at peak times. It is the third busiest supermarket per square metre in the entire borough.
The proposals will result in the loss of the green space
Most of the proposed development will take place on the previously developed areas, as such most of the green space will be left undeveloped and enhanced by the funding that will be provided by the foodstore development. In addition, the access road and car parking area at the front of Westbridge Park will be included within the park, therefore increasing the amount of green space that is currently provided there.
The new foodstore will harm the High Street
Government research (The Portas Report by Mary “Queen of Shops” Portas) has proven that foodstores on the edge of a town centre can increase footfall into the town centre. We share this opinion and a poll on our Facebook page has shown that most people would shop in Stone more often (including the High Street) if a new foodstore and leisure centre was provided. Currently, a significant number of people that live in Stone shop in Stafford or Stoke-on-Trent. Getting them to spend time and money in Stone is essential for our future.
There are already food outlets on and around the High Street so another one will simply give people more choice. A 1400 sq m food outlet (much smaller than Morrissons) will be unlikely to stock white goods, clothing, electronics, books or bikes. It will also unlikely sell holidays, offer an opticians service make flower deliveries etc. So exactly what on the High Street some people think it will affect we do not know!
In a time of austerity the Borough Council should be commended for seeking to provide for the leisure needs of Stone. This development will also provide additional job opportunities. This would be a welcome boost to the area and would give people more disposable income to spend locally. We would also urge the Borough Council to make it a requirement of the S106 agreement that a percentage of tradesmen and staff must be local people.
The plan that Stafford Borough Council released last week is only an indicative drawing, it shows an artist’s impression of what could be. It isn’t to scale and could be added to, making it even more attractive through our input. It’s a shame that it has been taken so literally and negative comment has been made in regard to effects on the Food and Drink Festival and other community events which simply does not have to be the case.
There really would be very little difference in the size of the grassed area and if the festival needs more land to grow into in the future then it can, and would, have to use the land at the rear of the park or spill out into additional sites around the town and possibly at places like Aston Marina who would surely welcome greater passing trade.
All the new buildings will be state of the art, sympathetically designed and as “green” on the environment as possible. They will look fantastic compared to what we have here now! The park in its current state is becoming a site of anti-social behaviour, there are signs of drug usage, broken glass, dog fouling, litter and graffiti. We need new facilities and we need them fast. Stafford Borough Council even said that they will consider gifting the ownership of the event area to Stone Town Council after the development so that we can determine its future once it has been improved.
We hope that the Borough Council get positive support for the proposals so that they can give us more things to do – not just on the much loved festival and farmers’ market days but every day and night of the week.. We also hope that people get involved in the consultation process and make their comments known. If you think that improvements can be made to the layout, please let the Council know. Together we can deliver a development that we can all be proud of and benefit from, so let’s grasp this opportunity and make your comments known. Please complete the questionnaire which is being posted or find it on our Facebook Page or the Stafford Borough Council website or collect one from the exhibition events.
If you would like to keep up to date with the developments at Westbridge please follow our page and get involved in the debate. We look forward to receiving your comments on our Facebook page ‘A New Leisure Centre For Westbridge Park’.
See all of A Little Bit of Stone’s Westbridge Park coverage HERE
Click HERE to see the borough council’s plan for Westbridge Park
Click HERE to take part in the consultation on the borough council website
Email westbridgepark@alittlebitofstone.com if
you’d like to submit a Westbridge Park viewpoint
25 comments
Peter S
I do not understand the point of this document nor some of the arguments.
If WP is already mixed use, why is the Borough Council trying to get it designated as mixed use in their current development plan out for consultation?
I believe most people myself included would like to see the leisure facilities improved. My difficulty with the indicative plan is that it only shows what could go in the park but not what impact that will have on existing facilities. For instance it says that green space will be retained for events. But on the diagram, they have turned the football pitch around 90 degrees. It does look to me like the width of the green space has reduced from the length of a football pitch to the width of one. Also this has meant that the event space does not go as far down the park as it does currently. I accept that there is additional space due to the removal of the access road but they have also added a line of trees and so the gain here is uncertain.
I am not trying to change people’s minds here but they should think through what is proposed, how much space each item is likely to require and what they will have to lose when deciding whether the price of a swimming pool, when there is already one at Alleyne’s, is worth placing a supermarket albeit a medium size one in a park.
I understand that 1400 sq m refers to the net selling area.
Jill
I think loosing a small strip of land up the edge is well worth the new facilities. It will look a lot better with the trees there too. There is still loads of green space so its a good compromise. The food festival is great but it is only 3 days a year and they will probably be able to use the other pitch once Stone Town Council take ownership of the park anyway wont they?
Lesley
If the drawings are “only INDICATIVE” what on earth is the point of them? Your argument here is the best reason possible for rejecting the plan. If the Council goes ahead and designates the site for mixed used, it can then preumably build whatever it wants on the site, regardless of what the artist’s impression shows at this point.
In my opinion we do need some definite idea of the scale of the proposals and the amount of land that is likely to be taken. How else can we make a judgement on the proposed development? There is already too much misinformation in the Council’s plans, which would suggest to me that it is are not to be trusted.
mark
Lesley, at this stage we are only being asked to consider the principle of development. The plans that you want to say (as do I) will be published once the principle of development has been established. Its pointless producing these plans if everyone is against the proposals, as such the bc are going about the consultation process the correct way.
Ben Alcock
Lesley, your comments are incorrect. WBP has all ready been designated as a mixed use site and has been since 2006. This development does not change that.
These drawings are merely indicative and are meant to encourage debate by showing people what can be achieved on the site. Until the leisure use survey has been completed and the results identified the BC do not have an accurate representation of what Stone residents want and therefore they do not have sufficient information to deisgn an accurate plan.
Surely the most important dimension for the site is the size of the proposed food store which has been in the public domain since this development was first muted. The size of the food store is planned to be 1400 sq.m which is a similar size to the Aldi store on the A34.
What misinformation are you referring too… from the initial consultation the BC have made it clear that they require a new leisure center, pool and improved leisure facilities for children of all ages as well as a new Girl Guides center all of which are shown on the indicative drawing. Therefore what leads you to believe the BC can not be trusted. The BC have a very good reputation of delievering first class leisure facilities – look at Victoria park, Rowley Park and the new BMX and childrens park at Doxey Park.
Scale drawings are provided at the planning stage which the BC are some way off from yet.
Lesley
I am not prepared to enter a long discussion on this. However, how do we know that the size of the supermarket won’t change at a later date, particularly if that becomes part of the bargain with the retailer. At present, for example, there do not appear to be any delivery areas mentioned on the plan, so unless the retail space is smaller than stated, the final space taken will inevitably be larger.
The misinformation I refer to concerns Alleynes’ pool. Even if Academy status is given, the management of Alleynes have stated that they have no intention of removing the pool from public use; quite the opposite in fact, because they will need the income it generates.
And the consultation questionnaire is a completely flawed exercise in democracy. Why is there only one leaflet per household? I know that online comments can be made, but this is not an option for everyone. And why are Stone and Barlaston residents being included in the survey? Would they want me to vote on a major development in their villages? I think not.
FrostyTheSnowman
The consultation is democratic. Only adults can vote and there is only one council tax payment per household = one leaflet. It should be a family decision. Ask the kids if they want a brand new pool and sports centre with classes and trampolicnes and karate etc, not to mention play areas for the sake of a strip of muddy grass and see what they say!
Ben Alcock
Lesley, we do not know the exact size of the food store all we can go off is the dimension stated by the BC which is for a 1400 sq m unit. Clearly once a supermarket operator comes on board this figure may increase but it also may decrease. The National Planning Policy framework encourages the effective use of space and mezzanine floors when sites are identified on edge of towns. So just because the retail floor area may change it does not necessarily means the overall footprint will change. Until we see final drawings this all just conjecture.
The Alleynes swimming pool as far as I am aware is jointly owned by the County council and the school therefore the BC is not responsible for its up keep etc. The reason why the suggestion of a pool was first muted is due to the lack of availabiltiy of the pool due to it being shared with the school. Clearly with the population projections forecasted for Stone and the increasing number of people who want to take up sport this is not a sustainable solution.
I have no idea why there is only one leaflet per household, i can only assume that the BC thought everybody in the household would hold the same view.
Carl
I can only assume that the BC believe residents of Barlaston will use the new facility in Stone and subsequently they are being given a say on how WBP should look.
mark
The size of the local plan is stated in the draft local plan and the size has been determined by a need and impact assessment. Any supermarket for a larger store would have to provide evidence that a further need exists and no impact will be caused. Finally, once the plan becomes adopted the size of the supermarket will also become any adopted. Any deviation in this (and increase in size) would be departure in the local plan and would therefore be referred to the secretary of state.
The building footprint for all of the buildings are larger than what is required (eg. the size of the supermarket), therefore, there will be adequate space for delivery vehicles. We are not talking about a large foodstore, the foodstore will be a similar size to ALDI, which im sure is aware is accessed by HGVs through the customer car park. The same situation can take place here.
Why do you need more than one leaflet per household? The leaflet is to ascertain the shopping habits of the household, therefore, it only needs to be completed once. The survey would have been delivered to everyone in the drivetime catchment area for the foodstore, i believe for this size store, the catchment area is appromimately 10 – 15 minutes drivetime, however i need to double check this.
Timothy
Mark, you keep trotting out the same old rubbish. The WYG report was based on a skewed sample and projected growth out more than a decade.
What makes you believe that SBC has no funds to strengthen leisure facilties in Stone? Are they briefing you to that effect? It is their role to provide such facilities and not all councils have large chunks fo land to sell to raise funds. What do they do? Answer plan ahead and use other income sources.
And yes, the plans are INDICATIVE. You only have to look at the visuals to see they are a fiction as the view from 1 directions conflicts with that from the next. Misleading and inexcusable.
Ben Alcock
The drawings are produced by Artists and are merely meant to be indicative. When we instruct artists to produce similar impressions we merely give them a photo and hastily worked up sketch for them to work off. At no time do they visit the site, so they only have a limited appreciation of the site/building etc.
mark
Bang head against wall!!! Argh. Do you have any idea how retail planning consultants establish need? Judging by your post the answer is clearly no. I do know how need is established because i work with retail planning consultants. Asking people where they shop is only a small part of the research process. There are firms such as GOAD and EXPERIAN that undertake retail research and can establish which shops are overtrading, spending leakage (money being spent outside of Stone) and shopping habits, which can be easily obtained. This data is used by consultants, such as WYG to establish need. However, if you wish to dispute this then fine, however you will lose the argument.
Do you think the BC has enough money, in the region of £8m to fund leisure improvements in stone? Do you not think that in these times of austerity that the council have more pressing things to spend their money on. Whilst i believe the need for leisure is extremely important, it is a luxury, as such it doesnt appear high on the councils funding priorities. Therefore, if we want improvements then we need to accept private sector funding, this is not a new phenomenon. Its known as a s106 agreement and has been in existence for at least 30 years. I think you will find that most councils use s106 funding to underpin and help fund improvements such as leisure.
The plans are not meant to be 100% accurate and depict exactly what is going to be built. They are intended to inform the debate and show how wbp could be developed. We are only being asked on the principle of development at this stage. Accurate, detailed drawings will be produced once the principle of development has been established.
mark
Not rubbish just facts! What makes you qualified to talk about retail need? Are you a retail planner? Have you undertaken need assessments? Have you ever been cross examined by barristers questionning the credibilty of a retail report that you have produced. I have….so i will carrying writing my posts and keeping to the facts.
Brian
How many people did WYG survey at what time of day. Did those people live in Stone? How can you say if the survey was sound if you cannot answer those simple questions.
Ben Alcock
Brian, as mark has stated these surveys are not simply compiled by people standing with clip boards in Stone asking poeple where they shop. They are much more thorough than that. They take into account the trading conditions of the town, the trading figures of all the supermarkets, the amount of money being spent in surrounding areas and the retail capacity of the town…… so in fact talking to people only makes up a small proportion of the overall survey. These reports compiled by WYG and others are very thorough which is why they are very rarely challenged.
Ben Alcock
Timothy, you make a number of strange comments.
1. The WYG report is not rubbish, Mark and myself are both involved in the planning and construction industry and are therefore are fully versed in the use of these reports. These reports are very comprehensive and therefore the legitimacy is not questioned by the BC and before you fall into the nimby trap…. the BC can not establish a need if one does not exist.
2. The WYG reports do not take into account projected growth of towns, please re-read Mark’s comments. If you acknowledge that Stone has undergone a population surge then there is a greater need for a food store.
3.What makes you believe that SBC have no funds to strengthen leisure facilities??? – There are a number of factors which make me believe that the BC do not have sufficient funds for this develepment. Firstly the latest proposals for Victoria Park are estimated to cost £275,000, the BC have stated that these will not take place without private investment. Therefore how do you propose the BC pay £6 million pounds for a new leisure center and pool? Secondly a number of councils are currently having to find savings and spending effeciencys, subsequently how do you expect them to pay for such a development. At a time when many councils are closing leisure provisions, the BC should be commended to be still willing to invest time and money for the good of Stone. Clearly the BC has a role in providing leisure facilities, but it time of austerity when budget cuts are being placed on councils do you believe this is a realistic possibility without some additional funding?? You are right Timothy councils plan and use other income sources and that is EXACTLY what the BC are doing. They have acknowledged that Stone needs additional convenience provision and additional leisure facilities and therefore combined these two needs through the use of a S106 agreement. A section 106 agreement is a legal agreement between the developers and council to make a positive contribution to the town.
4. Do not make personal comments, it does not add anything to the debate and it is not the correct way to behave.
5. These drawings are indicative, they are drawn by artists not planners and not architects, therefore they are not drawn to any scale. Yes, I acknowledge the drawings could be better, but I would suggest that they were produced in a hurry by the BC to combat the scaremongering tactics used by some of the Cllrs in Stone who were quoting that the whole of WBP would be lost to Tarmac.
Frosty
Ahh Timothy, you are one of those: “They should pay for it!” people. Makes you wonder how we got into a global financial crisis doesn’t it? How do you propose they do that? Increase our council tax? No thanks. It has stayed pretty much the same for years. Increase the parking charges around the High Street? – Don’t think that will go down very well. How about they just go around asking everyone for some money? Let’s see, £8million divided between 19,000 people, that is only £421 each… Better break open your kids piggy banks! Stafford council are pretty good compared to Labour led Stoke which is completely bankrupt – especially when it comes to funding and building Leisure facilites, However, if you can find some other funding source or you can prove that the Council has £8,000,000 nocking around in their account which they do not need I would not add fuel to the fire. Mark’s comments are always factual, you don’t seem to have much to say that is factual or helpful. What is it you actually want? And before you answer, please think of how it can be funded.
Ted
The councils in Stafford are just about to spend about 20 million quid on new offices having spent 30 million on the new civic centre. They are doing those projects without selling any parks in stafford. When they want to find money they can.
Ben Alcock
I am led to believe that these are partially funded by section 106 agreements from the morrions, st georges and new marks and spencers site. Furthermore the council argue that by moving out of the old offices in Martin Street and through limiting the number of offices they operate from they can actually make costs savings. Whether or not this is actually the case I wait and see.
mark
Thank you frosty.
mark
Timothy, a retail need has been established, this is beyond dispute. Also, a retail need assessment is not just based on asking people where they shop. It also looks at the existing shopping provision, trading performance, shopping habits (which can be obtained through club card memberships etc). Furthermore, wyg report was based on zero growth projections, as such it did not take into account of any new housing provision within stone up to, and including 2015. Had it done so the need identified could actually have been greater. WYG are well known for providing robust retail need assessments which have stood up to scrutiny, therefore, they know what they are doing. Furthermore, would 4 supermarkets be interested in developing in stone if there was no demand / need. How many struggling supermarkets have you seen?
The BC are required to provide leisure facilities, however they haven’t got the level of funding available to provide the facilities required in stone, as such private sector funding is required. This is not a new phenomenon.
The loss of the greenspace is not atleast 25%. Furthermore, the drawings are only INDICATIVE and therefore cannot and should not be scaled.
The purpose of the drawings are to inform a debate and show how the site could be developed. They are being used to establish the principle of development, (which is an accepted planning tool, this is exactly what an outline application seeks to do) we are not being asked for our comments on the finer details of the layout, therefore, they don’t need to be accurate..just provide an artistic impression.
Timothy
The WYG report uses a sample that is unrepresentative.
The loss of green space is at least 25%
Improved leisure facilties are needed but SBC would be required to provide them from capital receitps and/or reserves even if it did not own the Park
The illustrations are laughably misleading.
Ben Alcock
Timothy, I appreciate that you are not a professional in this field and are therefore are new to looking at indicative drawings. These drawings are not meant to represent any scale they are merely there to show what can be achieved on the site.
WYG are well respected Retail experts and therefore are well versed in providing reports such as these. Whether you believe the sample, is irrelative. Morrsions are over-trading and a need was established for a new food store in 2006. This need did not take into accont the predicted rise in popiulation in Stone or the new homes proposed. This need has been established and subsequently a supermarket will be built in Stone by 2015, this will either be built on WBP benefitting the residents through a S106 agreement or an alternative site….. but a food store will be built.
Ben Alcock
Timoty, please show me your evidence stating that the loss of land is 25%. If you can not provide this evidence, please stop quoting a figure which you can not support and is skewing the debate. The fact is the figure of 25% is based on an inaccurate calculation by overlaying the festival on to this indicative drawing. As previously stated this drawing has not been drawn to scale and therefore can not be used in this way. Quoting figures from the person who initially stated this figure of 25% when he measure the food store on the leaflet would mean that the food store is actually twice as big as what is actually proposed. Therefore the amount of land being encroached is far less.
Comments are closed.