The Keep Westbridge Park Green campaign was formed last autumn and organisers started a petition against the park being included in the Local Plan as a site for mixed-use development. In the latest viewpoint, the group says the borough council’s plans for Westbridge Park are not viable
Stafford Borough Council (SBC) has revealed its plans for Westbridge Park and announced consultations with residents. Stone residents may have already received their consultation leaflet.
We are extremely concerned that SBC recommends that the whole of Westbridge Park be designated a zone for ‘mixed use’ development. If this recommendation is adopted the entire park will be open to potential development. Residents should understand that, whatever the current stated intentions of the council, the park in its entirety is under threat.
We have consulted planning professionals who advise that:
- The formats used for both the supermarket and leisure centre are unrealistic
- There are serious issues with access and location of the facilities
- The plans do not conform to planning guidelines.
Correcting these errors would change the indicative layouts substantially.
A large portion of the existing event space has been used to construct a new road and car park and the proposed loss of green space threatens the ability of the park to host future festivals.
The artist’s impressions in the SBC consultation leaflet are misleading, giving the impression of a vast open space and angles of view which bear no relation to the diagram of the park layout and the actual remaining grassed area.
The following Q&A is featured within the SBC consultation leaflet:
Q) If the food store and leisure centre are developed at Westbridge Park, what will happen to the Food & Drink Festival and the Stone Festival, scouts, guides and canoe club?
A) We have ensured that a substantial green area is retained for these important events at Westbridge Park and would be happy to consider gifting the event area to Stone Town Council. The scouts and canoe clubs will remain where they are but we would provide replacement facilities for the guides.”
The answer to the question gives the impression that the various festivals have been consulted with. This is not the case.
Comments from the Festival committees:
Stone Food & Drink Festival – “F&D has not been consulted or contacted by the Borough Council either formally or informally. We have had no input whatsoever into their scheme. As presented, their scheme would make it impossible to hold another Festival on the site. Last year we occupied a much larger footprint than that proposed and we already have plans for at least an extra two attractions which will require an even larger area this year. I very much doubt that we would wish to organise a smaller, scaled down event. I personally was very concerned at the suggestion in Mike Heenan’s comments which indeed implied that the Festival was happy with the proposals. As you can tell from my above comments we object most strongly to the reduction in size of the event space.”
Stone Festival Committee – “Whilst we are pleased to see improved facilities for children, the Scouts and Guides and the new leisure centre, we are disappointed that the green space in Westbridge Park appears to have been reduced by some 25%. If this plan goes ahead Carnival Day activities in Westbridge Park will be curtailed. We are also disappointed that the Borough Council has not consulted with the Festival team before publishing this plan.”
Stone Town Bonfire & Fireworks – “I can confirm that we have had absolutely no contact or consultation with the Borough about our requirements. Again we are concerned that the press release implies that we are happy to organise the event on the new design. That is definitely not the case. There is nowhere in the plan where we could build and light a bonfire. Without a bonfire we would not put on the event. The fire is central to the night’s entertainment. We will be holding an emergency meeting in a couple of weeks so that we can lodge a formal objection.”
Consultation is taking place not only in Stone but also in Barlaston and Eccleshall. Would Stone residents be consulted on changes to the green infrastructure in those villages?
We have concluded that the drawings on the SBC brochure do not fairly represent reality and that the plans for the Park are not viable, threaten its very existence and are a misguided attempt to minimise adverse comment.
We have appointed an experienced Planning Consultant to review the ‘Plan for Stafford Borough’, make formal representations and appear before the Planning Inspector at Public Inquiry. Although we have serious reservations about the Plan and the intentions for Westbridge Park, we are open to constructive dialogue with SBC to ensure that our voice and that of many like-minded Stone residents is heard.
Please remember that, if you disagree with the proposal to sell land on Westbridge Park for commercial development, SBC still has an obligation to provide leisure facilities appropriate to the needs of Stone residents.
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
187 comments
A New Leisure Centre For WBP
Hi, just thought everyone would welcome the new FAQs on the council website. Link below. Interesting reading and answers lots of questions too.
https://www.staffordbc.gov.uk/leisure-and-culture/westbridge-park-consultation/westbridge-park-consultation-frequently-asked-questions
Jamie Summerfield
Hi there. Just posted about this on the site. Thank you
Jay Wren
Although I think you need to be brave to join in this discussion because the fate of Westbridge Park is important to me I have decided to add my thoughts – then I’ll run for cover!
To introduce myself and declare my stance quickly I am a 64 year old woman – born in Stone and have lived here for all but 5 years of that time. Westbridge Park has always played an important role in Stone, over latter years though the festivals have made it even moreso. I would not like to see any part of it lost. I have no expertise in any relevant area but my vote will still count. No doubt my reasons for wanting it left ‘as is’ will be dismissed as absolute rubbish but I can live with that!
I studied the illustrated leaflet carefully – firstly just to work out which way round it all was (OK so I’m dim). Once I had got that worked out I then thought well there must be more at the back not shown (told you I was dim). Eventually it began to fall into place. The lay by in front of the park has gone – increasing the size of the overall area. OK I totally understand that its not to scale – very pretty picture though – and that its now been decided the foodstore is smaller than shown – does that mean the overall area (car parks etc) will be reduced too? Again I know it’s not to scale but according the the leaflet the only green area left will the football pitch (which obviously can’t be used for the functions or it would be ruined) then there is an area in front of the football pitch roughly the same size – is that it?! Again according to the unscaled illustrations that is enough for several tents but what about all the other areas for the various events in the festival?
The leaflet also says we cant have a doctors surgery on there because of the loss of green belt – yet we can have another (yet another) foodstore on that same green belt? Stone apparently is now big enough to warrant another foodstore but not another doctors?
I totally understand the need to keep plenty of affordable recreation facilities for our growing town I have no problem with that. I didn’t quite understand why the current building was only expected to last 12 years though (seems a bit short sighted) but has any research been done in other ways to raise the money needed? Continuing to use the current swimming pool would surely cut the costs.
My other thought on this was it’s being done to raise revenue (understood) but if it does eventually prove too small for the two main festivals if they go elsewhere or stop altogether wont that lose revenue for the council and lose the people those events bring into the town?
Whatever anyones thinks of my thoughts/reasons/opinion I still have a valid vote and those like me are not going to be convinced by rudeness (i.e being dismissed as absolute rubbish) nor flannel, bluster and ‘card tricks’. There’s an awful lot of verbiage going on but it mostly seems to be to rubbish alternative opinions not to genuinely demonstrate the facts. We are told Stone ‘needs’ this store but (being cynical in my old age) what I see is that it’s the council that needs this to pay for their plans. I would support any sensible revenue raising scheme to pay for improvements in recreational facilities but I think this one is short sighted and in the long run will be regretted.
Dave
Hi jay, please dont run for cover, its important that everyone in Stone has there say to ensure Stone gets the park it deserves. To answer one of your fears, it is my understanding that the football is to be relocated to another area of Stone where a purpose built footballing facility is to be created. Therefore the F and D festival will be able to use all the green land available.
To pre-empt a possible question the movement of football picthes is necessary because the provision is not adequate, the youngsters need smaller pitches, over 15s need access to changing rooms etc and teams such as Alleynians need to meet certain ground standards for the league they are in. These include barriers, fencing, seating, hardstanding etc. Which can not be provided at WBP.
jvictor7
Hi Jay. Many thanks for your thoughts on this issue and for entering the debate. I hope that things have calmed down a bit on here now and that this really important issue can be discussed in the manner it deserves. Thanks again for your comment
—– Reply message —–
jvictor7
We’ve carried out a full review of the server logs and comments logs and are disappointed to say that we’ve uncovered people posting under multiple aliases on this thread. We’re here to provide a platform for debate but certainly are not here to provide a platform for personal attacks.
This is a FINAL WARNING. If you post a comment please stick with one alias, using multiple aliases to provide support one way or another is not allowed and neither is creating aliases to personally attack someone.
Anyone caught making further posts under multiple aliases risks having their connection to our website banned which will stop them from being able to comment now and in the future.
Thank you
Brian
Just as a matter of interest is ‘retail food outlet’ a euphamism or an anagram of SUPERMARKET
Brian
The government are just about to review the Portas report as it has not delivered the improvement in town centres which it promised. So the whole basis for the argument as to why the SUPERMARKET should be on the edge of town is flawed. Planners please note. Read it here:
https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/topics/government-launches-future-high-streets-forum/236309.article
mark
Brian, there is also another very good article in planning resource which outlines the planning measures and initiatives that the govt through local councils are proposing to implement, these include more flexibility in terms of change of use applications, flexible lease agreements, and allowing town centres to improve their attractiveness to shoppers e.g free parking anf longer opening hours. If you would like a copy of this article let me know. I fully support the high street, and I want to see them helped and improved. Notwithstanding all of this there still remains a need for 1400sq. Of foodstore. Where would you propose to locate this in stone, if not at wbp. In addition, if its not located on wbp we get no s106 funding for leisure improvements. Do you know if stone has a town centre manager? I’ve been involved in a number of town centre regeneration shcmes and this is always at the top of my recommendations because it gives the shop keepers a united voice and allows them to lobby sbc ot stone town council in the very same way that foodstore operators do.
John
“In addition, if its not located on wbp we get no s106 funding for leisure improvements.”
Why is that so?
s106 money was used to help build the new Canoe Club.
mark
Hi john, I don’t know the details of the s106 agreement for the canoe club. However, hopefully, by explaining the principles of the s106 agreeemnt I may answer your question (if I haven’t please get in touch). In order for a council to be able to request a s106 contrbution there must be a link between the proposed development and what the money is being asked to fund (s106 monies must also be necessary and reasoanble). The reason why there must be a link is to prevent any opportunity of consents being bought. In light of these principles,. I suspect the s106 contribution to the canoe club was paid for by a housing proposal. This is because housing generates people and these people genenerate additional demands on the local schools, gps, infrastructure and existing leisure provision etc. In respect of leissure provision contributions can be made to on site or off site play facilites and or to identified leisure projects. Given stones fantastic reputation for producing olympic canoeists, it is possible that the bc identified the canoe club as a lesiure project and thereofre could be funded by a development built elsewhere in stone. Things are less clear cut with retail projects because they don’t generate any additional people, therefore they don’t need to contribute to education, heath, leisure etc (unless there is a direct link). If a supermarket was proposed on a brown or (other) greenfiield site the bc would not be able to demand a contribution towards wbp because there wouldn’t be a link. However, they can if the supermarket is built at wbp because the new foodstore will be built on existing leisure facilities, and therefore compensation improvements should be paid. Another important factor is that the bc own wbp, as such they will also receive money from the sale of the land. Apologies for the long winded response, however I hope that’s answered your question.
elvisisaliveandlivinginstone
There needs to be a link between the S106 and what is proposed.
Jon Cook
Can I just say that having checked the server logs I’m quite happy that each poster is unique and nobody is posting under 2 aliases.
Can I also back up what Jamie has said, please can we keep discussions on topic and not revert to personal insults otherwise we may have to close the comments which would be a real shame. If we all the same life would be pretty boring, thankfully we’re all born unique and have our own minds. Please be respectful of the other posters and if you disagree with someone please be civil in the way you reply.
keepWestbridgeParkGreen
Keep westbridge Park Green have appointed Peter Weathered of Peter Weathered Planning. A Chartered
Town Planner and Fellow of the RICS. Peter has over 40 years experience
in Planning and has given evidence in over 200 planning appeals as an expert
witness. Prior to Setting up his own consultancy, Peter was a Director
and Head of Planning at Global property consultancy DTZ.
KWPG
Keep westbridge Park Green have appointed Peter Weatherhead of Peter Weatherhead Planning. A Chartered
Town Planner and Fellow of the RICS. Peter has over 40 years experience
in Planning and has given evidence in over 200 planning appeals as an expert
witness. Prior to Setting up his own consultancy, Peter was a Director
and Head of Planning at Global property consultancy DTZ
Appols for previous incorrect spelling. Damn phone
Ben Alcock
Wow, two days without engaging the forum and the amount of posts has snowballed. Its encouraging so many people engaging in the planning process. I vehemently believe that through consulation, discussion and compromise we can make WBP a fanastic, well utilised and well used park.
I share the comments of others, when I say I welcome the appointment of Peter, having a fellow professional on board can only be a positive thing and help to establish the facts and policy rather than hearsay and unsupported comments.
elvisisaliveandlivinginstone
I welcome the appointment of a Chartered Town Planner for KWPG, and I hope you take his advice on board and actively engage in the process.
KWPG
Peter was appointed 2 weeks ago
kate
I’m glad keep westbridge park have appointed peter weatherhead because this will now ensure that the debate is now based on justifiable planning grounds rather than the lies and misinformation that has spead by the group up to now. Hopefully, we should now get a proper debate and no more unjustifiable like the 25 per cent loss of greespace lol
elvisisaliveandlivinginstone
Exactly Kate!! I could not agree more.
KWPG
Peter was appointed 2 weeks ago
babydoll
Could this go any more off topic??? All this personal stuff really isn’t helpful, or do you think there should just be bloody big ruck in the park to sort it out??? Getting a bit old for all this playground crap!
Kate
Baby doll I just laughed and laughed at this , you must be female, don’t you think it’s all really enjoyable. I do hope common sense will prevail in the end. We get a brill leisure centre, something new for the kids , not a lick of paint as stated now and a fab new teenagers park. plus a pool of course. But no supermarket OOPS sorry Foodstore. They should let the girls sort it out we’d have it done in a jiffy!
daz
How do you do propose we fund the new leisure facilties without the new foodstore?
jvictor7
Totally agree that the personal stuff isn’t necessary and isn’t helping.
Can we draw a line under it now and get back to the issues please? The personal comments and slanging matches are in danger of overshadowing what has been (on the whole!) a good debate
Jamie Summerfield
Hi babydoll. I totally agree that the slanging isn’t helpful. It’s in danger of overshadowing what has been, on the whole!, a really good debate.
Can I ask that everyone sticks to the issues in hand from now on? Let’s draw a line under the personal comments please
PhilR
For those who doubt the popularity of the events held on Westbridge Park take a look here..https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qqea2MbGYck#!
Ted
The councils in Stafford have spent over £30 million on a new headquarters. They are about to spend about £25 million on new offices and they are telling the people of Stone if you want better leisure facilities you have got to to sell a SUBSTANTIAL piece of your park. (which was gift to the people of Stone from the Joules family).
The indicative drawings are just that artists impressions it all could be twice as big.
The council have to provide leisure facilities like other services such as emptying bins from the council tax and support grants.
Dem ocracy
.In the westbridge Park section of ALBOS Mark & Ben have made 161 posts – 45% of the posts made.Thier first postings coincide with the launch of ‘A New Leisure Centre for Westbridge’
posts are either telling us what we are having or telling others they are wrong.
Give us all break please. Its quite obvious who you are and on whose behalf you are working
elvisisaliveandlivinginstone
I know who Ben and Mark are becuase they have been open with there comments and identity??? But demo cracy who are you?? and why are you feeling the nide to hide? You perpetuate openness and transparency but then give nothing away. What is your experineces??
Kate
Who is hiding behind an alias elvisisaliveandlivinginstone ?
elvisisaliveandlivinginstone
That would be me! Just becuase I am using an alias does not mean I am hiding and unlike other (demo cracy) I have not used an alias to attempt to insult people.
I am struggling to find any coherence in your arguments, what points are you trying to make?
mark
Jack Taylor stop hiding behind your alias and grow up. You have shown yourself to be very childish. I was genuinely going to arrange work experience at my place of work because I believed you had a genuine interest in planning, however consider that invite closed. I do not work on anyones behalf, I merely provide a planning perspective on the debate. If you want to make representations to the local plan orquestionnaire based on the points that this article then so be it. However, don’t expect them to be considered seriously by the planners.
Dem ocracy
Mark, you owe Jack an apology.He is not me.
mark
Prove it.
Kate
I think you’re on very dangerous ground here Mark. You are crushing the freedom of speech from YOUNG Jack Taylor . I know Jack very well and you’re paranoia is cruel towards him.Encourage him don’t damn him!
elvisisaliveandlivinginstone
You can tell its the weekend…. schools out. I happened to believe that stone council and the borough should be engaging with young people to ensure that Stone gets a park that will suit there needs. However after listening to some of the absurd comments, I am now not to sure.
mark
Kate, I have previously had a lot of time for jack and have offered him work experience at my place of work because I’ve been impressed by his passion. He also seemed to want to understand the planning process and how decisions made. I have commended him for this and this can be verified on the number of posts I have made on here and fb. However, I have strong reasons to believe that he is democracy and I am extremely disappointed by the posts made by that alias.
Jack Taylor
I can confirm that Dem ocracy is not in anyway myself, i am logged on as my facebook site and i do not change this at all! I am not childish in these comment areas! I was interested in the work experience and i still would of been if you hadn’t of closed the invite. I do have an interest in planning and i would still love to. But i can assure you that Dem ocracy is not myself at all. Just to prove this i have been at school all day today and i dont have internet on my phone so i could not of commented.
elvisisaliveandlivinginstone
I sincerely hope its not you Jack, I have been impressed by your enthusiasm and your willingness to engage in debate and would be deeply saddened to find you reverted to an alias to insult people.
Jack Taylor
I can confirm it is not me under two aliases!
Jack Taylor
Please look at Jon Cooks comment and it clearly proves it can’t be myself as Dem ocracy!
Jack Taylor
ALBOS has done nothing wrong. It merely got sent a viewpoint and aired it. To everyone stop turning this into a slanging match it is pathetic. We want opinions but nothing personal. Mark and Ben please give it a rest and let others have their points, opinions and views without you telling us you are Chartered whatevers! Please give it a rest!
Ben Alcock
Jack, those comments are not helpful. Please re-read all my comments I have not made any personal comments or jibes at anybody and I have not stated any opinions just facts and policy.
You remaining commenst I find deeply insulting and unprofessional at no time have i prevented anybody making comments or opinions. The only time i mentioned that I was chartered was when my professional integrity and experience was being questioned.
Jack, you and I have enjoyed some healthy debate which have helped to produce some very intetresting discussion and helped to inform opinion, I therefore do not understand why you have now taken this approach. As a youth MP and therefore a democrat you should understand the importance of debate and establishing the facts even when it goes against your opinion.
For your information “I will not give a rest” I am entitled to my opinion just as much as everybody else, and I will continue to give it especially when comments are being made without any supporting rationale reasoning behind them.
Jack Taylor
Ben, i made the comments as i have had numerous complaints about your attitude and way you are approaching the debate. For example and i quote “What is your issue? Did you have a bad day at school” This was to someone who made a perfectly reasonable comment and opinion, and actually nothing wrong with the statement. That is also a personal jibe! You may of stated facts and policy but at the moment the council aren’t bothered about that they are bothered about peoples thought and opinions on the plans which we ALL need to stick to. We have enjoyed some healthy debate and has produced some great discussion. My reasoning for my approach was complaints and i was asked to remind you to let others have their say without huge comments. Last night there was 8 comments and by 8:30am this morning there was 40! Yes 40! And a large percentage were from yourself and mark! Can i just remind you i am not yet a Youth MP and that has nothing to do with yourself as you are not a youth and i am not representing you, that’s Bill Cash’s job! I always take the WBP debate very seriously and in a professional manor and in a democratic way. For the sake of everyone getting their opinions heard and recognised and not bombarded by huge statements please use the simple rule, do not post until at least 10 minutes after the comment. This draws out the debate and makes it more reader friendly. You are entitled to your opinion but after so many long paragraphs and policy malarky for the sake of other users of this site please refrain from putting huge paragraphs and if you see something wrong then keep it to yourself. This has started to become a slanging match and not a debate. Most do have rationale reasoning but you like to get into ever nook and cranny of their opinion and blow it right out of the water.
a non jack taylor voter
Jack it was democracy that started the rant and making stupid comments, the replies by mark and ben were responding to stupid comments. I hope you don’t become a youth mp because you don’t reflect my views. Hope people ignore you. Go team ben and mark.
Jack Taylor
I take you comments as very harsh and i do appeal for an apology. I have stood for Youth MP as i believe stone youth dont get their voices heard enough. I am utterly taken back by your comment and deeply offended. I do however think i know who this is and i can appeal to find out.
Kate
Well said Jack the very fact that SBC are stuffing the teenagers at the back of the sewage pipe on the plan tells you how the youth of Stone are thought of.
elvisisaliveandlivinginstone
Kate, do you know what you are saying???? Its just a constant stream of unsupport drivel. The BC are engaging a consultation process with residents of Stone. Make your points known to them, that is the point of consultation. If you want more facilities in a better location, tell them…
Kate
Hey Elvis how come they are not having a consultation at Walton Community Centre when Westbridge is in the Walton ward ,are they afraid of Councillors Mark Green and Jill Hood they’re the only Walton councillors to stand against a supermarket. I bet they will really tell them!
elvisisaliveandlivinginstone
Kate, look at SBC website and see what can be achieved when teenagers engage in the planning process. Doxey Park in Stone now has an awesome teenage park and an excellent BMX track which i regularly use
John
Where is Doxey Park in Stone?
Dave
I am not aware of a Doxey Park in Stone, but there is a park in Doxey, Stafford which has recently been built. I think this has a new BMX track
daz
Cllr hood was the irresponsible person that spread lies about wbp being developed for housing and foodstore. She let people believe that all of wbp would be lost under a sea of tarmac. She spread lies. She is not fit to be a cllr.
dismayed by the negativity
Its an indicative drawing if you’ve got a better suggestion then make it. Its easy to be critical but why don’t you try and be constructive. Add to the debate.
elvisisaliveandlivinginstone
Jack, up until this point I have read your comments with interest and been pleased to see someone so young take an active part in planning and te needs of Stone. I happen to think we need more young members to take an active role and tell the Cllrs what you want. However your behaviour and the behaviour of Demo cracy have deeply saddened me and disapointed me.
elvisisaliveandlivinginstone
Jack, I will have to disagree with you again. Demo cracy has made no reasonable comments and opinions. None of the statements he has made have any substance and they are littered with insults at the professionals who are trying to advise.
Your final comment I find particularly confusing, you state that everyone is entitled to their opinion but if Ben and Mark see any incorrect comments they are to keep it to themselves. This is hardly the way to ensure a healthy debate.
In fact Jack, demo cracy has gone very quiet all of a sudden are you sure you are not one of the same?? I sincerely hope not, I thought you had more integrity than that and would be very disapointed if a supposed youth MP had acted in such an under hand way.
elvisisaliveandlivinginstone
Jack, for someone who states paragraphs should be short, that is a long one!
I for one, happen to believe that both Ben and Mark showed great restraint in there dealings with demo cracy despite his / her personal comments and insults they did not become embroiled in a slanging match which woud of been very easily for them to do so.
Im unfamiliar with planning policy and developments and therefore I find the comments made by Mark, Ben and others very enlightening and are helping to make an informed decision. I have certainly learnt more on here than I did from the unsupported leaflets I recieved today and the leaflets from the council.
I sincerely hope that your negative comments and the unprofessional way demo cracy has behaved does not discourage healthy debate.
Jack Taylor
I find your comments rather hilarious considering you have been a coward and have covered yourself up in a fake disguise! You are a keyboard warrior and can’t face the real world so i have nothing more for you!
elvisisaliveandlivinginstone
What opinions do you have for Demo cracy who was the one who initially hid behind aliases when he started his tirade of abuse. jack act with integrity not hypocracy…… such school boy tactics are fine in the playground but not in an adult debate.
Kate
Here we have the voice of Children should be seen and not heard brigade! Jack is very young and surely as adults we WILL make allowances for that.He has some very valuable points to make listen to them with respect.
Jack Taylor
After reading through that you are also and i quote “nitially hid behind aliases” so…. You better take your own advice and act with integrity not hypocracy!
elvisisaliveandlivinginstone
I dont even know what a keyboard warrior is but im taking that as a compliment!! jack your first night as a moderator is not going well, the debate is turning out to be like a scene from a school playground. This would obvioiusly suit you and demo cracy but alas I think Im a little too old for this.
Jack Taylor
For one i am NOT i repeat NOT a moderator!
Kate
Jack take the moral high ground and ignore these offensive comments view them with humour.Reply with dignity you’re doing brilliantly.
elvisisaliveandlivinginstone
Thats obvious and what a relief
Dave of Wales
Is 1400 sq.m the total footprint of the store or the retail space? If the latter the outline shown on the “indicative” drawing is probably quite close to the correct size as most stores I have seen are split 50-50 between sales and store rooms, loading bay etc.(By the way I don’t live in Stone like a lot of correspondents)
kate
Wish you did live in Stone you speak with straight tongue I’ll go with your sheep counting expertise any day
Ben Alcock
Hi David. When retailers rents and size of units are established they are based on 80% of the total floor area referred to as the net internal area (NIA), 20 % of the store is normally used for back office areas and warehouse space etc. The 1400 sqm figure has not been stated as being the size of store or the NIA and further clarification is needed. Based on the 80/20 split the food store could be potentially slightly larger. However the size of the footprint shown on the indicative drawing is for a 2400 sqm unit.
mark
Hi Dave,
The draft local plan as currently worded does not state whether the 1400sq.m is the retail sale space or the total footprint of the store. I intend to make a representation to the plan on this point because it should be made clear. Its my ASSUMPTION ONLY that the figure relates to the retail space because the need and the impact of the store is only concerned with this figure. Therefore, the total footprint of the store will be larger. On retail schemes that I am involved in, which are a similar size to the one proposed here we work on a 70:30 split. The 30 being the elements that you have listed above (loading bay etc). It is my view that this store would not need 50% of its space for non food purposes because of the size of the store that is being proposed, delivery schedules and staff requirments. A 70:30 split is similar to the recently built Aldi on the A34.
Dave – i’m going to make an educated gues that your originally from Wales.
Dave of Wales
Thanks for that, was my location a lucky guess or did I leave too many clues?
mark
Ha ha. It was a tough guess. Do you live within the area now?. Welcome to the debate, i’m glad its more civil than it was last night. Out of curiousity whats your view on the principle of development and will you be making comments on the questionnaire or to the draft local plan?
mark
Dave, one final point. The 1400sq.m could be split over two floors, whilst i consider this to be unlikely mezzanine floors are becoming more common. However, the point i am trying to make (maybe not very well) is that the amount of development proposed is not yet known, nor do we know exactly what type of leisure facilities that we will get. Therefore, the indicative drawings should not be taken literally, rather they should be used for the purposes that they were intended, which is to inform the debate about the principle of development and to show how the site could be developed. We should not seek to extract any more information from the plans than that because they havent yet gone through the consultation process and they will be subject to change. I am of the opinion that a number of improvements could be made to the layout and i have suggested these to the bc. I would suggest everyone should do the same. My objection is against people quoting 25% – 28% loss of greenspace when this cannot be substantiated because of the prematurity of the plans.
Ben Alcock
Furhermore, the NPPF framwork encourages the use of mezzanine floors when store are located in edge of town areas.
Dem ocracy
Mark and Ben. One of you lives in Stafford. One of you lives in Cannock.Both of those Towns have been destroyed by edge of centre super markets. Cannock has been given Portas funding and still a failing High street.Maybe you should do more to help those Towns.
You both keep failing to provide evidence of anything you say.
Having spoken to the Borough using the tel number on the leaflet I was told that the indicative drawings have been produced using drawings of a site layout. The road on the leaflet drawing is where it is on there layout drawings and does take up some the existing protected open space land.
Your postings are all over facebook and here.There are many many of them.Always having a go at those that dare to speak out against the development.I feel that you
“doth protest too much”
FrostyTheSnowman
Dem ocracy. You are throwing out all sorts of unsubstantiated claims and getting quite personal, like a cornered rat. Telling people to stop commenting when they are quite obviously quelling any objections you can come up with shows that you are out of ideas, out of control and unable to “hack the pace”. You keep saying you have provided evidence when all you do is keep referrign to the artists impression that the council released. it’s like you think you are right and anyone that proves otherwise is wrong. Besides, Where do you live? What do you do for a living? What’s your name? What qualifictaions do you have? What are you doing to fix Stone? You comment too much! Your claims are not proven!…. Not nice is it??? If you really supported Democracy you would organise a new petition and give everyone the facts about what is actually proposed in their town before you ask them to sign it and see if you still get 4700 signatures. You would also support the council in their plans as they were democratically elected. Democracy will allow us to vote again soon – that is where you get the chance to vite in people that will do what you want them to do.
Kate
If you mean democracy in the form of the YES NO UNSURE which is on the SBC plan just posted, out then I’m not sure that would be considered democratic more like controlled questions on an inaccurate plan
Dave
I cant believe an indicative drawing has caused so much controversy….. Its indicative its not meant to be a truly accurate representation!!!!
John
May be a more professional approach towards drawings should have been taken by Stafford Borough. Then we could ALL be sure of what is or what isn’t being planned for Westbridge. An indicative drawing works both ways. There COULD BE LESS, there COULD BE MORE. On such an important issue they have failed us all.
Dave
The BC are not the only council to use artist impressions they are widely used resource. Once a planning application is ready to be submitted a full land and topographical survey will take place which accurately measure the land enabling an accurate site plan to be produced.
Carl
Dem ocracy, this is an open forum for people to air the views and make comments, it is not a place for personal insults and for you to air your personal grievances. Please stick to the topic in hand.
Ben Alcock
What is your issue? Did you have a bad day at school. I would urge you not to make constant assumptions that you can not support.
1. Myself and Mark do not live i Stafford and Cannock – your first incorrect statement
2. Stafford has not been ruined by out of town supermarkets, please see the defintion of what constitutes an out of town supermarket. Tesco, Asda and Sainsburys have been built on the edge of the town center and therefore accord with NPPF and the sequential test.
3. Stafford is not a failing town, it has an 18% vacancy rate which is far better than other similar towns of its size and this figure does not take into account the significant inward investment planned for the town, new morrisons, new marks and spencers and the planned over haul of the Guildhall center. Many of the recent shops that have closed in Stafford have closed as a result of there failure to adapt to changing retail trends i.e HMV, Jessops etc. Clearly supermarkets have driven down the price of CDs and electrical items etc which have caused these retailers to have there margins squeezed. However these retailers have been struggling for years.
I am sure they have been produced based on a site layout drawings, but how accurate was the site layout drawing and what scale was the site layout drawing. To give you some indication of the innacuracies that can be present on a site layout drawing – a 1:500 plan with a red line of 1mm thick can actually represent an area of 2m. Which is why they are not relied on. Prior to any proposal being submitted the area will undergo a topographical land survey to indicate the correct size of the park. Once this is done, this is then your opportunity to question the sizes of the proposals… not now, this is merely an indicative drawing produced by an Artist. When we instruct artist to produce similar artrist impressions to us we merely give them photographs to work off so often they do not visit the site or have a true representation of what they are drawing.
I have acknowledge that some of the green space at the park will be lost, my issue is that the figure of 25% being banded around is an inaccurate with no evidential base to support it. You also fail to mention that the park is actually being extended to the front of the park (nearer the road) so the net loss of land is in fact negligible. However this is all just conjecture, until accurate drawings are produced, there is no way of determining the exact amount of space that will be lost or gained. You are missing the point of indicative drawings.
At no time have I had a go at anybody on facebook or on here, I think you will in fact find that is you who has insisted on making personal, unhelpful comments not I. I prefer to act in a professional, ethical manner and refrain from adopting such childish tactics. On all the forums that I have participated in I have not had a go at anybody even when I have not agreed with what they are saying. I happen to believe that debate should be encouraged to ensure that all voices are heard to ensure Stone gets the best park possible. This is a democratic way to act.
mark
Again, you are wrong. The fact that you can not see the evidence that we have provided in our posts demonstrates your lack of knowledge of planning, therefore, it is a pointless having a debate with you. Do you undertsand the current purpose of the consultation process? Your posts suggest NOT. Do you understand the sequential assessment or the implications of the NPPF? If you did you would know that the redevelopment of WBP accords with them both and, therefore, is in accordance with planning policy. Read the NPPF, in particular paragraph 24.
Why are so obsessed by me and Ben, maybe i should be flattered. However, judging by your posts i suspect that your not a particularly bright individual, therefore, i don’t want you anywhere near me.
None of us live in Cannock, however i previously have done so. However, irrespective of where we live is irrelevant to the points that we have raised. My planning knowledge and experience does not change depending upon where i live!!! I have commented on WBP because i care about Stone, its the place of my birth and its where i plan to live again in the future. Not only this I have family that live in Stone and my nephews deserve decent leisure facilities and useable, well maintained greenspace to play on.
Of course the indicative drawings have been used based on the site layout. However, this does not mean the plans are to scale or accurately show the built footprint….BANG HEAD AGAINST A WALL AGAIN! Your post does claims ‘some of the open space will be lost’? Hoiw much? Based on this article its 25-28%/. Can you confirm this? NO. Because the drawings are indicatively drawn.
I accept everyone is entitled to an opinion for, against or undecided about wbp. However, I will not standy and watch hearsay, misinformation and lies being spread because this undermines the debate. We’ve had enough lies being spread by Cllr Hood and Kenney when they incorrectly suggested all of wbp would be lost because of housing and a supermarket. Go through all the iterations of the draft local plan and you will see no mention of housing. You will also see the BC’s committment for WBP to be a place where people meet, eat, shop and play etc etc. On the leaflets you will also see the BC’s commitment to ensuring that the greenspace allows festivals / events to continue. These are facts…go and read the information and then we have you can come back on here and apologise for your stupidity. Your wasting my time…now back to my day job, which happens to be a planning consultant….
Ben Alcock
The writers of this article are very much mistaken if they believe that this site does not accord with planning policy and I very much doubt that they have spoken to any professional planners. Mark is a chartered town planner and I am a chartered building surveyor, therefore we have extensive knowledge of planning policy. I can therefore categorically assure these individuals that the scheme does accord with National Planning policy (NPPF), and local plan.
Dave
The BC agree with you Ben than the scheme accords with the National Planning policy – please see the frequently asked questions produced by the Borough council today
KeepWestbridgeParkGreen
We have appointed Peter Weathered of Peter Weathered Planning. A Chartered
Town Planner and Fellow of the RICS. Peter has over 40 years experience
in Planning and has given evidence in over 200 planning appeals as an expert
witness. Prior to Setting up his own consultancy, Peter was a Director
and Head of Planning at Global property consultancy DTZ.
KWPG
Keep westbridge Park Green have appointed Peter Weatherhead of Peter Weatherhead Planning. A Chartered
Town Planner and Fellow of the RICS. Peter has over 40 years experience
in Planning and has given evidence in over 200 planning appeals as an expert
witness. Prior to Setting up his own consultancy, Peter was a Director
and Head of Planning at Global property consultancy DTZ
Appols for previous incorrect spelling. Damn phone
elvisisaliveandlivinginstone
I welcome the appointment of a professional by KWPG lets finally have some coherent arguments and not hearsay and scare mongering.
Kate
I posted earlier and just remembered that along with my silver award for trampoline and cycling proficiency badge I also have my bronze swimming award sorry I forgot that one.Will advise on further awards when you post yet again your qualifications Yawn!
elvisisaliveandlivinginstone
Congratulations on all your awards you must be very proud, I assuming by your benign comments that those awards were very difficult for you to obtain so I am pleased that you hold them so dear.
I would suggest the next award you aim for is level 1 reading then maybe…. your comments may actually make some sense and respond to the comments that you are attempting to apply too.
I am not in the profession of planning etc, but I know how difficult it is to become chartered in any profession, therefore I find your comments both childish and condescending.
Moderator can we please turn this back into a professional debate, this forum has turned into a slanging match more akin to a school playground…..
jvictor7
Can we draw a line under the personal comments please and get back to the issue? The slanging match is very much overshadowing the debate, which is a real shame.
—– Reply message —–
jvictor7
I agree. Let’s please stick to the issues and draw a line under the slanging matches now – it’s getting very boring and is overshadowing what has been (on the whole) a good debate
dismayed by the negatitity
Yet another pointless post. Are you frustrated by your life. Maybe that’s not suprising because judging by your list of achievements (and lack of qualifications) you haven’t achieved very much, maybe you should spend less time on here and actually study to get more qualifications, if you did that you might have something interesting to say.
Dem ocracy
You are WRONG. The plan DOES NOTconform to NPPF because at the moment the left hand side of the road is classed as possibly a brownfield site but the right hand side is currently a protected open space. Until it is changed in the new Plan for Stafford Borough to ‘mixed use development’it remains so.No wonder SBC want to change its use! Have look youself.
https://stafford.addresscafe.com/app/exploreit/localplan2011.aspx
tick the protected open space box on the right.
as for your extended knowledge please check first before you post.
Carl
Dem ocracy why do you believe the WBP scheme does not conform to NPPF?
mark
The 2001 local plan has largely been superseeded by developments in planning policy, including most recently the nppf, which is pro sustainable development. Mixed use allocations can include built and non built development, as such the open space is as important as the leisure centre. The allocation of the whole of the park does not mean the park will be losr in a sea of tarmac. The bc recognise the importance of the open space, hence why development is concentrated in the left hand side and reference is made on the leaflets to evets etc
Ben Alcock
Have you read the National Planning Policy Framework?
mark
Not possibly! It is brownfield, surely you should know that. Much of the area where the new developmet is proposed is classfied as brownfield because its previously developed.
Ben Alcock
You have questionned my professional integrity and experience (and even took the strange step of googling me) even though I have been honest and shared my identity. What have you got to hide and what is your professional experience? or do you find it easier to make your comments/insults as a keyboard troll.
Ben Alcock
Besides no part of the right hand side of the park is being developed?? so what is your point?
dem ocracy
No part of the right hand side of the road is being developed? You have got to be having a laugh.That statement proves your inexperience.Tell the people of Stone that nothing on the right hand side is being developed and you will be laughed out of town.If that was the case me and you would be singing off the same hymn sheet. but sadly it is NOT.
Carl
Have I missed something? The drawings on the leaflet that I have recieved do not show any development on the right hand side park. Dem ocracy do you know differently and what evidence do you have?
mark
Inexperience??? I have 10 years post qualification experience and Ben has approximately 8 years experience. And what experience do you have in the planning process. Please enlighten me.
Ben Alcock
Look at the indicative leaflets, this clearly shows what is being proposed. At no part of that leaflet does it show the right hand side of the park as being developed, this space has been ear marked for open space to facilitate the continued presence of all the festivals in Stone i,e F and D festival etc. The Cllrs that I have been in contact with are fully aware of the importance of the F and D festival and want to see it to continue, which is why i sincerely hope the organisers of the F and D festival organisers take an active part in the consultation process to ensure that they get all the space they require.
My inexperience?? How many Cllrs have you spoken to regarding this development? How many meetings have you attended? what experience do have in producing planning proposals such as this one?
Your argument is incoherent, unsupported and has no factual basis. What evidence do you have that the right hand side of the park is to be developed?? the fact remains, you have none and therefore it is unprofessional of you to band this around as if it was a fact. This is not an ethical way to behave and doesnt not help.
Ben Alcock
Wrong, The national planning policy framework states that retail and leisure used like the ones proposed should be located within town center locations, where this is not possible they should be located in edge of town location and then out of town locations if the other sites available are not viable or sustainable. This site has been identified as a mixed use site in the local plan and is therefore both viable and available. Furthermore the NPPF states that towns should be sustainable and self sufficient, therefore where a need has been established this should be met, hence the need for a new food store and a new leisure center. The site on which the new food store is being built is predominately on the existing footprint and is therefore brown field site. The site is a mixed use development site and has been since 2006.
mark
Democracy you are embarrasing yourself, you clearly do not understand the implications of the nppf or the sequential assessment. The nppf supports retail devts on the edge of centres, it also encourages councils to meet their own objectively assessed needs. There also happens to be a presumption in favour of sustainable development and the need for authorities to work with applicants to bring sites forward. I am to educate you on planning, however do not question my knowledge, experience or integrity because I, unlike you, know what I’m talking about.
Dem ocracy
The site on the left hand side of the road has. But not the right. Show us all otherwise.I have provided facts but you ignore them. Show us where you get your knowledge from. You cant expect us to beleive just becuase you say so. Show us. Provide evidence like I have.
FrostyTheSnowman
What facts have you provided? Just some claims based on an artists impression? Please explain.
mark
You haven’t provided any evidence. Read my posts carefully and you will see that everything I have told you is fact and I repeat, WE ARE NOT being asked to comment on the layout only the principle of development. Can you not understand this point? The layout has not been finalised as such your points on the layout are irrelevant at this time. What is so difficult to understand? These are facts. As I’ve said before all you have demonstarted is your lack knowledge of the planning process and the purpose of indicative drawings. My knowledge has been obtained from working in the planning process and being involved in the plan making process and submitting major planning applications. It was also obtained during undertaking a 5 year degree at the university of manchester. My evidence is based on information included in the draft local plan and on the consultation leaflet. However, you seem incapable of understanding the purpose of the current consultation.
I have no reason to lie, I have professional integrity and could be sued if I provided false infoation. Therefore evertthing I have said can be verified.
Ben Alcock
Lets look at the facts shall we:-
Stone requires a food store
Stone requires an improvement to the out of date leisure center
WBP is under used and under utilised when you compare it to similar parks in the area.
Councils are facing massive budget cuts.
These are the facts! How do you propose that the BC improve the leisure provision at a time when budgets are being cut? The BC has been open from the start and stated that the building of a 1400 sq m food store is needed to fund the proposed improvements through a section 106 agreement. If the BC was merely driven by money, they could quite easily sell the whole site to a supermarket, however they have resisted the urge to do this and proposed a small food store which they have managed to squeeze into the additional brown field site. Please note the indicative dwg shows the food store to be as twice as big as it actually will be. The size of the food store has been quoted as being 1400 sq m.
Ben Alcock
Your comments are incoherent. The left hand side of the park is being developed this is brownfield site (please refer to the definiton of brownfield sites) the right hand side is not being developed. I get this knowledge from looking at the indicative leaflets which are available for public consultation.
You havent provided any facts – you incorrectly stated that WBP does not accord with planning policy when it does, as stated by the BC and Mark who is a chartered town planner. You then added a link to the 2001 local plan…..
Refer to all my previous posts… i have provided evidence on the sequential test, nppf, mary portas reports, WYG and DTZ evening and daytime economy reports and numerous BC reports.
You have not provided any evidence, and are showing a distinct lack of knowledge.
Dem ocracy
Should we all bow to the Chartered town planner & building surveyor?You might be what you say you are but we dont have the facts to confirm that!
You can’t tell people that what you say is fact you have no right to.Let the Borough deal with the facts. Let us all listen to the organ grinder, not the monkey
Ben Alcock
Why do you insist in these childish comments? you state that you want an informed debate but then insist on making irrelevant comments that have no place in a open forum. I find it somewhat odd that your ID is democracy but then you continue to hide behind an alias to dish out your pointless insults.
I have no concern whether or not you believe my identity, i did not spend 10 years at univesrity and study 3 degrees at university in Surveying and construction to defend myself against a keyboard troll.
All I have done is offered the facts and policy to this debate to keep parties of all sides informed, may i ask what you have done to forward this debate?? I would urge you to read all my comments (all of which i stand behind and do not feel the urge to hide my identity) in the majority I have urged people to engage in the debate and read the consultation documents and listen to the facts.
Whereas your comments are little more than a string of unededucated, thoughtless comments……… hardly the actions of well rounded human being, yet you insist that I am the monkey. Interesting!
Dem ocracy
Re: my previous post.Check your facts first please.
BTW you come a cross as very condescending.
You and your sibling have had your say a million times over. would be nice if you allowed others.
mark
Democracy our posts are based on fact, whereas yours are not. You’ve added nothing debate apart from showing yourself up to be a fool. I will happily provide proof of my qualificatiosn and experience to support my posts. Have you got any experience, knowledge in the planning process. I very much doubt it, so rather than making insults read the posts properly..you will learn something.
Ben Alcock
This is golden…. you insist on insulting me yet I am the one being condescending. Your facts are incorrect and you have made no attempt to forward the debate.
We comment in responce to peoples comment which are sometimes incorrect or lack clarity, at no point have I been condescending, I have merely urged people to refer to planning policy and to engage in the debate………. what have you done???
Dem ocracy
I reiterate
https://stafford.addresscafe.com/app/exploreit/localplan2011.aspx
tick the protected open space box on the right.
as for your extended knowledge please check first before you post.
mark
Nobody is disputing the parks current allocation or its importance as a greenpsace. This debate is about what allocation the park should have in the future. Why do you find this so difficult to understand.
Ben Alcock
Its the 2001 local plan……. refer to the more recent local plans!
dem ocracy
Indicative drawings are what they are. They could also mean that more space is going be take up as well as less space.Mr Alcock asks for grown up debate. He should stop stomping around the living room as though what he says is right and only he is right. To debate you have to have to sides to an argument.
Why should people believe that what you are saying is correct.How can you know.You do not have all the facts the same as others do not.
To say that ALBOS should have at least established the truth before publishing is grossly unfair.They have only published all points of view including many of yours. How can you proove yours to be right ones unless you work for the Borough. Please stop stifling debate.
We live in a democracy and everyone is entitled to read, make their own minds up and believe what ever they want whether it be what you say or others say.They then can vote for what they want.
mark
I don’t need to work for the borough in order to understand the planning making process or the purpose of indicative plans. You tend to understand how it all works when you’ve worked in the public and private sector as long as i have.
mark
If you can’t see the facts that i have outlined in my post then you clearly do not understand planning or the purpose of indicative drawings. You also do not understand the purpose of the current consultation exercise, as such its pointless having a discussion with you. If you wish to waste your time making commenting on the finer details of the layout then fine, however we are not at that stage yet. The purpose of the current consulation is to establish the principle of development. Not to argue about the pros and cons of the layout because the finer details of the design have not yet been determined, furthermore no operator has yet been chosen. Can you not comprehend the difference?
Given that the BC are wanting the foodstore operator to pay for the improved leisure facilities wouldnt you expect them to have their say on the layout. I’m sure you would, as such wait until the drawings have been developed further before making claims of greenspace being lost which cannot be substantiated. I am a town planner, therefore, i am more than qualified to respond to nimby comments made in this article.
Furthermore, the article makes a number of errors…the points in this article made do not make the plan unviable. Viability refers to the commercial attractiveness of the development (please refer to the planning definition). The points made in this article refer to the feasibility of the layout providing an adequate layout for the future occupier…..the author couldn’t even get the title right!
I am happy to accept the view of the majority, however i will not stand by and watch false information be spread.
Freddie
Mark is entitled to read and comment too. At least what he says is based on years of professional experience and is very factual. His comments on the proposals and plans are just what everyone needs to be able to see the through the smoke screens and spanners that various groups are trying to throw into the works to stop the development. Everyone else is just stating hearsay and opinion in the most part. If we all ran around listening to hearsay and opinion then we would all still think that the world is flat. For example, people are starting to state that 25% of the park will be lost! That is not fact. No plans have been put in yet and no scale drawings have been done. i can see why someone who has spent his life having to be factual and accuratewould get frustrated with laypeople saying things like this. With regards to ALBOS posting these comments, well, when respectable media sites/tv/radio publish items that are not factual it can lead to some people thinking that they are facts. For instance, if the BBC news came on and said: “We have here an eyewitness report of an explosion in city X” and then aired the report, many people would believe that it is true. This phenomenon has actually been proven by a famous haloween programme that the BBC aired: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostwatch Either way, I think we all know that this is not ALBOS’s own opinion and there have been 3 different opinions about the development now and people can make up their own mind which they think is the most accurate and has the interests of the whole town at heart. Without ALBOS there would not be anywhere that is realtively neutral to comment.
mark
Thank you freddie for your kind comments. Your post accurately reflects how I’m feeling. Spooky!
Ben Alcock
Furthermore the size of the food store has all ready been stated as 1400 sqm, this therefore will not change. On the indicative drawings shown the size of the food store is actually shown as being twice the size as it actually will be.
Until accurate drawings have been produced by surveyors, planners and architects which will be based on the leisure use survey all these assumptions that land will be gained or lost is merely conjecture. Banding around unsupported figures of 25% loss is unhelpful and unaccurate.
Brian
Ben On the one hand yousay these are indicative drawings and size cannot be jugded and then you say the diagram shows the supermarket twice the size it will be.
Kate
well said Brian I have just had the SBC leaflet through my door. hard to recognise it’s westbridge park I think my childs playgroup produced it. I shall be supporting Keep Westbridge Park Green when I’ve stopped laughing at the SBC plan. When did a supermarket become a foodstore?
elvisisaliveandlivinginstone
The definition between food store and supermarket is regarding the retail floor space. The food store proposed for WBP is similar size to the Aldi and therefore much smaller than supermarkets such as Asda, Tesco etc
dismayed by the negativity
Asda, sainsburys, tescos etc are all foorstores. The clue is in what they prodominantly sell…food! Hence the term foodstore. If your struggling to recognise wbp then you obviously use wbp very much because its obvious to anyone else.
mark
Hi Brian,
The size of the retail floorspace is known and this is the 1400 sq.m included in the draft plan. It is possible that this figure could represent the total built footprint or merely the retail floorsapce, therefore, excluding the staff room, managers office etc etc. Please see my earlier response to Dave of Wales. If, as i suspect, the figure quoted (1400sq,m) is just the retail floorspace then the actual shop will have a larger footprint. As such, I believe the actual store will be 30% bigger than this, Ben suggests 20% and Dave suggests 50%. I believe my figure is correct, however the only person that actually knows the final figure is the supermarket operator which (i believe) has not yet been chosen.
The key point here is not the actual built footprint of the buildings because these are subject to change. The point we are being consulted on is do we accept the principle of development, hence the quesitons on the questionnaire. It is possible to support the principle of development but have reservations / object to the layout. However, any comments on the layout should really wait until we have seen more detailed drawings because this willl allow everone the opportunity to accurately assess what is being proposed and any potential impacts.
Ben Alcock
This figure was quoted by somebody who works or organises the F and D festival. This information is in fact on one one of the other posts on this forum. The reason why I consistently mention the fact that the size of the food store on the drawing is twice as big as it should be is to re-affirm the point that these drawings are indicative and should not be scaled. The mere fact that the only dimension that we sort of know (1400 sq m foodstore) and that is shown to be a 1000 sqm larger than what is actually proposed.
Clearly shows that this drawing should not be scaled as it is not an accurate, scalable drawing merely a representation. I hope that clears the point. Thanks Ben
tryingtohelp
Ben: The figures I quoted in the “other post” were taken from the “What the park could look like” illustration in the consultation leaflet.
I do not know why various contributors immediately say “but it will NOT look like that”? Whilst the two “eye-level” views in the leaflet are captioned “artist impressions”, the plan is not.
If that plan is what the park COULD look like, then the area of open, level, green space COULD be 27% less than is presently available for the various events that are currently held on Westbridge Park.
I assure you that I neither work for, nor have any involvement with the organising of, the Stone Food and Drink Festival. Do you think that your totally unfounded statement to that effect in some way adds to your argument? Are you trying to imply that statements attributed to the organisers of the Food and Drink Festival are by default incorrect?
My drawings showing the area utlised by the event with which I do have involvement are now in the hands of the consultants running the consultation for the Borough Council, following a face to face meeting with them earlier this week.
Dave
I have read a number of Ben’s comments and he has stated on numerous occasions that he is a fan of the F and D festival. Therefore I do not believe he was stating that comments from F and D organisers etc are by default incorrect, just the proposal that 27% of land will be lost.
Does this 27% include the football pitch? I know in previous years the F and D festival could not occupy the pitch.
Ben Alcock
Hi trying to help, what unfounded comment have I made. I merely stated that based on your figures of the proposed store which you scaled off the indicative drawing would mean the food store would actually be twice as size as what is proposed. I cant remember the exact figure you quoted, but I think the figure was nearer 2400 sqm as opposed to what is being proposed of 1400 sqm.
I have no doubt that the plan you have produced was not done methodically and with skill. My point was merely based on the fact that this drawing is an indicative one produced by an artist. When I commision artist impressions we give them a photograph and a sketch of what we are proposing and therefore clearly the drawings are not then able to be scaled. Furthermore, someone stated on here ( I think) that the indicative drawing was based on a site plan. Depending on when the site plan was produced, how it was produced and the scale it was produced at can have an adverse effect on the accuracy. A site plan at 1:500 with a 1mm red line can represent an area of up to 2m. The inaccuracies of site plan have been discussed in depth and statute states ie land registration act and ordnance survey act states that site plans should not be scaled, therefore they are inherently flawed.
I am a huge fan of the F and D festival and I sincerely hope that they engage with the BC to ensure that they get enough space to continue and prosper and I am encouraged by the fact you have had a meeting with the BC. Thats excellent news!!
tryingtohelp
Ben Alcock: I was referring to the comment posted against your name, in response to Brian: “This figure was quoted by somebody who works or organises the F and D festival.”
I calculated and quoted the figures.
I have no association with the Stone Food and Drink Festival.
It was your comment that I have some such association that was untrue and unfounded.
Also, for your information, the meeting to which I referred was (i) nothing to do with the Food and Drink Festival, and (ii), was not actually with staff from the Borough Council, but with two people from Beattie Communications, who are the PR and web-marketing agency who “have been appointed to manage the consultation process”.
Dave
Hi tryingtohelp, sorry for wrongly assuming that you were associated with the F and D festival. I know how annoying it is to be accused of being associated with an organisation just because of the views held, so I should not of made the same assumption.
I am assuming that any deliberations you are having with the PR company will be fed back to the BC, so the mere fact you are not dealing with them directly I would hope will not be a negative.
Are the PR company aware of how much space the F and D festival require?
dismmayed at the negativity
Do you understand the meaning of indicative drawings and principle of development??
tryingtohelp
Why should I have to?
The words on the consultation leaflet are: “What the park could look like”.
I’m sure that if the Borough had wished to use other words, they would have done.
There seem to be a lot of people making comments here who don’t want us to think about the effect the proposed development MIGHT have on the open space on Westbridge Park.
If the people of Stone want the additional facilities offered on the leaflet, and are happy that the new layout MIGHT be as shown on the plan in the leaflet, then that is fine with me.
I think it is rather disingenuous however to suggest that you can add a supermarket/foodstore, increase the size of the leisure centre, increase the provision for car parking, add rows of trees – but that the impact on the amount of open space will be negligible.
Oh – we must not forget the strip of grass between where the existing service road has been converted to the new tree-lined footpath, and the highway. Won’t that be a lovely safe place for family activities.
elvisisaliveandlivinginstone
The BC also stated that they are indicative, which is a clear caveat.
tryingtohelp
Elvisisaliveandlivinginstone: The word “indicative” does not appear in the copy of the consultation leaflet that I downloaded from the Borough website.
Where is it that the BC stated that they are indicative?
Please share this information with the rest of us.
Kate
Oops there it goes again SUPERMARKET not the American word Foodstore
Dave
It is referred to as a food store on the BC documentation Kate.
elvisisaliveandlivinginstone
Food store is not an american word?? It describes the function of the unit i.e a unit that sells food, a supermarket sell clothes, electrical items etc and not just food….. I hope this clears the defintion for you.
dismayed by the negativity
Are you planning to add anything to this debate because you haven’t so far. Why don’t you ask your child to contribute because I’m sure they have more intelligent things to say.
kate
Yes you’re right again, how do you do it. She’s just said very clearly her first words KEEP WESTBRIDGE PARK GREEN oh bless her.
dismayed at the negativity
If your happy to drive to stafford to have decent play facilites then fine, but I hope when the new play facilities are provided at stone you are refused entry because your attitudes are selfish. I, and my children want decent play space. I look forward to seeing you drive to stafford whilst I walk to wbp. Bye bye!
john
Unfortunateley the play area indicated on the drawing will mean that we will have less than we did 4 years ago before they took away play facilties.
elvisisaliveandlivinginstone
These are indicative drawings…. I would expect that the BC leisure use survey will help to deterrmine exactly what is required at WBP.
Ben Alcock
I hope you are not referring to me?? I am a professional Chartered Surveyor and therefore my arguments are not based on nimby arguments or opinion but planning policy and facts. These policies are all available for you to read and I would advise you to do so before you make uneducated and personal comments with no rationale reasoning or supporting evidence. I can assure you that I do not “stomp” around, I have heard these nimby arguments on numerous occasions and so have the BC. No amount of questionnaires, petitions or unfounded arguments will sway these planners into making their decision. There decision will be based on planning policy,local plans and facts all of which I and others have cited. If you do not want to believe this and continue to bury your head in the sand that is your perogative, but i would urge you not to make childish and personal comments. There is no place for these in an intelleectual debate.
Furthermore do not assume that I work for the Borough just because I can see the benefits in the proposal. At no time have I said the proposal is perfect and clearly there is room for improvement, therefore this is a period of consultation and for the people of Stone to engage in the planning process to ensure everyone gets what they want. Becoming bogged down on whether a drawing produced by an artist is scaleable or if there is a need for a food store is not helpful and does not help the debate.
Dem ocracy
I’m not referring to you.You flatter yourself. But just because your a charter surveyor does not give you the right to question the ability of anyone understanding SBC consultation document. Incidentally when I Google Ben Alcock chartered surveyor the results are nil. So either you are not a chartered surveyor or you are not recognised by Google. Strange for
someone who makes the point of being so qualified to the people of Stone.
mark
Alll ben and I have tried to do is explain to people what we are being asked to comment on. We are not being asked for our views on the layout, can you not appreciate that. The questions ask do you support the principle of the bc selling part of the land to a supermarket to fund leisure improvements. We are not being asked about the appropriateness of the development or layout, hence why comments about this are irrelevant at this time. Furthermore, it is not possible to comment on drawings without knowing the full details or having scaled drawings. Do you not accept this? When the time comes we will be asked for our comments on the layout. It is as this point that comments such as parking, access, location of development, the amount of greenspace should be raised.
Ben Alcock
I find it farcical that you question my professional experience and integrity based on google search results!!!! Genius
Ben Alcock
Furthermore when did i question peoples ability to read the SBC documents? if you are going to attempt to quote me please establish the facts first.
For your information, my closing sentence urged people to engage in the planning process to ensure that people get the park that they want….. surely you would support such a democratic act.
Ben Alcock
Thanks for Googling me ….. now I am flattered. For your information I am double chartered with the the RICS and CIOB (certificates and evidence of experience available on request). I work for a private sector company and therefore my details are not accessible on Google.
I would urge to refrain from questionning my professional integrity and ask why you believe personal comments are necessary in an educated debate. Furthermore I am an active member of the Territorial Army and i therefore take my personal security very seriously.
Please stick to facts and policy. Have you read the SBC consulatation and NPPF documents?? and do you believe WBP is viable as argued by the article?
Kate
I’ve got my Silver in trampoline does that qualify me to comment on the Stafford Plan oh yes and my cycling proficiency badge and very proud of it too.
Dave
Any body who has a vested interest in Stone is able to make omments
dismayed by the negativity
What’s your point? I’m struggling to understand any of your posts.
Hoddy
The swimming pool at Alleyne’s High School is not at the end of its life, as SBC would have us all believe. In fact the new lining that was fitted just a few year’s ago has a minimum guarantee for a further 7 years and this can be extended with a repaint. The roof was rebuilt 5 years ago and is currently undergoing £20K worth of work at this very moment. In total Alleyne’s High School and SBC has spent approx £200K to make our pool one of the very best in Staffs. Yes it could do with some cosmetic changes and revamped changing areas but it is nowhere near as bad as the impression given. On another point which SBC is trying to use as a reason for the new centre at Westbridege – saving money by not operating 2 places at once. Are the residents of Stone going to want to be unable to hire the Alleyne’s artificial pitch, sports hall, playing fields and squash courts? SBC make money through their joint use agreement with Alleyne’s so they will not want to lose this revenue stream so they will have to continue to staff the sports facility at Alleyne’s so there will still continue to be 2 separate sites.
Ben Alcock
Hoddy, you are missing the point. Alleynes swimming pool is a good faciltiy and provides an adequate facility. However no amount of money spent on the pool can cure the over – arching issue with the pool, which is the lack of availabilty during the day due to its use by the school. This means that many Stone residents are forced to leave the town to swim elsewhere. The National Planning Policy Framework states that towns should be self sufficient and encourage people to stay in the towns in which they live. This obvioulsy has an environmental benefit but also helps to rejuvenate the high street through encouraging people to stay and shop in the town. The other point you make regarding funding is an incorrect one. The Alleynes pool is owned and operated by the Alleynes school and the County Council, the BC do not pay for the up keep of the pool. Therefore this should re-affirm, that this not an issue of cost more an issue of need and sustainabilty and ensuring that Stone has a viable leisure provision for the growing town.
Im confused by your point regarding the artificial pitch and other facilities at Alleynes?? The BC report in 2005 praised these facilities and stated that there is a need for an artificial pitch provision in the northern part of the borough. It is therefore highly unlikely that this provision will close. With regard to the squash courts and sports hall i dont see why these would close as a result. The BC have established a need for additional leisure facilities not less and clearly they are not going to be able to locate all sports at WBP. Furthermore, Stone is set to increase and this provision is about future proofing Stone to ensure that it has adequate leisure facilities for the future.
The article is poorly written and does not take into account National Planning Policy – residents may not like the idea of having food store at WBP, but the fact remains that this is the best site in Stone for such a development. It accords with NPPF, passes the sequental test, is on a previous brown field site and has good transport links. Furthermore by locating it on this piece of land it enables the BC to take advantage of the S106 funding stream.
Kate
You’re wrong about SBC not paying for the pool SBC pay the wages of the staff at the pool it couldn’t operate without staff. Why no squash or badminton courts suggested in the new leisure facility it’s just going to be the same old same old !
elvisisaliveandlivinginstone
The leisure facilities for the new WBP have not been determined, this is the reason for the leisure use survey which is currently in circulation.
mark
The facilities to be decided in the new leisure centre have not been determined. The new leisure, like most new leisure will prove a sports hall which will be accomodate a range of sports, as such I expect badminton to be able to be played. Do you think stone is adequately served in terms of leisure?
John
Whilst so called scaremongering does not help. It does not help to to say that more will be provided than is indicated.There is no mention of a sports hall and no asking if we want want either. People can only go on wahts being offered in the consultation.No more and no less.
See below for whats on offer in Borough leaflet:
Proposed leisure facilities at Westbridge Park
It is proposed that new state-of-the-art facilities will provide
the following:
• A 6-lane, 25m swimming pool
• Fitness gym to accommodate up to 80 pieces of cardio vascular and resistance equipment
• 3 multi-purpose rooms/aerobic studios and a consultation/training room
• Improved changing accommodation
• A new children’s play area and teenage facilities
It is proposed that new state-of-the-art facilities will provide
the following:
• A 6-lane, 25m swimming pool
• Fitness gym to accommodate up to 80 pieces of cardio vascular and resistance equipment
• 3 multi-purpose rooms/aerobic studios and a consultation/training room
• Improved changing accommodation
• A new children’s play area and teenage facilities
elvisisaliveandlivinginstone
I accept the above, but if the BC plans for WBP were set in stone they would not go through the trouble of producing a leisure use survey to establish what people want and need. Obviously, I would not go as far as saying that all the findings of the use survey will be implemented, but I would expect the BC to take into account the evidence and act accordingly.
john
I am not aware of a leisure use survey. Could you please point me to it.Thanks in advance
Ben Alcock
Hi John, The BC have produced a leisure use survey asking the people of Stone what they would like, and what additional provision they would like to see etc. If you are on facebook and type in the group ” a new leisure center for stone” they should be able to provide you with the link on the BC website (if its up yet). However I was also under impression that this survey will be sent to people in the post.
John
Sorry Ben cannot find it. Can you post a link please.
Hoddy
Well now we know the real reason behind this move if you are to be believed Ben. SBC wants to be able to control the swimming pool entirely and determine who uses it and when. The Alleyne’s pool is open to the general public throughout the year before, during and after school hours. Alleyne’s co-ordinates a plan that enables all first, middle and high school pupils the chance to learn to swim and develop an important lifeskill. There are certainly times in the school year when the pool is more heavily used by the schools but it is always available to the general public of Stone. In fact during the Autumn and summer terms school useage is negligible so why isn’t SBC telling the people of Stone to come and use it then? The decision to suspend public swims from November 2012 to March 2013 between 12.15pm and 1.15pm was taken by SBC, NOT the school. How many people exactly are forced to go elsewhere to swim? Judging by the numbers who attend the early morning swim and were attending at lunchtime not that many I think. My point re funding is not incorrect. The site is owned by the County Council but Alleyne’s High School and SBC have a joint use agreement that sees each party contribute a % of the overall running costs of the facilities including the swimming pool. Alleyne’s High School does not operate the pool alone. The consultation document states that this is an issue of cost and SBC wishes to save money by not operating across 2 facilities. If SBC wishes to continue to make available the artificial pitch, sports hall and squash courts to the community then they must maintain the joint use agreement with Alleyne’s High School and so logically will have to make a financial contribution for staffing and to help maintain the facilities, so no money will be saved.
elvisisaliveandlivinginstone
Money will be saved from the new leisure center, the current one is difficult and costly to maintain.
I cant talk fo the people of Stone, but I use Stafford swiming baths rather than Stone due to more flexible availabilty. Im assuming the outcomes of the leisure use survey will give a better indication of how many people are using swimming baths in other towns and i would expect that this would have a bearing on what is developed at WBP. Subsequently it iis not unfeasible that what you are saying can be corroborated and a new pool is not required.
I have a friend who works at Alleynes, therefore I am familiar with joint user agreement, I would hope / expect that this would remain.
hoddy
How do you know money will be saved? Also how do you know the current one is costly to maintain? All swimming pools are costly and if this new one is built then it will become the sole responsibility of SBC to pay for it’s upkeep year after year rather than the costs being shared by SBC and Alleyne’s High School. If as you would like the joint use agreement remains in tact then SBC will have to incur costs to run 2 separate sites. Just to add a new angle to the argument the pool at Alleyne’s received a significant sum of money from Sport England towards the cost of the new pool lining as they thought the pool was/is a community pool. I am pretty sure that they may be unhappy to find out that just 2 years later they have wasted their money if the Alleyne’s pool is closed which will have to happen when the school can no longer afford to run it on it’s own, and will Sport England ask for it back?
elvisisaliveandlivinginstone
I would expect cost savings to be made through the implementation of sustainable materials and technology within the new building to help with the running costs. When new buildings are proposed the Architect has to show that the building is sustainable and that they have taken into account buildability.
You are assuming that going forward Councils will continue to manage leisure facilities … I do not share this same optimism, Cannock council have now entered into an agreement to have there leisure facilities managed by a private company which I know is being closely watched by a number of other councils.
I have no idea about the sport England funding?
hoddy
I am certainly not optimistic about SBC managing the new facility at all. In fact I think it will be a disaster. Your last point is rather indicative of this whole situation. No-one knows all the facts or exactly what SBC are keeping from the public of Stone. Sport England supported Stone and helped to ensure that our pool stayed open when many others around the country were being closed. This was the legacy that Lord Coe was talking about which made sure that facilities and opportunities for lifelong physical activity were provided for both young and old. Now in the interests of commercial expediency and because it doesn’t suit SBC that can all be forgotten. I just hope that the people of Stone will not be fooled by the glossy brochure.
Dave
Hoddy, I am not the greatest fan of councils, but I happen to believe when it comes to leisure the BC are doing a pretty good job of improving the borough. Victoria Park in Stafford has won an award, the new leisure center (could of been better) but is an improvement on Riverside and Rowley Park is now a first class mixed use leisure area. Why do you believe SBC would be a disaster at running WBP??
The improvements at WBP will encourage greater participation in sports not less at the moment the park is barely used.
hoddy
All that the proposal gives is a rebuilt fitness gym and a swimming pool – when a perfectly good one already exists in the town. How does this encourage greater participation? And remember the proposal does not suggest any other facilities that might encourage increased participation – no sports hall, artificial surface etc which all remain at Alleyne’s. Victoria Park may have won an award but did they have to build a foodstore on the park to get those improvements? No, so why can residents of Stone not expect the BC to treat us the same and upgrade the existing park facilities without the gun to our heads that we must accept a foodstore to pay for it. My view on the Rowley Park revamp is that it has done nothing for athletics. Did you know that the Stafford and District Schools Athletics competitions are not being held at Rowley Park this year because of the poor lay-out and difficulty in organising a large scale event for children, and the high charges that are being made for hire. The event has been moved to Aldersley which is on the outskirts of Wolverhampton!!! That is hardly an endorsement for the BC and their provision of leisure facilities and I do not see this at WBP being any better. There are plenty of ‘dead’ spaces on the fringes of town ripe for development and ready to be used. Why do we have to spoil the very heart of our town, a true green space, open to everyone with yet another foodstore – that is the last thing I want to see when I take my family for a walk along the canal to WBP.
Dave
Part of the improvements to Victoria Park were paid for by s106 developments and Stafford BC has sold a number of pieces of land in recent years which have helped to fund some of the improvements to the town.
When you state poor layout, I am assuming you are referring to the location of the throwing area which has not yet been completely finished, other than that the layout to the athletics area has not been altered and has been improved. The track in particular is far better than the old one.
The BC have states today in the Frequently asked questions that although the pool is ok now its not a viable solution for the future of swimming provision in Stone. Furthermore the leisure facilities at WBP have not yet been fully established. This will be done once the BC has recieved the feedback from the leisure use survey.
The locations for supermarkets on out of towns locations goes against National planning policy and is therefore no longer encouraged by councils when there are other sites closer to the town available.
Carl
I would hate to see any leisure facility within Stone shut. In the aftermath of the olympics we should be doing all we can to ensure more people participate in Sports. I would like some assurances from the BC of this.
With regard the swimming pool at Alleynes, althouhg it is suitable, I find it very difficult to access the swimming pool because its either closed or being used. This means that if I want to swim I have to travel to Stafford. I no longer drive due to my condition and therefore would love to see a more amenable facility in Stone.
I am afraid I do not fully understand the debates surrounding planning policy etc, however I am fascinated by the debates and finding it all very informative. It is nice to see so many people passionate about the future of Stone. Long may it continue.
mark alcock
Absolute rubbish.
I am extremely disappointed that ALBOS have published an article which is inaccuate and undermines the credability of the planning officers at Stafford BC. I would have expected that before publishing this article you would have atleast established the truth and understood the meaning of indicative plans. Clearly you have not. This article irresponsibly spreads more hearsay, misinformation and lies.
This article exposes the objector’s lack of knowledge of the planning process and planning terms, such as the mixed use allocation. I also note that the objector’s have not provided any detailed explanation as to why the plans are unviable. Rather these statements are based on unjustifiable reasons. How do i know this? Because i am a chartered town planner with a batchelor’s and master’s degree in town and country planning. I am a also a member of the royal town planning institute.
The purpose of the consultation leaflet and indicative plans is to establish the principle of development, as apparent by the questions being asked on the questionnaire. We are not being consulted on the design of the layout or amount of development, as such the plans do not accurately show what is proposed, they are merely artistic impressions as to how WBP could be developed.
The plans are not to scale (and they don’t need to be) and the exact size of the buildings have not been accurately drawn, therefore, it is not possible to say that 25% of the green space will be lost. This is wrong, based on no evidence and premature. We need to await the final drawings before we can make such sweeping statements.
The plans that have been produced by the Borough Council show how the site could be developed and to inform the debate about the principle of development. The appropriateness of the design and layout are not being consulted upon, therefore, any comments regarding these matters are irrelevant at this stage.
The current plans do exactly what they are intended to do, and that is to show how the site could look. The finer details of the design will be addressed at a later date, if the principle of development is established. It is at this point that the actual configuration and size of the buildings will be established, as will the parking requirements and access arrangements. This will not involve a redraw as wrongly suggested.
Finally, a mixed use allocation can refer to built and non built development, in a similar way as the greenbelt can include buildings and undeveloped areas. The mixed use allocation does not mean that all of the park will be developed – we heard the same arguments a few weeks ago by the irresponsible Kenney and Hood!
Is it too difficult to keep to the facts and have a grown up debate?
FrostyTheSnowman
Why do people keep saying they have not been consulted – making out as if SBC have not done their job? Assuming they are more important than everyone else in Stone. The “Consultation” leaflets have only just been delivered. One can assume that any groups who contacted the planners will have been sent a consultation leaflet. Were they expecting a Royal Invitation or something? Maybe the fact they only use the area once a year means that they will not be affected day to day or week to week and therefor its not such a big issue? Think about it another way: If all these groups have to ask SBC to borrow the park once a year and someone else wanted to do something different on the park those weekends, would these groups just give up and not go ahead? Would they demand that it is “their park and their weekend”? Or would they adapt and carry on? It’s so annoying when people get set in their ways and start to think they are in charge. SBC are an elected Council, doing all the things that they said they were going to do in the draft plan which was published years ago. Their whole purpose is to do things for the good of the 19,000 odd people in Stone, not just the elite who can afford to go to the F&D Festival. From what I can see these new facilites and play areas etc will benefit the whole community all year round. Perhaps if the above groups put a little more back into the park, e.g. paying to get the kids play area done up or a lick of green paint on the old Leisure centre or paying for a regular litter pick or anything like that I would feel differently. Bring on the new development!
jvictor7
Hi Mark. The point of the ‘Westbridge Park Viewpoints’ feature is to air a variety of views on this issue. I will publish each Viewpoint exactly as I receive it. It is then up to people to challenge, debate, agree or whatever as they see fit – as you have done. A Little Bit of Stone – here on the main site and on Facebook and Twitter – is providing a platform for debate, and all sides of the argument are welcome
babydoll
If you are actively encouraging debate on your site, you need to hear both sides, you also need a person to be unbiased in moderating it. Leaving it to J Taylor (or has he given the role to himself?) who apparently has been getting numerous complaints??? and who is obviously against the proposed development is not good enough, If he were ever to read anything properly he would realise that it was Demo cracy that started the personal comments and yet the alcocks are getting it in the neck! I’ve actually found their comments very interesting (although long) but some of these things do need alot of explanation. Infact the whole debate has made for a good read. So ALBOS fair play please.
jvictor7
Hi babydoll. You’ve raised some important points. Just to be clear, Jack contributes to the site, along with many other people, but his opinions in any comments are very much his own. I’ve made sure that A Little Bit of Stone is totally unbiased re Westbridge Park so that it can be a platform – here and on social media – for debate which will hopefully encourage as many people as possible to take part in the consultation. Re moderation, no issue has had as many comments as this. I do the site on top of a full-time job, so it’s difficult for me to keep on top of all the comments. It’s been very unfortunate that the debate has descended into a slanging match at times. Passions are understandably running high but I would ask everyone to stick to the issues and to stop any personal comments
babydoll
Thanks for clearing that up, as i’ve said this has been a good read (mostly) and as you say passion is running high! am i to take it that the complaints came from demo cracy as there was no mention of him/her having their wrists slapped? after some very personal remarks to the Alcock’s. ALBOS is a fantastic site, keep up the good work x
Jack Taylor
Babydoll i was given the title as Contributor meaning i contribute to posts, comments etc. Jamie is the moderator and can delete any posts. Just because i have received complaints and aired them that does not mean i am biased. I take into consideration all the points and read through all thoroughly. I am not against the whole development just some of it. ALBOS has played completely fair i am a writer for the site and i do not have much more involvement. On these comments i am a private individual so please do not try and bring down the site by trying to slag me off. Plus i have no time for keyboard warriors like yourself who are cowards on their own right.
elvisisaliveandlivinginstone
Keyboard warriors?? Im confused what are those? Jack, would you describe people who hide behind aliases and then make personal insults as such a person. Would you please accept this then as a formal complaint against the actions of demo cracy who has consistently acted as “keyboard warrior
mark
Hi Jvictor, I respect that everyone is entitled to an opinion and redevelopment of westbridge park is an emotive issue, however thats even more reason that we should keep to the facts and not allow misinformation to be spread.
jvictor7
Hi Mark. I do understand what you’re saying here. However, I was very keen to pass on the statement from Keep Westbridge Park Green in its entirety and as I received it. The group actually sent it as a press release, to this site and no doubt to newspapers etc, so it is very much their public statement on the issue
mark
Thank you for your response and I apologies for any criticism of a little bit of stone that I have made. As you correctly point out, passions have been running high, hwoever that’s because I care deeply about my profession and do not like it being discredited by lies. You provide an excellent platform for a debate on the pros and cons of wbp. its disapointing that we can’t stick to the facts when having a debate. Once again apologies for any criticism of albos. I would be grateful if you could take action against the personal attacks made by democracy. All the best mark.
Comments are closed.