Armitage with Handsacre Report
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Lichfield District ARMITAGE Rural Planning WITH Project HANDSACRE A. WHAT YOU SAID B. WHAT C.A.B.E. SAID C. OTHER EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE OF ARMITAGE D. TOWARDS A VISION FOR THE FUTURE Lichfield District Council September 2011 NB – To be read in conjunction with the Introduction and Conclusion Reports. November 2011 A. What you said: ‘neighbourhoods’ or buildings. This community activity and social was particularly apparent within the cohesion. 1. The following paragraphs summarise workshops held in February 2011, 5. It was clear that there were a the main outcomes from the rural where there was little concentration in number of other issues that people felt planning project in terms of the views any workshop group on environmental important that are related to the gathered, principally from residents of issues. However all the workshop character of the village and its the village, between July 2010 and groups agreed that there was an issue environment. February 2011. The original analyses on for the village of a single identity of the which this summary is based are place, because of its elongated 6. One of the most commonly raised included as Appendix 2. Views and physical form and the historic issues throughout the exercise was a ideas arising from the February 2011 development of a single built-up area view that the developments taking workshop event are illustrated on the developing from a number of original place on former colliery/power station accompanying Composite Plan of settlements. land pose a danger of an eventual Workshop Ideas. coalescence of Armitage with Handsacre with the eastern edge of • Character and environment Rugeley. There was unanimity that there was a danger of the loss of a 2. The views expressed as a whole by separate identity for the village arising village residents who participated in from this development and a strong ‘rural masterplanning’, showed that feeling that this needs to be avoided. people valued living in Armitage with 7. The quality of some elements of Handsacre. The principal reasons village infrastructure and poor quoted for liking the place they live in environmental maintenance were both were, the ‘rural environment’ of the identified as issues. The question of Pike Lane village, its access to the countryside drainage was a common matter raised and the size of the settlement. In 4. Issues of the ‘fragmentation’ of the particularly in relation to surface water relation to the last point it was not village arose on a number of drains and highway flooding, clear whether this was because of the occasions, with the question being particularly on parts of New Rd. and smaller scale of settlement when whether the village had no real heart. Old Rd. (under railway bridges). Hood compared to living in a town, or that It was clear from the ‘post-it’ Lane and Wordsworth Close, were the village was large enough to responses to the question within the also mentioned. Villagers thought that support a range of facilities and February event however, that views on these problems were reasons to avoid activities. the matter were split. This divergence further development in the village, or 3. There was little direct comment on of views might be explained if some at least that they needed resolving the general character of the village, or people considered the nature of the before any further development should in relation to particular valued physical form to be important, whilst be considered. others considered the issue in terms of characteristics, such as 2 8. Poor maintenance was also linked opposed by those who raised the of locations were suggested, such as to flooding in some cases, such as matter. by the school, by the park, adjacent to muddy footpaths within open space the Plum Pudding/Lower Lodge • Transport and traffic close to Shropshire Brook, but other Caravan Park, and to help crossing to management issues were raised including dog shops on New Road. These would fouling, cars parking on open spaces have an impact in terms of ‘calming’ of 11. In terms of traffic management (Harvey Road), and the visual impact traffic through the village. Additional there was a strong view that more of the new railway bridge in central car parking was also traffic management was needed along Handsacre. Children attending the considered to be desirable by some. New Road in the centre of the village, workshop valued the open spaces to help slow down traffic and to within the village, but also mentioned 13. Better speed limit enforcement provide better crossing facilities. This their concern at the level of rubbish was identified as an issue, for example came out as a unanimous view from and the need for more ‘dog bins’. by the Crown Inn on Uttoxeter Rd. the workshops. This was related to Handsacre. Some also raised better 9. Retention of all open spaces and other issues identified, of lorries enforcement of the weight restrictions allotments was identified as a priority travelling through the village and the on HGV’s through the village and within the workshops, seen as an need for more parking, but in particular greater use of speed enforcement important consideration for issues of it was considered to be an issue of the cameras was sought. future development. speed of traffic and the need for more crossing facilities along New Road. 14. The village was generally This was seen as both a safety issue considered to be a safe place to walk and an environmental issue affecting and cycle, but the footpath under the the quality of the village environment. railway bridge on New Road was identified as a potential hazard, since not only had it been prone to flooding, it was also considered that there was a dangerous ‘wind tunnel’ effect created by HGV’s and a railing and raising of the path to avoid flooding was suggested by one participant. Allotments on Rugeley Rd. 10. Finally, many villagers are 15. The availability of a bus service concerned at the impact of the HS2 was valued by some, particularly for proposals on the village, taking access to shopping, leisure and for account of the recent impact of the transport for teenagers, but others Lower Lodge and the Plum Pudding four tracking of the west coast main considered the buses to be expensive line. This is seen as a further 12. More pedestrian crossings were and too infrequent. Continued and environmental threat and was strongly seen as a high priority and a number improved access to public transport 3 for the village was seen as a top teenagers were about a fear of losing of broadband and mobile phone priority through the workshops, but the current youth facilities and some coverage for the village was also others had previously raised the issue considered there was a need to raise raised as an issue. of a need for better facilities for bus the issue with the County Council. users, such as more bus shelters. 20. There were mixed views expressed about the quality of the 16. A need for improved rail services park on Shropshire Brook Road, but were mentioned by some villagers, as also mixed views in relation to the although the village was seen as available health care facilities for the impacted on by the rail line, the village. nearest stations for local services were at Rugeley or Lichfield. There 21. Some people thought that the local was formerly a railway station at shops were under pressure in terms of Armitage and some called for the re- the level of trade being sustained, instatement of a station, but there seeing this as a threat leading to were no suggestions as to where this possible loss of facilities. They might be located. expressed the view that the local shops needed to be maintained. • Community activities and facilities 17. Many people in the village considered there to be a good range No rail station but rail has an impact on of community activities, particularly in the village the earlier consultation events, but this was strongly disputed within the 19. The workshops identified a ‘wish February workshops. It can be said list’ of possible improved facilities. therefore that there is no consensus These included a desire for a centrally view on this within the village. located local gym, access to a cinema, and youth shelters located away from 18. Issues that were raised on the housing. Some people thought that Local Shops, Handsacre quality of community facilities for more effective evening use of the Armitage with Handsacre were mainly village hall could help with the 22. A number wondered why the about the level of activities available provision of such additional facilities. District Council consultation had not locally for teenagers and concerns Children who attended the February specifically raised education as a local about what was seen by some as poor event wanted a wider range of things issue. There were concerns about access to information about activities. to do locally, including in the parks and secondary education, in particular the issue of catchment areas and Some of the concerns in relation to also access to swimming. The quality 4 concerns were expressed as to why development, with views significantly appropriate, or of potential locations the village fell within a Rugeley diverging. There was some that might be suitable. secondary catchment whilst being acceptance by the February workshop 27. The need to keep the separation of situated within Lichfield District. This groups of a need for some future level Armitage with Handsacre from appeared to be confusing to some. of development, particularly related to Rugeley was a workshop issue a perceived need for accommodation identified, related to future • Development and housing for some particular groups: affordable development, i.e.