Plans submitted for Oak Park replacement

Thanks to reader The Bear, who kindly commented today with the application number, the plans for the new Oak Park Recreation Centre are shown below. This will come as a surprise to some – it certainly did to me.

The application is number 12/1422/FL and can be found by typing that number in to the search box on this page. Sorry, because the geolocation on this application is buggy, I can’t link direct. It’s normal for some applications to break in this way – it’s the age of the system, nothing sinister.

All the documents on Walsall Council’s planning system as of Monday Evening, 5th November 2012 are linked at the bottom of this post. You’ll need adobe reader and patience to peruse them all. In contradiction to my original feelings, this plan is clearly now in a second iteration (note the ‘revised’ documents) and has been through quite a lengthy design process.

I recommend interested folk check out the Amended Planning Statement and Proposed Site Plan. Questions about the trust status of the land seem to be dealt with in the former, and it does answer a range of other questions.

My feelings about this haven’t changed. I’m still unsure why it has been pitched as a political issue, and why the local councillors put out a leaflet directing feedback to their party office rather than planning at the council. I’m also highly sceptical that any money will be found – the council simply doesn’t have the cash and it’s very doubtful the organisations they plan to pass the hat to will, either.

I personally don’t have a particular objection – and indeed, some of the improvements look quite decent to me, including the junction improvements at Coppice Road. However, I’m mindful of objections and understand them.  Please feel free to comment.

This still has a long way to go, and there’s still no money on the table. I remain curious as to what we’re being distracted from…

The proposed site plan. Contrary to my original feeling, this has clearly been some time in the design. Click for a larger version.

Amended Planning Statement 05-11-2012.pdf
Application Form.pdf
Arboricultural Impact Assessment – 1.pdf
Arboricultural Impact Assessment – 2.pdf
Arboricultural Impact Assessment – 3.pdf
Arboricultural Impact Assessment – 4.pdf
Arboricultural Impact Assessment – 5.pdf
Arboricultural Impact Assessment – 6.pdf
Bat Survey Report.pdf
Desk Study Report – Appendix A.pdf
Desk Study Report – Appendix B.pdf
Desk Study Report – Appendix C.pdf
Desk Study Report – Appendix D.pdf
Desk Study Report.pdf
Development Team Letter 17-10-12 Final.pdf
Energy Strategy Proposals Statement.pdf
Existing Site Analysis.pdf
Existing Site Sections.pdf
Existing Site Survey.pdf
External Lighting Layout.pdf
Framework Travel Plan.pdf
Indicative hard landscape Proposals.pdf
Indicative soft landscape Proposals.pdf
Location Plan.pdf
Noise Impact Assessment.pdf
Proposals Survey – Appendix 1.pdf
Proposed East and West Elevations.pdf
Proposed First Floor Plan.pdf
Proposed Ground Floor Plan.pdf
Proposed North and South Elevations.pdf
Proposed Roof Plan.pdf
Proposed Sections 1.pdf
Proposed Sections 2.pdf
Proposed Site Plan.pdf
Proposed Site Sections.pdf
Statement of Community Involvement.pdf
Superseded Planning Statement.pdf
Transport Statement.pdf
Tree Survey.pdf
This entry was posted in News. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Plans submitted for Oak Park replacement

  1. interested says:

    On the face of things it looks like a ressonable submission… Even the whole 6 solar panels plonked on the massive roof…!

  2. stymaster says:

    I’m personally a little concerned about traffic flows into Coppice Rd- it’s already busy and narrow, and while the plan addresses the junction with Brownhills Rd (by adding traffic lights), it does nothing about the (much more dangerous) junction with the A461. The plan seems to assume all traffic will approach from Brownhills Rd, unless I’ve missed something- this will almost certainly not be the case, and despite all the cycle paths, bus stops, and pedestrian access, I think we all know most will arrive by car.

    I’d also have concerned about unwanted side effects of the traffic lights- perhaps causing queueing. This *might* reduce so called rat-running between the A461 and Brownhills Rd, but this would then mean the queues northbound on the A461 will be even longer.

    Other than that, no specific objections, but I’ll believe it when I see it.

  3. Peter says:

    Evening all.
    Plans are now looking far more comprehensive and workable, the first set of plans on this blog were a bit sketchy and a bit “back of a fag packet”.
    There will always be disagreements locally about the finer detail, and its important that local feelings are considered, but Oak Park as it stands today is tired, worn out and probably not wholly fit for purpose, so something needs doing and losing the facility is NOT the answer.
    We all know you cannot polish a turd (Tesco’s Brownhills) but without some serious funding this wont get off the drawing board. So where does the money come from? The council? mmmmmmm! Outside Funding agencies as mentioned time and time again on here already? mmmmmmmm! PFI? mmmmmmmm.
    I still remain sceptical that the monies needed will be found, theres nothing down the back of the sofa, Walsall Council have already tried that one.
    The plans look good, something needs to happen, the desire locally to do something should be applauded, but where is the money coming from? I, like many others, hopes this suceeds and is the great facility it could and should be.
    Where is the debate on what is the trade off? If the Council find some money from somewhere what other justifiable and necessary services will be cut instead?
    This will go on and on and on……………..

  4. The Realist says:

    This is a curious issue.

    No-one will be able to find the cash to deliver this proposal unless there is an additional and lucrative development opportunity. Interestingly, the applicant is the Council. This will trigger a call-in, as the Council cannot rule on its own proposals.

    As an approved planning application stands for a minimum of 5 years, one can only assume that the Council is hoping to attract a developer by 2017, on the basis that a general Planning Consent has been granted for the site. There is some commercial sense in this, as it offers a level of certainty to any prospective developer. However, the concomitant development pay-off will eventually have to be revealed.

    Otherwise, this could be seen as yet another cynical ploy to hoodwink the electorate into thinking that something might be done.

    The Realist

  5. Pingback: New homes planned for Brownhills | BrownhillsBob's Brownhills Blog

  6. Pingback: Revised plans submitted for Oak Park replacement | BrownhillsBob's Brownhills Blog

  7. Pingback: The first victim of Walsall’s political chaos | BrownhillsBob's Brownhills Blog

  8. Pingback: Walsall Wood Councillor Mike Flower to stand down at next election | BrownhillsBob's Brownhills Blog

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.