Decision details

The Cabinet or Portfolio Holder for Growth will be asked to consider adopting a masterplan for Shepherd’s Grove, Stanton, which has been subject to consultation.

RESOLVED:

That:

(1)     the amendments to the draft Shepherd’s Grove Masterplan, as set out in Appendix A to Report No: CAB/WS/19/038, be approved; and

(2)     the Shepherd’s Grove Masterplan be adopted as informal planning guidance for a period of three years.

A draft masterplan has been prepared by consultants on behalf of the landowners in accordance with the Council’s adopted protocol. The masterplan is arranged in six sections and sets out the policy background to the document, an in-depth analysis of the existing site identifying constraints and opportunities. The main masterplan proposals are set out in section 5 of the document (Appendix A).

The masterplan was accompanied by a detailed viability assessment to help inform the quantum of higher value uses required to deliver the highway infrastructure. The information contained therein is commercially sensitive, so was not included as part of the public consultation.

The inclusion of higher value uses, particularly housing introduces additional infrastructure costs over and above those required to serve employment uses alone. These include education, health and recreation requirements together with the provision of new footpath and cycle connections to Stanton Primary School. The quantum of higher value development has also had regard to the policy requirement for the provision of 30% affordable housing.

Following consideration of the outcomes of the public consultation and engagement exercise, and the amendments proposed to the draft masterplan, the Portfolio Holder for Growth is satisfied that the Shepherd’s Grove masterplan should be adopted as non-statutory planning guidance for a period of three years.

The preparation of a masterplan for this site to inform the delivery of essential infrastructure is a policy requirement. However, prior to commencing public consultation, alternative highway solutions were explored to see if it was possible to provide an access to the A143 using improvements to the existing highway network, thereby reducing the highway infrastructure costs. This was carried out in conjunction with the Highway Authority, but no suitable safe alternative could be found.

In addition, the Portfolio Holder for Growth (or Cabinet) could have decided not to adopt the masterplan in its entirety; however, there is a risk that failure to adopt a masterplan for this site could result in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of this site without the significant investment in necessary infrastructure, or that all further employment growth will be halted by the lack of adequate highway infrastructure.