Stafford Station Gateway SRF – Stafford Regeneration Framework Consultation Response

18 February 2023

• There is an assertion that ‘Stafford Station Gateway’ will be a thriving, vibrant new community, where people will want to live, work and visit…….’. There is no evidence provided to support this assertion.

 

• Throughout the consultation response document, the responses of ‘strongly agree’ and ‘agree’ have been combined to give an overall figure, whereas the responses ‘disagree’ and ‘strongly disagree’ have not, which skews the commentary always in favour of ‘agree’.  For example, 27 respondents ‘strongly support’ the vision presented while 56 respondents ‘strongly disagree’ with the vision but when ‘strongly support’ and ‘agree’ are added together the result is ‘34% of respondents agree’ and ‘32% disagree’. The document throughout is skewed.

 

The following is a brief summary of the outcome of the consultation as presented by CBRE Consultants.

Loss of green space and biodiversity was the most frequent issues raised and it fell within the ‘environment and biodiversity’ theme. 

• According to the text ‘biodiversity net gain’  has been incorporated within the final SRF but it is not made clear how or where this will  be achieved

• It is presented that the SRF incorporates key areas that can be used to create a wildlife corridor, the example given is the former cricket pitch in Doxey which is identified as ‘green infrastructure’ but is not linked to any other green space

• It is stated throughout the document that,‘Future planning applications will need to set out how biodiversity net gain is to be achieved’. Why planning for ‘biodiversity net gain’ is passed on to future applications is not clear, what is to be gained by this?

• ‘Pocket parks’ may be considered in the future. A pocket park is roughly the size of a tennis court, the relevance of a ‘pocket park’ in supporting biodiversity is nil

• According to para 5.14 of the ‘Updated Strategic Regeneration Framework’ discussed at Cabinet on 19th Jan’23,  ‘ecology experts Tyler Grange were commissioned to review the draft SRF regarding how biodiversity net gain could be achieved within the site. Changes made to SRF as a result were set out on pages 68 and 69 of the Consultation Statement. There are only 64 pages in the consultation statement.

 

The scale and density of the development was another of the main issues raised. ‘Up to 900 new residential dwellings; an 80 bed hotel, a new 350 space multi-storey car park, retail and leisure space, an ‘Innovatioin Hub’ and ‘high quality’ open spaces. Respondents stressed their concern that the development would further reduce the town centre.

• Clarification will now be included as to how the development will complement the regeneration of the town

• The council do not permit TPOs on any of the trees on land which may be used for development because this may impede development, even venerable trees will not be afforded protection but ……… ‘natural features will be enhanced’. This statement is not developed

• The justification of planning for a ‘new 350 space’ car park is not provided. It is highly questionable that in the current drive to reduce car use that any far sighted council would conceive of such a thing. Bus routes and cycleways appear to be a secondary consideration.

• Engagement with local bus services will be undertaken as the project progresses

• Future planning applications will be required to consider traffic management…….just not this one

• The Gateway has been designed to ensure strong links via walking and cycling to the railway and town centre. Examples on the original plan suggest that there are no specific ‘cycle only’ routes.

Reasons for recommending the Stafford Station Gateway.

The final assertions are as follows:-

 

Mixed use redevelopment represents a significant investment opportunity,  maximising the potential economic benefits of HS2. The scheme supports the delivery of sustainable, economic housing growth which supports the following objectives in the Corporate Business Plan.

• Deliverable and sustainable housing growth to provide jobs and income. There is no reference to ‘Future Homes Standards’ regarding energy efficiency.

• Developing strong communities that promote health and wellbeing. It is unclear how this development will ‘promote health and wellbeing’.

• Continuing to work towards our climate change and green recovery goals. The emphasis on car use would appear to render this statement disingenuous.

 

If you would like to read the entire document it can be found on the BC website. 

• Click on ‘Council’

• click on ‘Meetings’

• click on ‘meetings and agenda’ 

• open committee meetings 22/23

• open Tue 24 Jan AGENDA – scroll down to pg 62, section 5.10 Appendix 1 in bold. The response is from consultancy company CBRE

Tweet