To consider adoption of the Masterplan as a supplementary planning document.
This report was considered by the Scrutiny Commission at its meeting on 25 March 2021. An extract from the minutes of that meeting is attached.
Members debated a report which sought approval of a masterplan which would have the status of a supplementary planning document for land south of Station Road, Market Bosworth. Comments that had been received from an interested party were noted and advice was sought in relation to access and the S278 agreement which was addressed by the Director (Environment & Planning).
It was moved by Councillor Bill, seconded by Councillor Cook and
RESOLVED – the masterplan for the land south of Station Road, Market Bosworth be adopted as a supplementary planning document to aid in the delivery of the site and to be used in decision making with the submission of any related planning application and pre-application discussions.
To present the masterplan.
The Scrutiny Commission received a report on the masterplan for land south of Station Road, Market Bosworth which was an allocated site within the current Local Plan and the Market Bosworth Neighbourhood Plan. It was noted that the masterplan would be a Supplementary Planning Document.
It was noted that the borough council had previously been involved but took a more proactive approach in 2019 with the commissioning of a masterplan when there had been no progress in relation to the site. Access to the site had been a potential issue but it was noted that, as a landowner on the site, the council could assist with that. The authority had been working with tenants on the site who were supportive of the scheme.
A member asked whether aspirations, for example relating to adoption of roads, could be included in such a document. In response it was noted that the local plan would probably be a more appropriate document for such matters as the SPD would be a material consideration rather than a policy.
Concern was expressed about the noise impact from the railway on residents of the new properties. In response it was noted that in the masterplan the commercial units were indicated closer to the railway and would act as a noise buffer to residential properties.
Councillor Gibbens left the meeting at 8pm.
With regard to the authority’s investment in the masterplan, it was noted that the biggest cost had been officer time, but that a consultant had been procured to undertake the masterplanning in agreement with the church commissioners and that the costs would be offset once the development deal had been agreed.
It was noted that the majority of commercial tenants were on long term leases and would need to be compensated. If a developer wished to take on the site with tenants they would need to compensate, whereas if we were to hand over the site with a clear title, we would need to compensate the tenants but the land value would be adjusted to take account of this. A separate report on any land disposal would need to be prepared and considered by members at the appropriate time.
The ward councillor thanked officers for bringing the plan forward and reported that the parish council and residents were also supportive, particularly as residents had voted for development on the site in the Neighbourhood Plan.
In relation to the timescale for the plan, it was noted that it would be taken to the next meeting of Council and would become a material consideration thereafter.
RESOLVED – the report be noted and endorsed.