Agenda and minutes

There were none.

There were none.

There were none.

Some Members visited Lansdown site as part of Planning View.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 14^th December 2024..

Minutes of the meeting held on 14 December 2023 were approved and signed as a true record.

There were none.

Planning application documents

The planning officer introduced the report as published.

The following response was provided to a member question:

-       The refuse bins are not within the application site and are not part of this application.

The matter then went to the vote on the officer recommendation to permit:

Unanimous – permitted.

Planning application documents

Please note that the following items are being presented in a different order to the published agenda.  Agenda item 6b will now be 6c and 6c will be 6b.

The planning officer introduced the report as published.

There were no member questions or debate.

The matter then went to the vote on the officer recommendation to permit:

Unanimous – permitted.

Planning application documents

The Chair then stated that although the three applications are for the same site they are very separate applications and will be decided on separately. The objectors, the agent, supporters and ward councillors will speak after the first presentation.

The planning officer introduced the report as published.

Public speaking:

The Civic Society addressed the committee and made the following points:

-       The applicant has used a tick box approach to the application.

-       The Civic Society have been excluded from any consultation that has been carried out and have been trying to enter into conversation with the applicant for 2 years with no success.

-       Policy MP1 states that there should be employment led re generation of areas, how can the proposal for 215 homes be squared with the policy.

-       The applicant is trying to hoist onto the town a low grade development that they would never grant in their own area.

-       There is a climate emergency this application will release low levels of carbon to the area. 

-       Heritage buildings can be reused in a mixed developments, such suggestions have not been listened to.

-       The applicant should go back to the drawing board and come up with a better scheme.

Jill Waller a local historian then addressed the committee speaking in objection, she made the following points:

-       The plan that has been submitted has been under researched, she has fully researched the area and there over 60 errors in the appraisal.

-       So much of historical interest has been manufactured on the industrial estate.

-       Iron works that were manufactured on the site can still be seen in the V&A.

-       She has been able to find out and date most of the sites original uses and the shells of most of the original building remain.

-       Surely that application could be mixed use and buildings re-purposed.

The agent on behalf of the applicant made the following points:

-       Three years ago had a positive pre app with officers and more detailed pre app followed with highways and extensive community engagement. Local people and councillors raised some concerns at that time but nothing which could not and has not been addressed.

-       The result is a really good solution and effective reuse of a brownfield site and new studio for the artists and a host of other significant benefits.

-       Two applications submitted December 2021 with the art studios following last year.

-       We have had total of four different planning officers and five heads of planning, some continuity has suffered.

-       Developing 200 or more units on this brownfield site is preferable to loss of green space. The site is wholly sustainable.

-       Whilst it may be technically possible to retain some of the existing buildings the cost of doing so along with the inability to make them as sustainable or energy efficient as new buildings does not make it a viable solution.

-       The existing buildings are in poor condition and some  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Planning application documents

The planning officer introduced the report as published.

The following responses were provided to members questions:

-       It is only air source heat pumps that they are proposing not ground source heat pumps. As it is a full planning application we are unable to pursue the possibility of ground source heat pumps.

-       There will be a period of displacement for the artists but is it is unknown how long that would be as the larger residential scheme would be an outline planning permission and could take 5 years before there is any commencement of works on site.

-       The section 106 negotiations will deal with the displacement of the artists and for example, there could be a need for the artist studios to be completed before a certain number of dwellings are occupied on the southern half of the industrial estate. These discussions will be in depth and there is not a way to speed up the process.

-       Would like to be assured that people visiting or working in the artist studios will be able to charge their electric vehicles.

The matter then went to vote on the officer recommendation to permit:

Unanimous – permitted.

A Member asked the Head of Planning if the tents at 131 the Promenade have now had enforcement action taken.  It was confirmed that an enforcement notice had been served  very recently.  It was confirmed that there is a right to appeal with regard to enforcement notices.

A Member asked that the planning officer contact them regarding what the appeal costs were against the council for 6 Marsh Lane.

There were none.