Agenda item

Erection of Student Accommodation for 198 Units.

The Committee considered the report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an application for the erection of student accommodation for 198 units at land at Magdalene Heights Old Scrap Yard, Gilesgate, Durham (for copy see file of minutes).

The Senior Planning Officer provided the Committee with a detailed presentation which included photographs of the site and a plan of the proposed layout. Members had visited the site earlier that day and were familiar with the location. The Senior Planning Officer  advised that by way of a late representation, should permission be granted an additional condition would be added to require full details of the cycle provision.

Ms R Zakrzewski, local resident, addressed the Committee. Ms Zakrzewski lived in Orchard Drive and raised concerns regarding drainage and geological matters. She felt that although no concerns had been raised by relevant officers regarding drainage and geological issues, there had in the past been stability issues resulting from a nearby underground watercourse and she felt that there had not been an adequate assessment of the effect of the development on the adjacent downward slope.

Ms Zakrzewski noted the condition 3 of the report regarding materials and queried whether residents would be able to view the proposed materuials before they were agreed.

In relation to paragraph 96 of the report, Ms Zakrzewski disagreed that the development would not detract from the character or appearance of the area or of the amenities of residents, as she felt parking space was an amenity and this would be impacted upon.

In relation to paragraph 98 of the report, Ms Zakrzewski argued that policy 32 related to new build houses, not apartments. Furthermore she advised that while she was satisfied with the travel plan, she was concerned about vehicle access and she queried how the travel plan would be implemented.

Mr M Phillips, local resident, addressed the Committee, advising that he represented DBUG, the staff and student bicycle user group based in the University. Members were advised that DBUG were concerned about the quality of the cycle parking provision and the access to the site by bike. Although the group had made written suggestions regarding the application, it was felt that they had not been adequately addressed.

Mr Phillips advised that in relation to the number of cycle parking places, there had been some confusion in the report over the Council’s current policies for student residencies. He stated that those policies stipulated a minimum of 1 cycle parking place per 5 student residents plus a further 1 place per 20 residents to cover visitor cycle parking. That amounted to 50 places for the proposed development and it was noted that the developers were offering 52. However Mr Phillips felt it should be noted that the policy set a minimum and it should therefore be expected that more would be appropriate in some circumstances. As such, Members were advised that DBUG suggested that a car free development on the periphery of the student housing area would merit more than the minimum provision, as did the applicant who had originally proposed 100 places in line with BREEAM standards.

Secondly, Mr Phillips advised that DBUG had concerns about the quality of cycle parking. He quoted from the Department for Transport’s Manual For Streets regarding storage facilities for cycles. Members were advising that the developers were proposing the very least cycle storage provision:- cycle stands enclosed by low railings topped by a flat roof. Mr Phillips stated that rain, leaves and other debris could easily blow in from the sides, giving owners a battle to keep their bikes clean and well maintained. He felt that a far better provision would be well lit basement storage designed into the buildings at the outset. He therefore requested that a condition be imposed that the bike shelters for residents’ parking be properly enclosed at the sides.

Thirdly, DBUG felt that for a car free development it was important to ensure walking and cycling routes were safe and convenient. It was proposed that the footway along the north side of the A690 be widened to 3m as part of the off site works and the Highways Authority envisaged that would form the main cycle and pedestrian access to the site. DBUG had concerns about the proposed width. Mr Phillips advised that the Department for Transport minimum for pedestrian only footways was 2.4m. As such he felt 3m was sub standard for shared cycle/pedestrian use by the side of a National Speed Limit dual carriageway. The plan of proposed works showed no alterations to enable cycle access to the path which would be required from the Gilesgate roundabout and Leazes Lane.

DBUG therefore requested that this be addressed and that the conversion to shared use should proceed only after consultation on the design with local cycling bodies.

Mr Phillips advised that students would also need to access local shops further east along Gilesgate. The most direct route was across the adjacent footbridge over the A690 and the transport assessment commissioned by the developers noted it was already used by cyclists. Mr Phillips pointed out that this was only a footbridge and was not wide enough for shared use, it had tight corners and the parapet was not up to the height required for safe riding.

Mr Phillips stated that the assessment also mentioned routes to the south via Station Lane, but failed to observe that the street was currently one-way for all vehicles, feeding onto a National Speed Limit dual carriageway. DBUG suggested adding a contraflow cycle lane permitting two way cycling on that street and they also urged upgrading and signing of the network of paths between the footbridge and Gilesgate to enable access to the local shops.

In conclusion, Mr Phillips advised that DBUG requested:-

·         Commitment in the travel plan to increasing the cycle parking spaces as demand grew

·         An initial provision of 70 spaces recognising that the proposal was to be car free

·         Cycle shelters fully protected from the weather and preferably lockable

·         Pedestrian and cycle access along the A690 to be widened to 4 or 5 metres where possible, with good connections for cycling to neighbouring roads and paths

·         A further S106 contribution to pay for adaptations to the footbridge, two way access on Station Lane and other improvements to the network on the south side of the A690.

The Senior Planning Officer responded to the points raised as follows:-

·         Geological issues – it had been recognised that there were concerns regarding the stability of the land. Some investigative work had been done but it was conditioned that further works be undertaken should permission be granted. Information of that nature would come from the developer and be sent on to relevant bodies such as the Coal Authority to ensure that the land was indeed sufficiently stable.

·         There was no statutory consultation requirement to consult with residents in relation to the discharge of conditions.

The Highways Officer responded to the points raised as follows:-

·         The developer did not intend to provide student parking as the development was within the parking zone and students would not receive parking permits. It would therefore be pay and display for any visitors.

·         Members were advised that the proposals did comply with the standards for cycle and vehicle parking.

·         The Highways Authority felt that there was a need for good cycle parking provision and as such a condition would be imposed to ensure that covered, closed and secure facilities were provided. Members were also advised that 52 spaces was above the minimum standard.

·         Lanes – It was acknowledged that cycle lanes could be a contentious issue as there was various guidelines. Lanes that were too wide could attract vehicle parking therefore widening the pathway would encourage cycle use.

Mr P Colebrook addressed the Committee, speaking on behalf of the applicant. Members were advised that the developer specialised in the delivery of student accommodation and over the past 20 years had developed a good reputation for high quality accommodation through well managed purpose built housing, managing the initial development of the scheme, the construction of the buildings and the ongoing management of the resulting accommodation.

Members were advised that the proposed development at Chapel Heights was for purpose built student accommodation which fully complied with the NPPF and local policy in so far as it was well located within Durham City Settlement boundary, well linked to services, re-used brownfield land, was of high quality design and fully considered the wider landscape and historical setting.

Mr Colebrook advised that at least 64 construction jobs and a number of full and part time jobs once the facility opened, would be created. Further subcontractor work during the construction phase and operation of the facility would also be created.

Every effort would be made to employ local people where appropriate and the planning process the developer would also be making a financial contribution to local employment and training.

Mr Colebrook suggested that purpose built student accommodation such as that proposed would help free up HMO’s for more family and affordable housing in the City.

Members were advised that the site had been vacant for 15 years and was currently in poor condition and was a remnant of a former scrapyard. The scheme represented a beneficial sustainable development which re-used a brownfield site.

Mr Colebrook stated that highways improvements to the existing access to Ashwood from the A690 would also benefit local residents.

The site adjoined St Mary Magdalene Scheduled Ancient Monument to which there was currently no public access and the grounds of which weren’t currently maintained and were overgrown.

The proposals included landscaping around the monument, a new access via steps and a disabled compliant ramp, maintenance of grass and planting around the monument and the erection of an interpretation board. The landscaped area would also provide a more accessible entrance to public footpath 75 which would reduce the number of people walking ion the grass verge along the A690 between the carriageway and the pedestrian footbridge.

Members were advised that during the planning application the applicant  had worked with various officers as well as English Heritage to develop a design which took on board all of the issues raised, such that the proposal had received support from all statutory consultees.

Mr Colebrook advised that the applicant had also received Scheduled Monument Consent from English Heritage for the proposed works.

The applicant and secured support from Durham Cathedral who owned the Monument and reached an agreement with them to maintain the ancient grounds moving forward.

Following an on site meeting with residents, Mr Colebrook advised that all comments had been considered and the applicant had sought to address them wherever possible.

In summarising Mr Colebrook advised that the applicant believed they were delivering a well designed, purpose built accommodation scheme which and been fully considered, taking into account all concerns raised through the design process, on a brown field site and in a manner which took into consideration the schemes relationship with the wider environment. It also addressed the challenges of the immediate neighbouring ancient monument and its ongoing maintenance.

Councillor Moir acknowledged that while the University and Cathedral would obviously support the scheme with the restoration of the monument and the provision of student accommodation, he could understand the concerns of residents. There seemed to be an influx of such accommodation and he was not comfortable with the numbers being proposed across the city which appeared to be in excess of what was actually required.

In relation to cyclists, Councillor Moir commented that he saw more students on foot than on bike and indeed some students would have cars, it was therefore unrealistic to think that student accommodation should be a car free zone.

In relation to access to the Chapel, Councillor Moir was pleased to see the plans for its restoration. If access was restored to the monument then it was inevitable that some visitors would come by car through an area not intended as a thoroughfare.

Councillor Freeman stated that Durham had an issue regarding the proliferation of student accommodation and he questioned the need for the number of student accommodation developments which were being proposed.

In referring to policy H16 he raised concerns regarding the density of students and highlighted that should the application be approved, there would be 85% student population in that area which was a clear imbalance in population.

On the S106 contribution, Councillor Freeman highlighted that none were mentioned in the report, despite the impact on the surrounding area being immense, particularly with large numbers of students regularly walking to and from Durham on what were already poor footpaths. He felt that a S106 contribution could see the imporvemh6y of highways, cycling provision on the Gilesgate roundabout and improvements to pathways. As such, in the absence of a S106 contribution, Councillor Freeman felt unable to support the application.

The Senior Planning Officer responded to the points raised as follows:-

·         Student Accommodation Applications – while it was acknowledged that lately there were a lot of student accommodation applications coming forward, there was no requirement for a developer to demonstrate need.

·         H16 – Policy H16 did relate to the mix in population in an area and data on that postcode area showed that only 13% of accommodation ion that area was for students.

·         S106 – It Was felt that the public art contribution, the improvements to the Chapel and the introduction of interpretation boards was sufficient contribution to benefit the area. Also condition 8 would see improvements made to access and highways.

Councillor Lethbridge was disappointed about the distressed state of the Chapel and felt the scheme would adequately address that, however the gradient and narrowness of the access road would limit vehicle volume and that gave him cause for concern. On balance however he welcomed the contribution which the University made to the city and so moved approval of the application.

Councillor Lumsdon was encouraged by the high quality development which was being proposed however shared concerns of residents and Councillor Lethbridge. In referring to Part 1 of the NPPF regarding economic growth, she highlighted that the Committee had not been provided with any significant data.

In relation to NPPF Part 4 regarding the need to travel, Councillor Lumsdon felt that the application would actually maximise the need to travel.

Councillor Bleasdale seconded the motion to approve the application and upon a vote being taken it was:-

Resolved:- That the application be approved subject to the conditions detailed within the report and an additional condition to require full details of the cycle provision.