Agenda item

Outline planning permission for the remodelling of the building including the erection of ground, first, second and Mansard roof third floor extensions with layout and landscaping reserved and full planning permission for change of use to student accommodation.

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an outline application for the remodelling of the building including the erection of ground, first, second and Mansard roof third floor extensions with layout and landscaping reserved, and full planning permission for change of use to student accommodation (for copy see file of Minutes).

The Senior Planning Officer provided the Committee with a detailed presentation on the application which included photographs of the site. A visit to the site had been arranged for Members to view the location and setting. He also updated the Committee on proposed refusal reason 3 (protected species) as a bat survey had now been submitted. Refusal reason 3 was therefore to be deleted.

Councillor G Holland, local Member spoke in support of the Officer’s recommendation for refusal. He observed that the applicant had objected to an application for student accommodation on the former County Hospital site on the grounds that the area was ‘student saturated’.

In his statement the applicant appreciated that there was a demand for new hotels but that increased competition had put pressure on Kingslodge. However in 2011 he had applied for an extension to the hotel and was granted planning consent on appeal. In considering this application Officers had correctly relied on the Local Plan and the NPPF, with little emphasis placed on policy 32 of the emerging County Durham Plan.

He considered that the decision rested with Policies C9, H13 and H16 of the Local Plan, to which primary weight should be given, and paragraphs 70, 117 and 118 of the NPPF. The application was contrary to these policies and allowed Officers to make an unambiguous recommendation for refusal.

Councillor N Martin, local Member addressed the Committee and commenced by explaining that he was the Treasurer of the Rotary Club of Durham Bede which used Finbarrs restaurant for its weekly meetings, and this application clearly threatened the future of the restaurant. In accordance with the Council’s Constitution he had consulted the Monitoring Officer who had advised that in this specific situation it was acceptable for him to speak and represent his constituents.

His objections were on the grounds of impact on local amenity, need and economic loss to the City. Less than 20 metres from the site was the new Gentoo development of family town houses which was nearing completion. This was a welcome re-introduction of family housing into an area that had needed re-development for some years.

In addition, situated within 150 metres in the opposite direction was pre-dominantly family housing which would be at risk from noise and disturbance from this development.

There did not appear to be anything in the plans that showed how the residents would socialise within the building, nor had the applicant given any evidence to confirm that he knew how to manage a residence of this size in terms of noise and disturbance to neighbouring properties.

As a former College Principal and University City Liaison Officer he was aware that there would be loud late-night comings and goings from this development.

The area already had a large student population but the Gentoo development was a move to mitigate this factor. Increasing the density of students only had the effect of further sterilising parts of the City Centre in the half year that the students were not there. 

The applicant claimed that students brought long-term economic benefit to the City but the provision of more student residential accommodation had no impact on the number of students in the City as this was controlled by the University. Need was a key factor and had been accepted by the Inspector at the ongoing examination of the emerging County Durham Plan as a relevant consideration.

Finally there was an economic issue around the hotel and restaurant. This was currently a successful hotel which had permission to expand its bed capacity. The restaurant was arguably the best restaurant in Durham City.

This application would put both at risk. The emerging County Durham Plan placed the City at the centre of a strategy to increase economic activity across the County as a whole. In addition a large number of jobs would be lost that the local economy needed, and for which there was currently a demand.

Mr Priestly spoke as a representative of Crossgate Partnership and welcomed the recommendation for refusal. He was pleased that the Council had recognised that the concentration of students had become unbalanced in the City. With the new reduced student targets there would be no economic gain for Durham. The application contravened Policies H13, H16 and C9 of the Local Plan.

Mr Finbarr O’Leary explained that he owned the restaurant and whilst it was housed in the hotel it was a separate entity. His concerns were on employment grounds. The employee figures referred to in the report were inaccurate, and the actual loss of jobs in the restaurant would equate to 19 FTE and 20 PTE.

Mrs Levitas stated that she was now the only resident in her street, the remaining houses being occupied by students.   She reiterated that this area was saturated with students. The hotel was managed very well and was a huge asset to the City. Her main concern was that there was an oversupply of student accommodation. The number of university places were to be reduced and she understood that Durham University was building student accommodation on its own land.  A policy was needed to redress the imbalance of housing in the City.   

In terms of impact on the local economy, the students were not in the City from June to October each year. 

At this point Councillor Martin left the meeting during Member deliberations.

Councillor Conway welcomed the clarification by Mr O’Leary in relation to employment figures and moved refusal of the application. Councillor Davinson noted that the restaurant was busy on the Member site visit which had been at 2.00pm on a Monday and was of the view that this was an indication of its success. He welcomed the new family housing being built next to the site and was concerned about the potential impact on that development if the application was approved.

Councillor Freeman stated that Mrs Levitas had highlighted the problems in the City which were reflected in the fact that she was the only resident in her street. It was pleasing that the percentage of student properties in concentrated geographical areas had been examined and hoped that this would be taken into account in future applications. The current figures clearly showed an imbalance in the local community.

Councillor G Bleasdale seconded refusal of theapplication.

Resolved:

That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the report, as amended.