Agenda item

Erection of 4 new buildings and restoration of Kepier House for use as 214no.bed student accommodation and associated landscaping.

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding the erection of 4 new buildings and restoration of Kepier House for use as 214 no. bed student accommodation and associated landscaping at land at Mayorswell Close and Kepier Court, Durham, DH1 1JU (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.

The Committee was advised that contrary to the report before them, both Durham University and the City of Durham Trust had submitted letters of objection to the application.

 

Councillor R Ormerod, local Member, addressed the Committee. He was against the proposals, stating that the development would be in a primarily residential area. While there had been students living in the area some years earlier, the Committee were advised that they had been post graduate students, many of whom had families and so fitted in better with the surrounding residential area. Should the application be approved, Councillor Ormerod advised that the population balance in the area would be dramatically affected. While he was not against a suitable housing development being proposed for the area, he could not support a student accommodation application.

 

Councillor Ormerod advised that some 2000 student beds had already been given planning approval, yet Durham University were only predicting an increase of 500 students up to 2020. While Policy 32 of the emerging County Durham Plan was relevant, it was noted that the future of the Plan was not clear. Councillor Ormerod therefore called for the application to be deferred until a decision had been made regarding the future of the County Durham Plan.

 

Mr W Williamson, local resident, addressed the Committee. He advised that he lived directly next to the block at Mayorswell Close. He stated that the NPPF stressed 3 main criteria for development, that development should see a mix of home types, strengthening communities and strengthening a competitive economy. Mr Williamson felt that the application failed all 3 criteria.

 

Students only inhabited an area on a temporary basis and so did nothing to build and strengthen local communities. He felt that social cleansing would accelerate and the character, heritage and amenity attributes of the area would be adversely affected. Indeed Mr Williamson advised that most residents could expect a serious loss of amenity should the application be approved.

 

Mr H Dowdy, representing Durham University, addressed the Committee to speak in objection to the application.

 

Members were advised that the University’s letter of objection dated 5 February 2015 anticipated that the Planning Inspector’s Interim Report in respect of the County Durham Plan, would lead to a robust policy on Purpose Built Student Accommodation.

 

As that was not the case, Ms Dowdy advised that the University hoped that the application could be deferred for consideration at the same time as the applications in respect of the County Hospital Site, Claypath, Berensden Laundry and The Gates, so as to ensure consistency in the decision making process.

 

Furthermore, Ms Dowdy advised this would allow for proper scrutiny of the student number forecasts and the probability that there would be an oversupply of bed spaces. It would also give Members the opportunity to consider whether student accommodation was the best use of several economically important brownfield sites. It would also allow consideration of the impact of such use and form of development on the World Heritage Site and the desire to achieve a balanced city centre community.

 

Ms J George, local resident, addressed the Committee. She advised that the decision of the Committee would have an impact on the quality of her life and she urged Members to refuse the application or to defer consideration until the future of the County Durham Plan was known.

 

Ms George stated that the developer was out to make a profit from a development that was not required and she strongly believed that the site could be put to better use. Local amenity would be compromised and she advised that many local residents had concerns relating to noise and disturbance.

 

Ms M Johansen, local resident, addressed the Committee. As she lived close to the development site, she was particularly concerned about being overlooked. While the separation distance between properties might be 21m, Ms Johansen explained that the topography of the site would mean that students would have uninterrupted views into her home.

 

Members were advised that the applicant had been aware of those concerns and had originally offered appropriate mitigation in relation to the window designs on Block 4. However when the final plans had been revealed it was clear that no appropriate alterations had been made to the proposed design. As such she requested that should Members be minded to approve the application, then a condition be added to require opaque glass or angled windows in the blocks.

 

Mr P Gillespie, applicant, addressed the Committee. Members were advised that the previous use of the site had been student accommodation and that in planning the development, the Planning Inspectors report of 2007 had been used to influence the detailed design configuration.

 

In terms of design, the proposals sought to add to the quality of the area with the use of materials and the use of high and acoustic insulation would mitigate against noise.

 

No parking was to be provided which would mean the development would not generate any additional traffic and through landscaping regeneration and the addition of mature trees, the issue of overlooking could be mitigated. Furthermore protected species would be cared for.

 

Mr Gillespie stated that purpose built student accommodation could be managed much more effectively than HMO’s and as such any issues related to students could be reduced significantly. Students would be talked to regularly regarding having respect for the surrounding area and Members were advised that any incidents would be dealt with promptly and that neighbouring residents would be provided with appropriate contact details for reporting any incidents.

 

Members were assured that there would be no first year students housed at the accommodation and the site would benefit from CCTV, adequate lighting and links with the Police.

 

The Solicitor took the opportunity to reiterate his earlier comments that no weight should be given to the County Durham Plan at this time and this point was emphasised by an officer from the Planning Policy team.

 

On the issue of need, Councillor Lethbridge sought clarification from the University as to the predicted number of student beds which would be required up to 2020.

 

The Planning Policy Officer advised that from a planning policy point of view, the NPPF did not require a need test for student accommodation. The NPPF promoted a significant boost in the supply of housing and the choice of homes and so student accommodation was considered part of that. Furthermore in terms of the saved City of Durham Local Plan, there was no numerical limit on the number of student beds.

 

Ms H Dowdy clarified that in general terms the University anticipated a growth of 500 students up to 2019/20 and reminded the Committee that there was an outstanding application at Mount Oswald.

 

Councillor Freeman stated that he did not dispute that the site would benefit from development, but noted that the previous use had been for post graduates, which was different to the housing of 240 undergraduates.

 

In the past 2 years there had been approval of 2000 bed spaces and there were some 2000 more in the planning process, yet the University only predicted 500 additional student beds required up to 2019/20. To not consider demand was unacceptable.

 

Councillor Freeman referred to paragraphs 105 and 106 of the report and stated that while the officer acknowledged that there would be a dense concentration of students, it seemed that issued was not then addressed.

 

Councillor Freeman cited Policy 32 of the County Durham Plan and stated that the application did not comply with it as there would be 50% student accommodation in the area. He highlighted that the Planning Inspectors critique of Policy 32 was that it was not actually strong enough, as such Councillor Freeman predicted that any future policy would need to either reflect Policy 32 or actually be stronger.

 

In terms of the size of development, Councillor Freeman highlighted that blocks 1, 2 and 3 would actually overlook neighbouring properties at a distance less than 21m and that block 4 would overlook residents of a nearby street, therefore all 4 blocks failed to meet separation distance requirements. As the plans were for properties of 3-3.5 storeys, overlooking would be inevitable and such properties were too large for the area.

 

In referring to Policy 18 of the County Durham Plan, which focused on residential amenity, Councillor Freeman highlighted that the Inspector had no issue with the policy, so suggested that if not able to cite policy 32, then policy 18 could be cited as a reason for refusal.

 

In concluding Councillor Freeman stated that he supported the suggestion to defer the application until such time as a decision had been made on the County Durham Plan, otherwise he felt there were grounds to refuse permission.

 

Councillor Conway also considered deferral of the application based on the issues surrounding the County Durham Plan and the differing opinions as to how much weight should be given to it.

 

In terms of need and demand, while he acknowledged that these were not material planning considerations, he appreciated the confirmation from the University as to the predicted growth numbers.

 

Councillor Conway noted that while the saved local plan provided strong grounds to approve the application, the concerns raised by residents could not be ignored. He acknowledged also that the issue was not housing on the site, just that the housing should not be for students.

 

In referring to the planning history of the site, Councillor Conway highlighted that the application had been refused previously because there had not been sufficient affordable housing on site, however he felt that he would be more inclined to support such an application than the one before the Committee at the present time.

 

He therefore supported that the application be deferred, otherwise refused.

 

Councillor Moir stated that he would really have benefitted from having a visit to the site and was disappointed that one had not been arranged. He was aware that there was an eclectic mix of housing in the area but that the residents were stating that there was a lack of amenity such as shops and public transport.

 

He stated that the postcode analysis was flawed as much of the surrounding area had a DH1 postcode.

 

He felt that having listened to local residents, it was clear that local amenity would be disturbed and that there would be issues regarding visual amenity with the development of 3-3.5 storey blocks. Furthermore he felt that the character of the area would be detrimentally affected and that this particular area of the city would be spoiled by the introduction of 240 students.

 

 

 

 

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

 

• It was accepted that the previous use of the site had been student accommodation for post graduates, however there was no stipulation that it would have to be post graduates on the site now.
• Scale/Overlooking – a mix of storeys was proposed on the site and the levels on the site did change. The site sloped downwards as such the higher storey properties would be at the lower part of the site. The 21m separation distance was achievable across much of the site and could actually be exceeded in some areas. In some parts of the site the separation distance would be slightly below 21m by a maximum of 800 millimetres, however this was considered acceptable and a condition had been suggested to ensure obscure glazing where necessary.
• The Design and Conservation Officer was satisfied with all aspects of the scheme;
• Policy 32 – It was reiterated that no weight should be given to Policy 32 of the County Durham Plan.

 

Councillor M Davinson queried how much contributions would come from the S106 agreement. He further enquired as to the content of the objection letters which had been submitted by the University and the City of Durham Trust and he sought clarification as to whether other similar schemes had come forward but been deferred.

 

In response the Senior Planning Officer clarified that the S106 agreement would be subject to negotiation. The University had already presented its concerns earlier in the meeting and the Committee was advised that while the City of Durham Trust accepted the design of the proposed development, it objected to the application on the grounds of need. The Committee was further advised that no other similar schemes had been deferred.

 

Councillor A Bell moved that the application be deferred, to be considered at a future meeting so as to allow the Committee the opportunity to visit the site. Councillor Conway seconded the motion for deferral. Both Members clarified that the reasons for deferral were to allow the Committee to familiarise itself with the site.  Furthermore, due to the differing opinions and advice which was being presented to the Committee in terms of the weight to be applied to planning policies, the Committee needed more time to reflect on the balances, particularly between saved local plan policies H16, H13 and also Policies 18 and 32 of the County Durham Plan.

 

Upon a vote being taken it was:-

 

RESOLVED:- “That the application be deferred for the following reasons:-

 

·         The Committee required a site visit in order to familiarise itself with the site before considering the application;

·         The Committee required time to reflect on the advice given in relation to the weight to be afforded to various planning policies”.