Agenda item

Relocate ‘The Journey’ sculpture from Millennium Place to North Churchyard, Durham Cathedral, widen existing entrance path, alter the surfacing of the path to sandstone setts, relocate two seats and associated lighting.

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding the relocation of “The Journey” sculpture from Millennium Place to North Churchyard, Durham Cathedral, widening existing entrance paths, alter the surfacing of the path to sandstone setts, relocating two seats and associated lighting at Durham Cathedral, Palace Green, Durham (for copy see file of Minutes).

 

The Principal Planning Officer provided the Committee with a detailed presentation which included photographs of the site and a plan of the proposed layout. Members of the Committee had visited the existing site and were familiar with the location and setting, but were also familiar with the location and setting of the proposed re-siting of the sculpture It was reported that 2 conditions had been suggested by the Archaeology Officer as follows:-

 

CONDITION 1 (for Archaeological monitoring)

 

No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has

secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a

mitigation strategy document that shall be submitted to, and approved in writing, by the local

planning authority. The strategy shall include details of the following:

 

i) Measures to ensure the preservation in situ, or the preservation by record, of archaeological

features of identified importance.

ii) Methodologies for the recording and recovery of archaeological remains including artefacts and

ecofacts.

iii) Post-fieldwork methodologies for assessment and analyses.

iv) Report content and arrangements for dissemination, and publication proposals.

v) Archive preparation and deposition with recognised repositories.

vi) A timetable of works in relation to the proposed development, including sufficient notification

and allowance of time to ensure that the site work is undertaken and completed in accordance

with the strategy.

vii) Monitoring arrangements, including the notification in writing to the County Durham Principal

Archaeologist of the commencement of archaeological works and the opportunity to monitor such

works.

The development shall then be carried out in full accordance with the approved details.

 

Reason: In the interests of historical and archaeological interest  to comply with Policy E24 of the former Durham City Local Plan as the site is of

archaeological interest.

 

CONDITION 2

Within 3 months of the substantial completion of the works a copy of any analysis, reporting, publication

or archiving required as part of the mitigation strategy shall be deposited at the County Durham

Historic Environment Record.

 

Reason: In the interests of historical and archaeological interest to comply with para. 141 of the NPPF which ensures information gathered becomes

publicly accessible.

 

Ms K Thomas addressed the Committee to speak in objection to the application. Ms Thomas advised that as a founder member and Trustee of the sculpture, the Trust Deed stated that the objectives of the Trust was to promote the enhancement and improvement of the City of Durham through the erection and maintenance of a memorial to the history and heritage of the area and in doing so, advance the education of local people in areas such as art, literature and culture.

 

The objectives supported the social role of sustainable development for strong, vibrant, healthy communities’ needs and also supported social and cultural wellbeing.

 

Ms Thomas spoke of the pride in the story of Cuthbert, which she believed to be a story for the cultural wellbeing of everyone, regardless of race, religion or background and for those that may not visit the Cathedral.

 

Members were advised that the bronze cast of the sculpture was commissioned for the people, paid for by the people and located in a city centre site with access for all. Ms Thomas highlighted that planning guidance recommended that local authorities should recognise town centres as the heart of their communities and pursue policies to support their viability and vitality.

 

Ms Thomas stated that uprooting the sculpture from the gateway site where children played around it, visitors photographed it and school parties gathered, would trample on the spirit of a publicly funded artwork. Members were advised that the former Durham City Council had fully supported the siting of the sculpture and had granted the £27,000 shortfall which, together with charitable funds, had paid for the cast.

 

Ms Thomas urged the committee to keep the sculpture where all could enjoy it and to support local initiatives to improve Millennium Place with funds already granted as part of environmental improvements.

 

Members were advised that the issue of anti-social behaviour was not reason enough to relocate the sculpture and instead efforts should be made to deal with the bad behaviour.

 

Ms Thomas concluded by stating that a Norman conquest cathedral was not an appropriate location for a sculpture depicting the passage of the coffin of a Celtic saint.

 

Ms E Ashby addressed the Committee to speak in objection to the application. She believed there to be significant errors in the report. She felt that the petition which was submitted in objection to the application did not receive the same coverage as the petition to support the application and as such Ms Ashby felt that Members had been denied evidence of the strength of objections.

 

Ms Ashby further advised that while the legal notice of the application might have been advertised properly, there were many stakeholders who had been unaware of the application, including local schools.

 

Concerns were raised regarding the archaeology of the area as Ms Ashby highlighted that conditions relating to archaeology would only come into force after any area was disturbed. She therefore queried whether saved Local Plan policy E24 was justified.

 

Members were advised that the proposed location for the sculpture would cause accessibility issues. If wheelchair users were to stop to look at the sculpture, an obstruction would be caused on the Cathedral pathway, thus restricting access to other visitors.

 

In relation to conditions 3 & 4 as detailed within the officers report regarding paving and lighting, Ms Ashby felt that those issues should not be left to be decided at a later date and should be determined as part of the consideration of the application.

 

Ms Ashby concluded by querying who the Journey  Consortium were, they were not a group which she was aware of.

 

Councillor G Holland addressed the Committee to speak in support of the application. Members were advised that the sculptor was in full support of the plans to relocate the sculpture, believing that the move would raise the profile of St Cuthbert.

 

Councillor Holland advised that there was indeed occasions where vomit and urine were on the sculpture and this was wholly unacceptable and defamatory to the sculpture, the city and the artist. He believed that the relevance of the sculpture was lost in its current location. It had originally been placed off centre in Millennium Place as the area was intended to be used as a venue for performing arts, however that had never taken off.

 

Millennium Place was used predominantly at night-time and as such the sculpture was constantly at risk of being mistreated. Members were advised that the artist had been granted Freedom of the City and he was keen to see his piece moved to a more natural location.

 

Ms M Hawgood addressed the Committee to speak in support of the application. She spoke in her capacity as one of the 3 people who originally set up a steering group to raise money to pay for a metal cast of The Journey for the city of Durham. That had been back in 2003 and Members were advised that by 2005 the Steering Group had raised £140,000, half of which had been donated by the general public.

 

A site had then needed to be identified and Members were advised that the Trustees had not chosen Millennium Place, it was in fact the only site available to house the sculpture. Ms Hawgood advised that the artist had been concerned about how it would be treated in that location, as were the Trustees, however both were assured that Millennium Place was intended to become the cultural centre of the city.

 

Ms Hawgood advised that the plans for Millennium Place had not materialised and instead the area became a late night location for drinkers who took to desecrating the sculpture.

 

Members were advised that the assumption that the Cathedral had hijacked the sculpture was wrong. Ms Hawgood clarified that the Trustees asked for the site and also asked the Cathedral to apply for planning permission on their behalf. Indeed had that site been available originally, it would almost certainly have been used.

 

Ms Hawgood acknowledged that objectors felt that the Trustees should be attempting to improve Millennium Place rather than move The Journey. She queried why the objectors had never bothered to try to improve the area before now.

 

Members were advised that objectors also asserted that the current location was more accessible to the disabled. Ms Hawgood advised that she herself was disabled and required transport to both locations. She stated that it was very much easier to be dropped and collected at the Cathedral than at Millennium Place,

 

Ms Hawgood believed that it was the Trustees who owned the statue and therefore had the right to move it. Indeed Ms Hawgood had a letter from the County Council Chief Executive which supported that assertion.

 

Members were advised that there were 5 Trustees and when they voted on the move, only 1 Trustee had voted in objection to it.

 

The Principal Planning Officer responded to points raised as follows:-

 

·         Accessibility – The volume of visitors to the Cathedral was proof enough that it was an accessible location;

·         Public Funded Artwork – The funding of the sculpture was not a matter for consideration by the Committee;

·         Nightlife – While the effects of the city nightlife was a factor in the proposals to move the sculpture, it was not a planning consideration;

·         Archaeology of the Area – It was reiterated that the Archaeology Officers were satisfied with the proposals;

·         Petitions – The report was a balanced report and reflected both the views of supporters and objectors equally;

·         Stakeholders – The placing of the notice did meet statutory requirements which was the limit of what the Planning Authority could do. Furthermore it was clear that there had been far reaching interest in the application;

·         Planning conditions – Conditions attached to any permission which was granted was considered an adequate way to deal with any matters such as paving and lighting;

·         Journey Consortium – While it was not clear who comprised the Journey Consortium, that was not a matter for the Committee.

 

Councillor A Bell had been present on the site visit earlier that day which had visited the current location of the sculpture. He commented that it might have been useful for the visit to have taken in the proposed location also.

In referring to paragraph 25 of the report, Councillor Bell would have preferred the opinion to be that the sculpture would make a positive contribution to the setting of the Cathedral, rather than just a neutral contribution. He personally did not believe that the sculpture would add anything to the Cathedral and as such moved refusal of the application.

 

Councillor D Freeman acknowledged that all interested parties had a common interest in that they all cared about the city. He felt that the issue of loss needed to be considered, the loss to the city centre if the sculpture were to be moved to a more remote location. It had been a publicly funded sculpture, it should therefore be in the public domain.

 

The Cathedral was private property as opposed to public open space and Councillor Freeman felt that the current location was most appropriate, highlighting that Millennium Place was developed using the Walkergate S106 monies.

 

Councillor Freeman acknowledged that Millennium Place could be improved environmentally, but reiterated that The Journey was central to that area. The current position of the sculpture allowed for contemplation and photography by visitors.

 

In referring to paragraph 34 of the report, Councillor Freeman highlighted that the application actually ignored the preferred location of officers, near the North door of the Cathedral. He believed removal of the sculpture from its current location would be contrary to saved Local Plan policies E6 and E22 as to move it would neither preserve nor enhance the character of the area. Councillor Freeman therefore seconded the motion to refuse the application.

 

Councillor P Conway acknowledged the wealth of views on both sides of the argument and believed it would have been prudent for a public consultation to have been undertaken. He believed that the views of the public were a material consideration and therefore relevant to the consideration of the application.

 

Councillor Conway stated that as the journey of Cuthbert’s coffin was made there would have been no reverential treatment, it was everyday life, which was exactly what occurred in present day at Millennium Place. While Councillor Conway had much respect for the artist, the sculpture was public art in a public domain. Furthermore, it was entitled The Journey as opposed to The Arrival and so its current location was wholly appropriate. He concurred with Councillor Freeman and stated that there were justified grounds in saved Local Plan Policies E6, E21 and E22 to refuse the application. He did not believe the proposals would in any way enhance the world heritage site.

 

In response to a query from Councillor Kay, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the Cathedral had paid for the planning application.

 

Councillor Kay stated that the current location was very relevant, Cuthbert had been buried at the Cathedral which was the end of the journey therefore it was a tangible link to have the sculpture en-route to the Cathedral. He supported refusal of the application.

 

Councillor J Lethbridge advised that during the site visit earlier that day he had witnessed stains on the sculpture which were completely abhorrent. He believed that sculpture deserved respect and appreciation. He felt that the current location was too modern and relocating the sculpture would be an important enhancement to the approach to the Cathedral door. Furthermore it would be an important contribution to the Christian heritage of that area. Councillor Lethbridge supported the views of Councillor Holland and the other numerous supporters and moved that the application be approved.

 

Councillor J Clark could not agree with the proposals to relocate the sculpture, highlighting that it depicted a completely different historical period to that of the Cathedral. The sculpture was a conversation piece where it currently was and Councillor Clark highlighted that as well as the night time trade, there was also a significant daytime footfall through Millennium Place.

 

Councillor M Davinson noted that no permission was required for the Trustees to move the sculpture, permission was only required for its relocation. He felt that not enough emphasis was placed on the sculpture in Millennium Place and even the plaque set in the ground next to it, was easily overlooked. He believed that there would be more emphasis on the sculpture at the Cathedral and as such supported approval of the application.

 

Councillors Bell, Freeman and Conway clarified the reasons for refusal as follows:-

 

·         That the application was contrary to saved Local Plan policy E6 – whether the area would be enhanced was a matter of judgement, however those Members believed it would not enhance the Cathedral;

·         That the application was contrary to saved Local Plan policies E21 and E22 – the whole building period would be distorted if the sculpture were to be relocated and moving it would neither preserve nor enhance the character of the area.

·         That the application be refused on the grounds that there were health and safety issues regarding accessibility and also because of the strength of public opinion and public views.

 

The Solicitor advised that public opinion was not a material planning consideration and should therefore not be cited as a reason for refusal.

 

The Chairman informed the Committee that a vote would be taken on Councillor A Bell’s motion to refuse the application, as seconded by Councillor Freeman, on the basis that the application was contrary to saved Local Plan policies E6, E21 and E22.

 

Upon a vote being taken refusal of the application was defeated.

 

The Chairman informed the Committee that a further vote would be taken on Councillor J Lethbridge’s motion to approve the application, as seconded by Councillor M Davinson.

 

Upon a vote being taken it was

 

Resolved: “That the application be approved subject to the conditions detailed within the report and the two additional conditions relating to archaeology”.