Agenda item

Demolition of garage units and redevelopment to provide 55 bed student accommodation and associated communal and ancillary facilities.

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding the demolition of garage units and redevelopment to provide 55 bed student accommodation and associated communal and ancillary facilities at land to the rear of 21 Market Place, 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 of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.

Mr D Smith, agent for the applicant, addressed the Committee. Members were advised that the applicant was a local family run business which already had 60 student properties within the city and the business would manage the proposed scheme itself. All parcels of land within the application site were owned by the applicant and there was confidence that the scheme could be delivered in its entirety.

Members were advised that there were low levels of footfall in the area surrounding the application site, as such other uses for the site were not particularly viable. There was a lack of student accommodation in that area of the city and so bringing the scheme forward would create a healthy mix of uses in the area.

Mr Smith advised that the proposed design of the scheme was considered to be of a high quality by relevant officers, especially as the site was currently considered to be an eyesore brownfield site. Mr Smith was confident that the proposals would enhance the surrounding economy and regenerate a rundown part of the city.

In response to a query from Councillor M Davinson, the Senior Planning Officer clarified that a response had now been received from the Highways Authority. The Highways Officer clarified that although there were some concerns regarding the positioning of the cycle bays behind the bin store, there had been a late revision to the scheme. Disabled parking provision was now included and the cycle parking had been slightly moved, as such officers were satisfied with the proposals.

Councillor Lethbridge commented on the eclectic mix of building periods within that area of the city and he queried whether any historical research had been undertaken in relation to the application site.

The Senior Planning Officer advised that a Heritage Statement had been submitted, further to which Archaeology Officers had added conditions 9 and 10 to the application.

Councillor A Turner advised that despite supporting the scheme in principle, he was dismayed that bringing the scheme forward would mean the removal of several mature trees from the area.

Councillor J Clark queried whether the removal of the trees would have any impact on any additional water which would need to run off.

The Senior Planning Officer highlighted condition 6 as detailed within the report which stated that no development should take place until a scheme came forward regarding drainage of the site.

Councillor D Freeman made the point that there were not more students coming to Durham and so further student accommodation was not required. He highlighted that there had been two previous applications for the site, both of which had been refused because of the impact on the conservation area.

He stressed that any building erected in that area would have to be of a particular and correct height because of the sloping nature of the buildings in that location. He highlighted that a 5 storey building would not be in keeping with the character of the area as it would be highly visible and overbearing on Fowlers Yard.

Councillor Freeman further advised that local residents would be adversely affected by the introduction of students to the area. He believed that the application failed to satisfy saved Local Plan Policies Q8, E22 and H13.

The Senior Planning Officer advised that while there had been previous applications for the site which had been refused, they had been for smaller developments and not across the full width of the site. The current application would fill the whole area and the proposed height of the building would sit well within the surrounding buildings.

Councillor M Davinson believed the proposed scheme would complement the surrounding area, as such he moved that the application be approved. Councillor Lethbridge seconded the motion for approval and upon a vote being taken it was:

Resolved: “That the application be approved subject to the conditions detailed within the report”.

Councillor K Dearden left the meeting.