Agenda item

Erection of two storey office building with associated access, parking and landscaping.

The Committee considered a report of the Principal Planning Officer regarding the erection of two storey office building with associated access, parking and landscaping at the former croquet lawns, Aykley Heads, DH1 5TS (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 were advised that a late objection had been received which cited issues such as impact of the development on local residents, impact on roads in the area and issues with the access to the proposed development. All such matters were dealt with within the officer report.

Ms S Ballantyne, local resident, addressed the Committee. It was pleasing news to hear that Atom Bank had been attracted to the city, bringing with it the creation of new employment. However Ms Ballantyne felt it was a shame to develop a new building in a beauty spot such as the former croquet lawns and felt that other sites around the city would have been suitable. It was her understanding that the bank was in its infancy, she therefore questioned the urgency to build premises on greenfield land, when more time could be taken to identify a suitable brownfield site.

In relation to traffic issues, Members were advised that the area had seen a recent increase in traffic due to the merge of Trinity School and other changes in the area. What was once a relatively quiet road was now very busy.

While it was appreciated that staff at the bank would work on a shift system, it was likely they would work similar shifts to the police and so there would still be a lot of traffic on the road when shifts were starting and ending. Members were advised that the road only had one entry and exit point so an increase of even only 10 cars would be disruptive.

Ms Ballantyne advised that when the Trinity School merge was taking place, local residents had requested a specific location for the entrance to the site, though that had been refused. Residents now believed their request had been refused because of the impending application for Atom Bank.

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

·         Alternative Sites – this matter was addressed at paragraph 91 of the officer report;

·         Traffic – While the concerns from local residents was appreciated, the Highways Authority had considered the impact of development on the highway and was satisfied with the proposals;

·         Access – There was already an access point at the development site which would be considered suitable with some modifications.

The Highways Officer advised that staff at Atom Bank would operate on a three shift system and there would be no additional strain at peak hours on the network. It was estimated that some 62 vehicles would leave the bank at 10pm, this number could easily be accommodated on the network.

Councillor Moir welcomed the bank and the employment it would bring to the area. However he acknowledged that the proposed site was a beautiful area and so had sympathy with local residents.

Councillor Kay agreed that the area was one of beauty and he too had sympathy with local residents. However the application needed to be judged against planning considerations and so Councillor moved that the application be approved.

Mr E Twiddy, Atom Bank, addressed the Committee. Members were advised that the bank was very cognisant of the neighbouring area and the place of the site within the city. While the bank was in its infancy, it did employ 140 people and Durham was chosen as the base for a variety of reasons. While other sites had been considered around the area, none were viable options.

Members were advised that the Bank had agreed to allow Trinity School to use the bank carpark at pick up and drop off times to alleviate the strain on the highway.

Councillor Freeman welcomed the application though did have concerns that the traffic on the cul-de-sac would at some point become unsustainable as and when more development occurred in the area.

In response to a query from Councillor Conway, the Principal Planning Officer clarified that the NPPF required consideration of alternative sites and this had been done, as detailed at paragraph 80 of the officer’s report.

Councillor Moir 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”.