Agenda item

Refurbishment of Weardale House to provide 24 student beds, demolition of 2 existing accommodation blocks and erection of purpose built student accommodation block (198 beds).

The Senior Planning Officer, Henry Jones gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, copies of which had been circulated (for copy see file of minutes).  Members noted that the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included photographs of the site.  The Officer advised that Members of the Committee had visited the site that day and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was for refurbishment of Weardale House to provide 24 student beds, demolition of 2 existing accommodation blocks and erection of purpose built student accommodation block (198 beds) and was recommended for approval subject to referral to the Secretary of State via the National Planning Casework Unit, and in the event of the application not being called in, for the Head of Planning to determine the application subject to a Section 106 Agreement and conditions.

Members noted that as the application was within the Durham City Greenbelt, the special circumstance being cited was that of enabling development.  The Senior Planning Officer explained that not all of the previously agreed “Phase 1 Masterplan works” had not been taken forward and the applicant had noted that if this application was to be approved, a Section 106 Agreement would secure the completion of those Phase 1 works.

The Committee noted that there had been no objections from the statutory or internal consultees on the application, subject to the conditions set out in the report.  Members noted 2 letters of support and 4 letters of objection from the members of the public had been received.  It was noted that reasons for objection to the application included: inappropriate scale and appearance; inappropriate development within the Greenbelt; damage to heritage assets; accessibility and safety issues in terms of cyclists; and concerns in terms of flood risk.  The Senior Planning Officer noted a statement had been received from Councillor Dr D Boyes after the production of the committee report, in his capacity as Vice-Chair of
East Durham and Houghall College:

“The proposed development at Houghall is essential for the future of the site as an ongoing provider of land-based educational services.

Unfortunately, due to a number of reasons, most notably a lack of resources at the site, the buildings have become dilapidated, some beyond repair.  As a result many students at the site are studying in a learning environment that is not fit for purpose.

In order to compete with other land-based colleges such as at York and Northumberland, investment, which this proposed development will be able to provide, would enable students in County Durham to access the kind of quality educational provision that they deserve”.

The Senior Planning Officer concluded by noting that it was felt that the special circumstances outweighed the objections and therefore the application was recommended for approval, subject to the Section 106 Agreement and conditions as set out within the report.

The Chairman thanked the Senior Planning Officer and introduced Mrs S Duncan, Principal and Chief Executive Officer of East Durham College who was in attendance to speak in relation to the application, having 5 minutes to address the Committee.

Mrs S Duncan noted that a number of the Phase 1 works would be completed in time for the September 2016 intake of students, however, there were a number of works beyond Phase 1 that would enable high quality facilities to be in place locally.  It was noted that the current accommodation was created in 1937 and fell well below the modern standards expected by students.  Members were informed that the College would wish to prepare for the future and, as the Higher Education offer increased, there would be a need for more facilities.  It was noted that in terms of being able to provide capital to enhance teaching facilities while an amount had been made available to enhance some of the site, including new equine facilities, there were not sufficient funds to complete all of the works to modernise all the teaching spaces.  Mrs S Duncan noted that the application would allow for those works to be carried out, though being sensitive to the issues of the site, being within the greenbelt and potential flood risk.  It was noted that the design of the accommodation block had taken into account comments from the Planning Department, for example a reduction of one storey to allow a void to be incorporated into the design acting to mitigate flood risk.  Mrs S Duncan concluded by adding that there was great value in having a high quality land-based teaching facility, the benefits to the local area would significant and therefore asked Members to approve the application.

The Chairman thanked Mrs S Duncan and asked Members of the Committee for their questions and comments on the application.

Councillor A Bell noted that on the site visit the buildings proposed for demolition did look very tired and therefore supported the Officer’s recommendation for approval.

Councillor A Hopgood noted she had no objections to the application in principle, however asked what additional land would be taken up in terms of the proposed development.  Councillor A Hopgood also questioned the accessibility of the city centre from the site, noting the route would be dangerous for cyclists.

The Highways Development Manager, John McGargill agreed that the route along the main road into the city centre would not be comfortable for cyclists, however the road cut through a gully and there was no more space available. It was added that the relevant calculations showed that there was capacity in terms of access by pedestrians into the city centre and also the site was on a bus route.  The Highways Development Manager noted that accordingly the application was acceptable in highways terms.

The Senior Planning Officer added that while the floor space of the application was different and greater than the existing buildings, they were located in an area where existing buildings sat and referred Members to plans on the projector screen.

Councillor J Lethbridge noted that he had always felt that Houghall College had always sat at ease within its setting and agreed that the tired buildings were in need of replacement.  Councillor J Lethbridge added that while there was always concern in terms of any development in the greenbelt, there was a need to balance the impact of development against the gains.  Councillor J Lethbridge noted that it was recognised that the site was “visually well self-contained” and while there were some concerns in terms of traffic, he also supported the Officer’s recommendation for approval. 

Councillor J Clark noted she had concerns in terms of highway safety, with a limited number of car parking passes and while walking and cycling would be encouraged, a number of students would come and go by car, or taxi, creating an additional volume of traffic.  Councillor J Clark suggested that this could be an issue to “keep an eye on”.   

Councillor A Bell moved that the application be approved; he was seconded by Councillor J Lethbridge.

RESOLVED

That the Committee were MINDED TO APPROVE the application subject to referral of the application to the Secretary of State through the National Planning Casework Unit; and, in the event that the application is not called in by the Secretary of State that it be APPROVED subject to a Section 106 Agreement to secure the agreement and completion of works so as to complete the Phase 1 redevelopment of Houghall College and the conditions as set out in the report.