Agenda item

Demolition of existing building and proposed new build for student accommodation.

The Senior Planning Officer, Chris Baxter gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, a copy 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 and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was for the demolition of existing building and proposed new build for student accommodation and was recommended for refusal. 

The Senior Planning Officer noted that in terms of representations from internal and statutory consultees there had been objections raised by the Highways Section in terms of highway safety and amenity and they recommended that the application was refused.  Members noted objections to the application had also been received from Durham University, the Council’s Ecologist, Design and Conservation Team and Landscape Team in terms of: no up-to-date bat survey had been submitted with the application; the proposals would lead to less than substantial harm to the conservation area; and there was concerns in terms of the proposal would contradict planning policy.

The Committee noted 75 letters of representation had been received, mostly in objection to the application, including from local residents, the Sidegate and Elvet Residents’ Associations, Crossgate Community Partnership, Neville’s Cross Community Association, Durham City Neighbourhood Planning Forum, the World Heritage Site Co-ordinator, City of Durham Trust, Campaign to Protect Rural England, Councillor R Ormerod and Roberta Blackman-Woods MP.  The main concerns raised included: impact upon the World Heritage Site, Conservation Area and Green Belt; impact on the nearby railway line; impact upon residents; the application not being in accord with planning policy, including the Interim Policy on Student Accommodation; highways safety; and issues in terms of discrepancies in terms of plans and ownership of the entire application site.

The Senior Planning Officer noted that in terms of the principle of development there would be a loss of employment use and the development would not maintain a mixed or balanced community.  It was added that the application represented development in the Green Belt, and there were no very special circumstances which clearly outweigh the harm by reason of inappropriateness and other harm.  Members noted that Officers felt the development layout and form would be unacceptable and would not preserve or enhance the Conservation Area and that poor vehicular access and insufficient car parking would compromise highway safety.  It was reiterated that insufficient evidence had been submitted to ensure protected species or their habitats would not be adversely affected by the proposal and the Senior Planning Officer concluded that accordingly Officers recommended that the application be refused.

The Chairman asked Mr J Lowe, to speak on behalf of the Sidegate Residents Association in relation to the Application.

Mr J Lowe explained that he was the Chairman of the Sidegate Residents Association and that this included Diamond Terrace, the row of houses located adjacent to the application site.  He noted that the report detailed reasons for refusal and that while residents were not opposed to the development of the site, they were opposed to the scheme as proposed in the application.  It was explained that there was support from the Durham City Neighbourhood Planning Forum in terms of development of a small terrace at the site, and that the long list of objectors to the proposed scheme included both professional officers, the local MP, the World Heritage Site Co-ordinator and the University.

Mr J Lowe continued explaining that while it might seem neither necessary nor even possible to add to the reasons for refusal he would like to make three important additional points, firstly that the application makes no provision for wheelchair users and there were no ground floor bedrooms and no lifts.  It was noted that this contravened Durham City Saved Policies Q1 and Q2, while the County Council's own student accommodation policy required such developments to be accessible and appropriate to disabled students, as set out at Paragraph 21.

Mr J Lowe noted that secondly there was the critical issue of the impact of 69 students living in close proximity to Diamond Terrace.  It was explained that the Senior Planning Officer's report argued that, although the Applicant had not submitted a management plan to control their behaviour, a condition could be imposed requiring such a plan and therefore refusal could not be justified on the grounds of loss of residential amenity.  Mr J Lowe added that even the best management plan could only exercise influence over students on the premises, it could not control their behaviour passing Diamond Terrace as they move to and from the premises.  It was noted that the fact that a management plan could not control students off the premises was noted by the Inspector who refused the King's Lodge appeal last year.

Mr J Lowe explained that thirdly the proposal presumed to be able to use, as the only access road for the student blocks, land that does not belong to the Applicant but which is a vital amenity for the residents of Diamond Terrace.   Mr J Lowe noted that he was referring to the strip of back gardens that Residents had cultivated and used as a drying ground for over 40 years and added the back lane that provided the only vehicle access to our homes.  Mr J Lowe stated that this contravened Durham City Saved Policy H10 that restricted backland development.

Mr J Lowe noted that the deeds of those living at Diamond Terrace gave a right of access using this lane, but it's not a public right of way.  Members were asked to note that during the construction phase, Residents would have no vehicle access to their homes, nor would the bin lorries and emergency vehicles.  It was added that the County Highways Authority opposed the application on the grounds of safety and amenity.

It was put to the Committee that those reasons clearly illustrated the unsuitability of this constrained site for such a large development, not only would the Applicant have to use Residents’ gardens and back lane to the east of the Applicant's property, their plans also show their buildings encroaching on the west within the two metre buffer required by Network Rail to safeguard the embankment of the East Coast Main Line.  Mr J Lowe added that in order to create a bit more space between the student blocks and Diamond Terrace the Applicant had moved the buildings further north and thus further into the green belt, with over half the development would be in the Green Belt.  It was noted that the Green Belt boundary was designated 30 years after the Applicant's offices were built and very deliberately started at the northern end of the building to provide permanent protection for the open land beyond.

Mr J Lowe noted that Durham County Council prided itself on the quality of its governance, indeed having been awarded “Council of the Year 2014”, and urged the Committee to exercise this good governance, to listen to the overwhelming voices of the local people you represent, and to take the clear professional advice of the Council's own Officers.  Mr J Lowe concluded by asking the Committee to please refuse the totally inappropriate application.

The Chairman thanked Mr J Lowe and with there being no further speakers asked Members of the Committee for their comments, noting Councillor D Freeman as a Local Member as well as a Member of the Committee may wish to speak first.

Councillor D Freeman thanked the Chairman and noted he did not have much to say as the Officer’s report was quite comprehensive and clear in its recommendation for refusal.  Councillor D Freeman noted that Mr J Lowe, on behalf of Residents, and other individual submissions had also made it clear they also agreed with Officers and that the application should be refused.  Councillor D Freeman noted that the application was contrary to saved policy in terms of highways safety and also Policies Q1 and Q8 in respect of the issues raised by Mr J Lowe as regards accessibility.

Councillor C Kay noted he agreed with the Officer’s report and noted the issues in terms of highways safety meant the application should be refused.  Councillor G Bleasdale added that she must agree in terms of the highways safety issues having a horrendous time on the site visit and that there were many other opportunities for student accommodation elsewhere in the City.  Councillor J Lethbridge noted that the objectors had comprehensively made the case for refusal and the proximity of the proposed development to Diamond Terrace was quite worrying and therefore could not see how this application could be allowed.  Councillor J Lethbridge added that the adrenaline inducing reversing of the coach on to the highway during the site visit had confirmed that there were worrying issues in terms of highways safety.

The Senior Planning Officer, noted that in terms of the comments from M J Lowe and Councillor D Freeman regarding Policies Q1 and Q8, he could confirm that the plans had no ground floor bedrooms, though this would be an issue in terms of Part M of Building Regulations though if the Committee wished this to be included as part of the reasons that would be a decision for Members.

Councillor D Freeman moved that the application be refused for the reasons as set out in the Officer’s report and also in terms of being contrary to saved Policies Q1 and Q8 in respect of accessibility; he was seconded by Councillor C Kay.

RESOLVED

That the application be REFUSED for the reasons as set out in the Officer’s report and in being contrary to saved Policies Q1 and Q8 in respect of accessibility.