Agenda item

Outline application for Purpose Built Student Accommodation comprising 850 bedrooms, with all matters reserved.

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an outline application for purpose built student accommodation comprising 850 bedrooms, with all matters reserved at land to the north of Mount Oswald, South Road, Durham (for copy see file of Minutes).

 

C Harding, Senior Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included a site location plan, aerial photograph, site photographs, an indicative masterplan, indicative building heights and indicative sections.  Members of the Committee had visited the site the previous day and were familiar with the location and setting.

 

Councillor E Scott, local Member addressed the Committee.

 

Councillor Scott informed the Committee that while she expressed support in principle for purpose built student accommodation, she had concerns about the application.

 

In general, creeping developments such as this should be discouraged.  Plans had previously been approved for a 1,000 bed student accommodation at Mount Oswald plus over 300 houses, and this application was for an additional 850 bed student accommodation.  While the report indicated that further recreational facilities would come forward, it was difficult for committees, residents and Councillors to get a sense of the whole picture.

 

Most recent figures from the County Council showed that student residence currently accounted for just under 22% in Neville’s Cross.  This application would take that figure to over 50%, including other schemes which had already been approved.  These additional residents would pay no council tax and because they were student residences the developer was not required to pay the same Section 106 contributions as had they been private dwellings.  The total number of residences in the Neville’s Cross division would be 7,000 in an area which had no GP’s, no dentist and no community facilities.

 

Councillor Scott informed the Committee of three specific areas of concern.

 

Firstly, the pressure on community facilities.  Paragraph 24 of the Committee report referred to NPPF Part 8, the promotion of healthy communities including the development and modernisation of facilities and services.  Across the road from the development at Merryoaks was a football field and a MUGA and the football field in particular was in need of upgrading with better drainage.  There were also plans for a community centre which was still in need of funding.  With the vast rise of student residences and therefore students there would be a high demand for facilities.  Councillor Scott informed the Committee she had requested a contribution from the developer but had been declined.

 

Secondly, an increase in pedestrian footfall along South Road.  Paragraph 68 of the report highlighted the concerns of the Police Architectural Liaison Officer that sections of footpath on South Road were too narrow for the current pedestrian traffic.  Although the developer was making some improvements to Mill Hill Lane, pedestrians would still have to spill out on to South Road even if they were encouraged to use alternatives.  The University had proposals for a pedestrian superhighway which would alleviate this problem and Councillor Scott considered the developer should contribute to this.  A contribution had been requested from the developer but had been declined.

 

Thirdly, the previous planning application by the Banks Group on this site which had been approved included plans for a GP surgery, which made it an attractive application.  Plans had now been shelved due to lack of take up from the NHS and Councillor Scott queried how robust the consultation had been.  Local surgeries were currently stretched as was the Student Health Service.  Councillor Scott has seen nothing to suggest any direct approaches had been made other than a light touch approach to the NHS.

 

Councillor Scott asked the Committee to consider a condition to the planning permission for a £250,000 voluntary contribution to be shared between sports and community facilities and the pedestrian superhighway project and to formally request the developer to revisit the GP proposal and make direct approaches in the area with the support of the Council if necessary.

 

This scheme would generate tens of millions of pounds in years to come and for the developer to make no contribution to the community was wrong.

 

Mr A Doig, Secretary of the Neville’s Cross Community Association addressed the Committee to object to the application.

 

The Neville’s Cross Ward had some 7800 registered votes.  Sheraton Park would have over 400 students, the Berendsen’s former laundry site will have nearly 400, the University’s site would be 1000 and this application was over 800, a total of 2,600 students.

 

By adding in the current HMO and other students there was an average of over 10% student density and hotspots, such as Sheraton Park, had reached a 30% student density.  With all of the proposed developments this would move close to a 50% student density.

 

The Council’s background paper to the old Policy 32 specifically stated that the ‘tipping point’ for balanced communities was 20% of the population or 10% of the properties.  It stated at that time that Neville’s Cross overall was already at 19.4%, and this was before any of the above mentioned additional 2,600.

 

While it was understood that this proposal was not new and that it had the support of the University, the Community Association asked that, if not rejected, the application be deferred pending a full community impact statement, not just on the Neville’s Cross ward but on Durham City itself.

 

Mr Doig presented various saved Polices which would merit a deferral as follows:

·         H13 – Character of Residential Areas – Planning permission would not be granted for new development which had a significant adverse impact on the character or appearance of residential areas;

 

·         H14 – Improving and Creating More Attractive Residential Areas –required development to respect, and where appropriate enhance, local character.

 

·         H16 – Residential Institutions/Student Halls of Residence – should not detract from the character and appearance of the surroundings or from the amenities of existing residents; and would not lead to a concentration of student accommodation in a particular area that would adversely detract from the amenities of existing residents.

 

This area was one of the few stable affordable residential communities close to the centre of the City.  It attracted young couples, many of whom worked at the University or the hospital and many of whom had young families.  The area was home to two popular primary schools and a limited number of other local amenities of one pub, one newsagents, one coffee shop and a local supermarket.  The approach must be to consolidate and sustain such a community, and one that was based on informed local discussion and local decisions by local people.

 

Not to do so would offend the following NPPF policies:

 

·         Policy 14 – Sustainable Development - a presumption in favour of sustainable development.

 

·         17 – Planning Principles – planning should be genuinely plan-led, empowering local people to shape their surroundings.

 

·         47 and 50 – Choice of homes - local planning authorities should ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area.

 

·         69 – Inclusive Communities - the planning system can play an important role in facilitating social interaction and creating healthy, inclusive communities.  Local planning authorities should create a shared vision with communities of the residential environment and facilities they wish to see.

 

·         Annex One of the NPPF - cases in which a local authority can refuse permission on the grounds of prematurity are likely, but not exclusively, to be limited to situations where:  "the development proposed is so substantial, or its cumulative effect would be so significant, that to grant permission would undermine the plan-making process by predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development that are central to an emerging Local Plan or Neighbourhood Planning..."

 

The Neville’s Cross Community Association was of the collective view that the totality of this development was disproportionate in size and disruptive in practice to the balance, health and sustainability of the residential community.  Its wider impact on the amenity in terms of what was or would be offered to residents, rather than the student market, within Durham City underlined that this application would continue the process of significantly tipping the balance sought by both the NPPF and by the Council’s own policies for sustainable and balanced communities and the protection of existing amenity.

 

The Community Association requested that the application be rejected, or at the least deferred, until a full community impact assessment reflecting the Saved Policies and the NPPF was undertaken.

 

Ms M-L Milliken of the Banks Group addressed the Committee.  Ms Milliken informed the Committee that the applicant supported the planning officer’s report, which contained a robust assessment of the proposals and confirmed that the development was appropriate on the Mount Oswald site.  This was reinforced by the positive recommendation contained within the report.

 

The Banks Group was a family-owned employer, established over 40 years ago in County Durham and was experienced in bringing forward a wide range of property and energy projects, such as on the Mount Oswald scheme.

 

As made clear in the planning application statement, there was a clear, identified need for further student accommodation within the Durham City area.  The applicant considered Mount Oswald to be the most appropriate, logical and sustainable location for this, as it was situated adjacent to the existing University campus.  The site currently benefitted from good connections to Durham City Centre, however connectivity would be further enhanced by the proposals, through the provision of a new pedestrian route along Mill Hill Lane, to form a safe and attractive alternative to South Road.

The new route had the full support of Durham University.

 

The applicant had worked proactively with the Council throughout the development process, to ensure that the proposals were acceptable from a technical perspective, including landscape, heritage, highways, flood risk and ecology.  Notably, the Council’s Landscape Officer considered the proposals to be sympathetic in their scale and massing to the local context.

 

Fundamentally, the application was a different type of student accommodation to other types being proposed around the city centre.  The development would be collegiate in style and would include different accommodation types, including flats and town houses.

 

This was an excellent opportunity to provide the high quality student accommodation that the City needed, in a logical and sustainable location.

 

Ms Milliken asked the Committee to support the Planning Officer’s recommendation and grant approval of the application.

 

The Senior Planning Officer responded to the issues raised during the presentations.

 

Section 106 contributions for a development needed to be specific and supported by Policy.  The suggested Section 106 contribution of £250,000 could not be supported by policy and there was no evidence of how the sum of £250,000 had been arrived at.

 

Durham Constabulary had raised concerns about the footpath at South Road and these had been accepted by the Council, the applicant and the University and the University was working on a pedestrian superhighway project.  This application proposed improved facilities on Mill Hill Lane and this was considered the best way to mitigate the impacts of the development.  Any developer only needed to mitigate the impacts of a development.

 

Provision of a GP surgery on the site had been identified at the outline application for this site and at present there were no plans to bring this forward as part of this application.  If future demand for this rose sufficiently then the Council would have the opportunity to take this up with the applicant.

 

Councillor Clare made reference to the tipping point of 20% in Council Policy, which this development would take over that tipping point.  Councillor Clare referred to the issue of prematurity and suggested the application may be deferred pending the production of a community impact statement to assess the community damage from it.

 

The Senior Planning Officer responded that there could be no argument regarding prematurity because there was no County Durham Plan.  He was unaware of any current Policy which referred to a tipping point of 20% and added that Policy 32 in the withdrawn County Durham Plan carried no weight.  He was not aware whether a community impact statement had ever been done for student accommodation, what the scope of such an assessment would be, and which in any event was not a validation requirement.

 

Councillor Clare requested that the site location plan be displayed.  The area for the proposed development was near to many Colleges at the University.  If an area was to be identified to expand student accommodation then this was just as good a location as any.  However, the site directly abutted residential accommodation and Councillor Clare requested that at the reserved matters stage measures were taken to ensure a seamless dovetailing from residential into student accommodation.  Councillor Clare informed the Committee that he was minded to approve the application.

 

Councillor Nicholson informed the Committee that his concerns regarding pedestrian access had been addressed.  Durham University was a world class facility and this was an ideal location for the expansion of purpose built student accommodation.  Councillor Nicholson moved approval of the application.

 

Councillor Wilkes informed the Committee that he accepted this was one of the better locations in the Durham for student accommodation and there was a need for such accommodation.  The site for the proposed development had originally been identified for up to 25 houses but now an 850 bedroomed accommodation was proposed on top of the 1,000 bedroomed student accommodation approved nearby, with no extra money to help in the location to provide needs such as shops or a GP surgery.

 

Although improvements were proposed on Mill Hill Lane, pedestrians would then emerge onto Elvet Hill Lane and South Road, none of which was being mitigated.  The footpath along South Road was only wide enough for two pedestrians and Councillor Wilkes asked where the funding was to mitigate this aspect of the proposed development.

 

Councillor Taylor congratulated the Planning Officer on his report, which addressed the areas of concern which had been raised.  The location of the proposed student accommodation was ideal and Councillor Taylor seconded approval of the application.

 

Councillor Shield informed the Committee that he had considered the presentations by the local Member and Mr Doig.  While the NPPF was an overarching Policy document he considered that Policy H16 of the City of Durham Local Plan should also be afforded weight.  This application would result in a community imbalance and no community impact assessment had been carried out.  Mr Doig had referred to NPPF Policies which were not included in the Officer’s report.  Councillor Shield could neither support approval of the application, nor could he vote against the application and requested that it be deferred pending a community impact assessment.

 

The Senior Planning Officer clarified that Policy H16 of the City of Durham Local Plan could still be afforded significant weight, and that the development plan remained the starting point for decision making in this instance.

 

Councillor Tinsley considered the site to be the correct location for the expansion of University accommodation and that the University was a significant part of the character of the area.  He considered the proposed Condition 3 of the permission, that no part of the development shall exceed a four storey height, to be significant.  He welcomed the additional funding which was being proposed for the Park and Ride facility and accepted that any payments needed to be both necessary and relate to the development.

 

Councillor Wilkes considered that the application was in breach of NPPF Parts 4, 7 and 8 and Policies H16, T1 and Q8 of the City of Durham Local Plan and should be rejected or deferred pending an impact assessment.

 

Upon a vote being taken it was

 

Resolved:

That the application be approved subject to the completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement to secure the following:

·         A financial contribution of £129,260 to increase bus capacity on the Park and Ride Scheme

·         A voluntary scheme of targeted recruitment and training for the construction phase

and the conditions contained in the report.