Agenda item

Construction of a new teaching and learning Centre with associated landscaping and access.

The Senior Planning Officer, Henry Jones, 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 Senior Planning Officer advised that Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was for construction of a new teaching and learning centre with associated landscaping and access and was recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

The Senior Planning Officer noted the application was for a high quality teaching and learning facility, with the main objections being in terms of pedestrian and cycle movements.

It was noted that comments from Councillor D Stoker had been forwarded noting no objections in principle but raising some concerns with regards to the impact of the development upon already congested pedestrian routes.  These concerns should be considered and whether any further improvement works could be undertaken alleviate the issues.

The Senior Planning Officer provided the following updates since the committee report was published;

• Revised plans received increasing cycle parking provision and showing indicative signage locations in respects to a vehicular drop-off area.  The Highway Authority have welcomed the changes in principle.  Delegated authority is therefore sought to amend condition 6 so as to approve cycle parking design and location though include a requirement for a signage scheme to be agreed.  The signage requirements under condition 11 remain
• Revised travel plan has been received and accepted.  Delegated authority is therefore sought to remove condition 12 and add the travel plan as an approved document under condition 2

The Chairman noted speakers as regards the item and asked Mr R Cornwell to speak in relation to the item on behalf of the Durham City Neighbourhood Planning Forum and had slides to accompany his comments.

Mr R Cornwell noted that he had no objection to the principle of the development, but the Forum was very concerned about the safety of students making their way there.  He added his remarks were made with particular reference to Saved Policy T1, which states that the Council will not grant planning permission for development that would generate traffic likely to be detrimental to highway safety, noting traffic included foot traffic.  Mr R Cornwell noted his next two slides had been lifted from the University’s Planning Statement.  He referred Members to what the University wanted in terms of the new building to provide, noting in particular the hours of teaching to take place, 500 hours per week.  Mr R Cornwell referred to other University requirements, such as the number of study spaces, and for catering, plus two lecture theatres.

Mr R Cornwell added that the aim of the new building was to facilitate 20% of all formal teaching, not just undergraduates, noting 1,451 postgraduates on taught courses too.  He added that around 3,000 students would be taught in the new building at one time or another, though the capacity of the building was 2,000, though it was not being said that that number would be in the building at any one time.  Mr R Cornwell noted that the University stated they were aiming for 80% capacity and that seems reasonable, though that was still 1,600 people.

Mr R Cornwell added that Highways Development had estimated 300 arriving in the 20 minutes before 9.00am, but given the capacity of the building and the size of the lecture theatres, he felt this didn’t add up.  He added that this was a large and expensive building and the University would want to make the most of it.

Mr R Cornwell noted that the Forum’s submission estimated around 960 students would be arriving for 9.00am lectures or classes or private study and that 850 would be on foot, with most of the others coming by bus.  Mr R Cornwell noted that the Agent’s response was that they had used “industry standard” methods, but added you have to look at whether the answer makes sense.  Mr R Cornwell added that in this case it doesn’t and that Durham plainly wasn’t “industry standard”.

Mr R Cornwell noted 850 students would be arriving on foot and converging on the new building from all directions.  He added that we already know that very substantial numbers would be coming along Margery Lane/Quarryheads Lane and Church Street.  He showed Members a photograph from around a year ago and added that you could see, as the Forum’s count confirmed, the pavement was over capacity.  It was in places very much less that one metre wide and Mr R Cornwell noted similar problems with numbers on Church Street and in that case pedestrians had to cross Stockton Road at the New Inn traffic lights.

Mr R Cornwell explained that the Forum were seriously concerned that the very large volume of students walking down narrow pavements would be a safety problem.  The worst time likely to be on the return trip when it will be dark in the winter months and the traffic will be behind them.  He added that this was something that needed to be addressed before the building was brought into use. 

Mr R Cornwell noted that therefore the Forum was asking that the Committee defer approval until these issues were addressed.  He added that alternatively Members may seek to add planning conditions that that would achieve the same end.  He noted that Saved Policy T1 gave Members the grounds to do this.  Mr R Cornwell noted the University was embarking on an estate masterplan that would see the number of students in Durham grow by around 6,500 over the next ten years and that this would have a transformative effect on both the City and the University.  He added that the drip-feeding of planning applications like this one creates problems for the City which the County would have to pay for.  Mr R Cornwell concluded by noting that this was why the Forum were asking that the necessary improvements to the footpaths and the infrastructure should be funded by a Section 106 payment by the Developer: the University.

The Chairman asked Professor A Houston from Durham University to speak in support of the Application.

Professor A Houston explained that the building would be the centre of academic facilities, together with conferencing facilities, and the estates masterplan had a careful, established approach.  He added that the University generated £1.1 billion for the north east economy, with around 14,000 jobs and had reached capacity, and there was a need to develop to meet future needs.

Professor A Houston noted pre-application meetings had involved key stakeholders and the scale of the building responds to the area in its design, also taking into account the World Heritage site.  He reiterated that there the application would give much needed capacity and would be sustainably developed, maximising space and was a single integrated facility.  Professor A Houston added that the application would have contributions in terms of 186 construction jobs, 281 indirect jobs and 32 full time equivalent jobs for the local economy.  Professor A Houston noted the application fitted in with the neighbourhood and that archaeology undertaken would add to the understanding of the site.  He concluded by noting that the application would provide much needed teaching space, with an eye to economic sustainability, and also complied with policy.

The Highways Development Manager noted that the consultant had predicted using data of 320 persons per hour, contested by the Neighbourhood Planning Forum.  He added that there had been no particular concerns with 16 per minute on footways on South Road and with 5 directions that people could arrive from.  The Highways Development Manager noted 6 pedestrians per minute per metre and that levels were uncomfortable above 18 per minute per metre.  There was not that level of impact.  In terms of taking into account events, he noted 6 accidents on South Road, though none related to pedestrians crossing the road or off the footway.  He noted the University’s masterplan and highways improvements in the future.

The Senior Planning Officer advised Members that in addition to the Highways Development Manager comments and to help with pedestrian movements the development includes an increase in the usable width of the footpath to the development frontage from 1.35m to 2.25m. 

Councillor P Jopling noted that her only concern was that there must be robust mitigation in terms of surface water, with adequate storage facilities.

Councillor G Bleasdale moved that the application be approved; she was seconded by Councillor A Laing.

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions detailed in the Officer’s report to the Committee.