Agenda item

Reserved matters application for the approval of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for the erection of two 500 bed colleges with associated student facilities and university hub building, pursuant to outline planning permission CMA/4/83 (as amended by DM/15/03555/VOC).

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding a reserved maters application for the approval of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for the erection of two 500 bed colleges with associated student facilities and university hub building, pursuant to outline planning permission CMA/4/83, as amended by DM/15/03555/VOC, at Mount Oswald, South Road, Durham (for copy see file of Minutes).

C Harding, Senior Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation of the application which included a site location plan, site photographs, proposed layout and streetscene.  Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.

Councillor L Brown, Local Member, addressed the Committee.  Councillor Brown informed the Committee that she was asked to bring this before Committee by one of her residents who, unfortunately, was not able to attend the meeting.  However, Councillor Brown added that she was unwilling to allow the application to be dealt with under delegated powers.

The original application for outline permission had been approved by Committee, and in many ways this application was more relevant, as within it Members got to see what form the colleges would take and the design, landscaping and look of the site became visible to Members and the general public.  Anyone referring back to the original outline planning application which had been given the reference number 8/CMA/4/83, would be faced with 111 documents with the title “added to DMS load from strategic” which was not an encouragement to browse.

As one of the Local Members in whose division it was sited, this application had been a great disappointment.  Councillor Brown was sure that many of Members had looked at the building site that Durham had become, with the plethora of PBSAs under construction, and thought that Durham University could do a better job if they had control of commissioning.  Unfortunately, the answer to this was no, with this application proposing more of the same, that was modular building, brick effect cladding and cheap fast construction.  Councillor Brown referred to policy Q8 of the Durham City Saved Policies and all the paragraphs under NPPF heading no 7 “Requiring Good Design”.

Councillor Brown asked the University to look back at colleges they had previously commissioned.  St Aidan’s was designed by Sir Basil Spence, Trevelyan College won a Civic Trust award as did Van Mildert and St Aidan’s and Collingwood won a RIBA award.  Although the new Palatine Centre and the Ogden Centre had polarised opinion, at least the University did not go for a bland option.  It seemed that in these colleges there was a wasted opportunity.  John Snow and the new 17^th College could have been jewels in Durham University’s crown.  Instead of getting something individual this application was proposing something that could be seen in any university town in the country.

Councillor Brown was not asking that the application be rejected, however she was throwing down a gauntlet.  This was among the first of many applications that would be coming forward from the university as they sought to provide teaching space and further colleges for the influx of students that Durham was expecting in the next ten years.  Councillor Brown referred the University commissioning bodies to paragraph 58 of the NPPF, which stated that developments “should respond to local character and history” and “appropriate innovation” should be encouraged.  They should also be “visually attractive, as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping”.  As a World Heritage site Durham City and its residents deserved better.

The Senior Planning Officer apologised for the difficulty experienced when referring to the previous application, which had been caused by the migration from one computer system to another.

Mr O Adams of Durham University addressed the Committee.  Durham was a world class university which was of benefit to both Durham City and the region as a whole.

Academic programmes and colleges would be relocated from the Queen’s Campus in Stockton to Durham City as part of the University Masterplan, with student numbers growing to a maximum of 21,500 by 2027 and 50% of students living in collegiate accommodation.  The student experience at Durham University was considered to be one of the best in the country because of the collegiate experience.

This application would create an enormous opportunity with the proposed Hub being able to provide opportunities for events and, together with a separate application for a Multi-Use Games Area, would be available for community use.

The proposed development was sustainably located within the urban area of Durham, close to existing University facilities and accommodation. The proposal was car-free and included improvements to pedestrian access through and around the site, to encourage sustainable modes of travel.

The design process for the application had taken three years and the University would be working in partnership with Interserve and Campus Living Villages to construct and operate the accommodation.  The development would use local suppliers where possible and provide direct and indirect construction jobs and apprenticeships.

Councillor Wilkes referred to the difficulty of finding documents on the Council’s website relating to the original application in outline, which included a travel plan.  Councillor Wilkes sought a reassurance that all details in the previously approved travel plan had been carried through with no changes, as any changes could impact on the safety of students accessing the City centre.

The Senior Planning Officer replied that the planning history of the Mount Oswald site was complex.  The travel plan had been submitted and approved in the original planning application for the site and any subsequent development of the site would be in accordance with these details.

Councillor Wilkes referred to a University proposal for a pedestrian superhighway but he was not sure whether this had been contained in the original travel plan.

The Senior Planning Officer replied that a pedestrian superhighway was a University intention but was not contained in the original travel plan.  The original application brought with it a s106 contribution towards sustainable travel of just over £1m and this was considered acceptable at the time of approval.

Councillor Richardson informed the Committee that he had attended the site visit and had appreciated being able to see examples of the materials to be used in the construction/finishing of the buildings.  While he appreciated the concerns of the local Member, Councillor Richardson moved approval of the application.

Councillor Jewell informed the Committee that there was little or no objection to the application, with the local Member also not objecting, and seconded approval of the application.

Upon a vote being taken it was

Resolved:

That the application be approved, subject to the conditions contained in the report.