Agenda item

Redevelopment to provide 2/3 storey office building of 1251sqm floor space.

The Principal  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 Principal Planning Officer, HJ advised that Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was redevelopment to provide 2/3 storey office building of 1251 sqm floor space and it was recommended that Members be minded for approval subject to referral to the Secretary of State and subject to conditions as set out within the report.  Members were reminded that in the event the Secretary of State do not call the application in for their determination then the Council would then be able to issue the planning approval decision notice.

 

The Principal Planning Officer, HJ referred to site photographs highlighting the access to the site and explained that the application site did not include the “Main St. USA” building, rather Fram Well House located further to the rear of the photographs.  He added the site access would remainin the same location..

 

The Committee were informed that the Durham City Green Belt (DCGB) began where the existing building ended, and the Principal Planning Officer, HJ referred Members to a slide highlighting the proposed site plan, with the 5 metre encroachment of the proposed building into the DCGB being shown.  Members noted there was already hard surfacing within the DCGB, with unmarked car parking, and that the application would seek to rationalise this and included demarked car parking spaces.  It was added that a route for refuse/emergency vehicles was also shown on the site plan.  The Principal Planning Officer, HJ referred to elevations and landscaping, noting brickwork, glazing and cladding used in the design.  It was explained that due to the site levels, the ground floor was partially below ground, with the first and second floors being above ground.  He added the height of the proposed building ranges from approx  9m to 6.7m, due to the differing ground level at the site.  The Principal Planning Officer, HJ referred to the South East elevation and noted the angle of the front of the building and also louvred windows to help protect privacy for residents of Diamond Terrace. 

 

The Committee were informed of updates in terms of representations with 4 additional public letters of objection making 28 letters in total.  It was explained objections had been made by: local residents; Sidegate Residents’ Association, St. Nicholas’ Community Residents Forum; the City of Durham Parish Council; and the City of Durham Trust.  The Principal Planning Officer, HJ noted that a summary of the objections was set out in the report, with the main issues raised being that objectors felt that special circumstances for development within the DCGB had not been demonstrated and in terms of the design of the proposed building.

 

The Principal Planning Officer, HJ noted that there had been no objections raised by statutory or internal consultees.  Late additional representations had been received in the form of a letter of support from Business Durham, noting job creation and a lack of high quality office accommodation in Durham City and the withdrawal of any concerns from the Coal Authority

 

The Principal Planning Officer, HJ explained that the application did constitute inappropriate development as it encroached into the DCGB.  He added that the key planning balance to be undertaken was whether very special circumstances clearly outweighed the harm caused by the encroachment into the green belt and any other harm.  It was noted that while the encroachment into the DCGB had to be attributed substantial weight, the harm was nevertheless more limited in this particular case having regards to the degree of incursion and existing presence of hard surfacing within the DCGB. The would be an impact on the amenity of the occupiers of Diamond Terrace but this was not significant..  The Principal Planning Officer, HJ noted that the very special circumstances principally revolved around the benefit of office accommodation, there having been very few developments of this type in recent years.

 

The Committee were informed there had been a lot of interest from potential occupiers.  It was added that in terms of conditions, there was an update to Condition 5 as an updated revision of the Landscape Masterplan had been received whilst with the Coal Authority withdrawing their concerns, Condition 13 was no longer required.

 

The Chairman thanked the Principal Planning Officer, HJ and the Case Officer and asked Parish Councillor J Ashby, Chair of the City of Durham Parish Council’s Planning Committee to address the Committee, speaking in objection to the application.

 

Parish Councillor J Ashby noted he was grateful for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the City of Durham Parish Council about its objections to the application. He added there were two key points that the Parish Council wished to emphasise:  the size of the proposed development; and the unacceptable incursion into the Green Belt.

 

He explained firstly, in terms of size, the existing building presented its biggest side to Diamond Terrace, that side being 5.5 metres high, while the proposed side would be 9.5 metres high, nearly double.  Parish Councillor J Ashby noted Members would appreciate the significant adverse impact that this would have on the amenity of the residents of Diamond Terrace.

 

He noted that the Officers’ report stated that “the development would represent an improvement in this part of the Conservation Area over and above the existing building”, however, design was a matter of subjective judgement.  Parish Councillor J Ashby noted the Parish Council Planning Committee’s judgement was that the proposal, because of its over-bearing impact, would not be an improvement.   

 

 

 

Parish Councillor J Ashby added that secondly, Members would be well aware that Green Belts were designed to protect openness and to create boundaries that mark the line between buildings and open land.  He added that the whole point of the boundary was to say ‘no buildings beyond this point’.

 

He noted that the main argument put forward in favour of the proposed development was to bring “an under-used building back into a productive re-use”.   Parish Councillor J Ashby noted that argument carried little weight because the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was clear that the harm caused by inappropriate development in the Green Belt should be given substantial weight. He added that it was felt the case being made in the application was a weak one and it did not outweigh the need to protect the Green Belt.

 

Parish Councillor J Ashby explained that the Parish Council would also like to draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that the application was a speculative development.  He added that there was certainly no prospective tenant waiting, and indeed the developer offered the alternatives of letting the building either as a single unit or floor by floor.  Accordingly, he felt the argument that the building had to be as big as proposed in order to meet the unsubstantiated needs of the market lacked any conviction.  He note furthermore, the claimed financial benefit relied upon the new occupiers being from outside the region yet the prospects identified in Table 3.1 of the applicants’ Green Belt Assessment were from within the region and two of them were from within the City.

 

Parish Councillor J Ashby reminded Members there was already a major building site nearby at Milburngate House and the planning permission there included five office blocks, nearer to the city centre and would be available to prospective tenants relocating in the city or in the region.  He added that Salvus House at Aykley Heads was being marketed right now on behalf of the County Council.  Parish Councillor J Ashby noted it was a very attractive building in a superb setting, on a designated office development major site.  He noted it offered office suites comparable to a single floor of the proposed new offices at Sidegate, with those at Salvus House being ready for occupancy now.

 

In conclusion, Parish Councillor J Ashby noted all sides agree that this was an inappropriate development in the Green Belt.  He added it would turn what was now open land into a bulky and very tall building and that there could be no doubt that it would eliminate openness.

 

Parish Councillor J Ashby noted Courts had held that reduction in Green Belt openness, however slight, cannot be claimed to be acceptable.  The NPPF (paragraphs 87 and 88) requires that the application should not be approved except in very special circumstances.  He added that this was a high bar, and the case advanced did not meet it.  He noted that in any case, the test was not a simple balance of probabilities, the benefits had to clearly outweigh the potential harm to the Green Belt, and in this case they did not.

 

 

 

Parish Councillor J Ashby noted that accordingly, the City of Durham Parish Council asked the Committee to refuse the application on the grounds that it represented inappropriate development which was by definition harmful within the Green Belt, in conflict with Policy E1 of the Local Plan and NPPF paragraphs 87 and 88, and that it represented new office development causing significant adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, contrary to Policy EMP14 of the Local Plan.

 

The Chairman thanked Parish Councillor J Ashby and asked Mr J Lowe, Chairman of the Sidegate Residents’ Association to speak in objection to the application.

 

Mr J Lowe explained he lived at Diamond Terrace just a few yards from the proposed office block, chaired the Sidegate Residents’ Association and also the City of Durham Trust, and he was speaking on behalf of both.  He added that detailed objections had been set out within written submissions and they had been re-affirmed in response to the recent slightly amended application.

 

Mr J Lowe noted site was very constrained and only accessible from the busy dual carriageway of Framwellgate Peth.  He added that the Durham City Green Belt actually started within the site, the site simply did not have the capacity for a large office block.  He explained that the offices to be demolished accommodated about 12 employees and the proposed block was designed to take about 120, a tenfold increase, though many of the jobs will relocate from elsewhere.  He noted that the developers claimed that the building had to be so big to meet the needs of potential clients.  Mr J Lowe noted that the fact that they were prepared to let the three floors as separate units contradicted this and that potential clients must clearly be happy with one third of the space.  Mr J Lowe noted he felt the true reason for the proposed mass was to make the venture financially viable.

 

Mr J Lowe noted he would give just one measure to illustrate the increased mass of the building.  He explained that the wall currently facing Diamond Terrace was 5.5 metres high and the proposed wall would be 9.5 metres high.  He noted that this would have a dramatic and negative impact, towering over the residents of Diamond Terrace, contrary to saved policy EMP14 in the Durham City Saved Plan.

 

Mr J Lowe noted a further harmful consequence of trying to squeeze such a large block onto such a constrained site was that it intrudes into the Green Belt by at least 15% of the floor area.  He noted that this was inappropriate development and it was not a minor intrusion.  He added that in the Green Belt the building would be three floors high and so significantly impact on the openness of the Green Belt, one of its key purposes.  Mr J Lowe noted he felt there were no very special circumstances to justify this, all developments have to be financially viable.

 

Mr J Lowe explained that the design of the building was totally wrong for the Durham City Conservation Area.  He noted it was a large box with a flat roof, with its materials being dark rough bricks and concrete cladding.  He added that according to Policy E22 of the Durham City Saved Plan, materials in the Conservation Area must be “reflective of the existing architectural details”.  Mr J Lowe noted the proposed materials do not even remotely reflect the traditional red brick and sloping slate roofs of all the current buildings in the area.

He noted that, in short, the proposal offended against national policy by its unjustified intrusion into the Green Belt.  He added that it offended against local policy by its inappropriate architectural design in a Conservation Area.  He also noted that it offended against the amenities of local residents by its overbearing scale.

 

Mr J Lowe concluded by asking the Committee, as the people’s elected representatives, to listen to the voices of the local people who all oppose this development and vote to reject this unsuitable application.

 

The Chairman thanked Mr J Lowe and asked Mr N McMillan representing the Hanro Group, the Applicant, to speak in support of the application.

 

Mr N McMillan, iMpeC Developments, noted that the applicant Hanro were seeking planning approval for redevelopment of Fram Well House in Durham City to deliver much needed new, modern office space.  He added there were three main points he wished to bring to the attention of the Committee, namely: need/demand; the encroachment into the green belt; and the design.

 

He noted that Durham City had almost no modern office space and the application represented a way of addressing the issue now.  He noted that surveys had shown a demand for around 1.1 million sq ft of office space, with only 250,000 sq ft being available in County Durham and therefore the County was missing out on jobs.  Mr N McMillan noted to attract the best talent, who would want a range of amenities nearby and good transport links, companies were more and more having to offer city centre locations and he felt that the proposed site was perfectly placed.  He added that surveys had also noted businesses were looking for larger space and therefore there was a need for such accommodation.

 

Mr N McMillan explained, in terms of the encroachment into the green belt, that the existing floorplan was not large enough for modern use and the encroachment had been kept to a minimum.  He added that only 16% of the proposed floorplan was within the green belt and if all of the current office building had been constructed within the green belt, the proposed extension would be allowed.  Mr N McMillan noted the existing car park, which was of poor construction, and that he had worked with planners in order to move the development forward.

 

In respect of the design, Mr N McMillan explained that he had met with Sidegate Residents’ Association and had updated the proposals after dialogue, however, he respected their opinion and hoped to be able to continue to engage.  It was noted that the architects, MawsonKerr had featured in Channel 4’s Grand Designs: House of the Year programme and that there had been reference to the site’s industrial heritage within the design.  He added that the design overall was respectful and of a high quality. 

 

Mr N McMillan noted that there was demand and the development represented the first speculative office building in Durham City for over a decade.  He added it would complement the developments at Millburngate and proposed development at Aykley Heads and that should permission be granted, building could commence quickly, beginning on site before the end of the year.

The Chairman thanked Mr N McMillan and asked the Senior Planning Officer, HJ to respond to the points raised by the speakers.

 

The Principal Planning Officer, HJ noted a reference made to the development being only 5m from Diamond Terrace and added that the report highlights that the proposed development would be 9.6m away at the nearest point.  He added that the height of the proposed building would be approximately 9m, with typical 2 storey houses being around 8m, therefore the development was domestically scaled. In terms of design, the Principal Planning Officer, HJ noted that while this was always subjective, Officers had felt it was acceptable, used traditional materials, and there had been no objections from the Council’s Design and Conservation Section and added that the design was more appealing than that of the existing building.

 

The Principal  Planning Officer, HJ explained that officers are in agreement with objectors that the development constitutes inappropriate developmentin the Green Belt.  However, the Principal Planning Officer, HJ note that the overall harm to the green belt was limited, the overall impact on the openness of the green belt was limited and Officers felt this limited impact was clearly outweighed by the benefits of the development.  In respects to the points raised about alternative sites HJ  added that most of the office development proposed at Milburngate only has planning permission in outline at the moment and would take considerable time from now to come forward.The proposals at Aykley Heads are only emerging proposals within the County Durham Plan and do not have planning permission.In constrast HJ explained that in terms of this application, the developers had explained  they would be able to build out the relatively small development quickly, while the Millburngate and Aykley Heads would take longer to come to fruition.

 

The Chairman thanked the Principal Planning Officer, HJ and reminded Members of the Committee that the recommendation within the report was Minded to Approve.

 

Councillor J Clark noted she was surprised on the site visit to see an existing car park already on the green belt.  She added she was surprised at the level of objections as the existing building was very dated and if left would likely end up in a state of disrepair.  She noted as regards the design and the site being a former engineering yard, the design fitting in nicely.  Councillor J Clark noted she had some sympathy with the residents of Diamond Terrace, however, she proposed the recommendations as set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Councillor I Jewell noted the site visit had been very useful and noted the current building was vacant.  He added this may be due to its size, and it may deteriorate if left empty.  He noted that the application offered a chance for a new building and added that the railway embankment was much higher than the proposed building.  Councillor I Jewell noted that the car park already encroached into the green belt and there was some derelict buildings too.  He noted that the proposed development would not make anything worse and seconded the proposal to be minded to approve, as per the Officer’s recommendation.

 

Councillor D Freeman noted he was a Member of the City of Durham Parish Council, however, was not a member of their Planning Committee and had not inputted into the statement made by Parish Councillor J Ashby.  He added he was a Local Member, for the Elvet and Gilesgate Electoral Division.

 

Councillor D Freeman noted that he did have concerns as regards the application, adding that reading the report he feel it too was not fully supportive.  In respect of green belt encroachment he noted that this was acceptable only in exceptional cases and he felt a standard office block did not justify this.  He added that the Officer’s report noted there was impact upon openness and a visual impact.  Councillor D Freeman noted the existing car park was on the green belt, however, he explained that the green belt represented a boundary in terms of where development would end, and not to allow inappropriate development beyond it.  He added the car park was not an excuse to allow development.

 

Councillor D Freeman noted he also had concerns in terms of paragraphs 104-108 within the report, which referred to residential amenity and the proposed building being dominant and larger.  He added that the separation distance of 9.6m to Diamond Terrace did not seem satisfactory noted the speakers’ comments in terms of demand.  Councillor D Freeman explained that there was office space currently available at Salvus House, with the Council being very keen for businesses to move in as soon as possible.

 

Councillor D Freeman noted that there had been no objections from the Highways Section, however, a previous application for student accommodation at the site had comments from the Highways Section that the access was a dangerous junction and asked that if it was unacceptable in terms of highways safety for student accommodation, how was it not acceptable for office accommodation.  He concluded by noting that he felt that it was an odd spot for office accommodation.

 

Councillor O Temple noted there had been a very good summary of the arguments from both sides.  He added that in terms of the Committee it was a question of policy and to judge on that basis.  He noted that the Officer’s report had been clear that any application would have been recommended for refusal, unless there were very special circumstances.  Councillor O Temple referred to paragraph 83 of the report which set out those circumstances, and he noted he felt he did not find them very convincing that the building must be of the size proposed and encroach into the green belt.  He added that if less than 1,000 sq ft then the application would not require referral to the Secretary of State and noted that he would argue the development was not domestically scaled, the proposals being 1.5m higher than a domestic ridge height the proposal having a flat roof therefore the additional height being at the frontage, not a ridge.  Councillor O Temple felt the developer was pushing the envelope of the area of land on the basis of jobs, however, he could not see any evidence that a slightly smaller office would be out of the question.  He added that the design did not mirror the existing domestic dwellings and noted that the report gave the Committee every reason to decide whether the application had not demonstrated very special circumstances.  Councillor O Temple concluded by noting that he had not heard any special reason and felt there was plenty within the Officer’s report that could be used to reject the application and that would satisfy the Solicitor to the Committee.

 

The Principal Development Management Engineer, A Glenwright noted he was not the Highways Officer involved with the previous application referred to. 

 

He explained he had read the Highways Development Manager’s comments as set out in the previous report from student accommodation and while the Highways Development Manager had assessed the access was not adequate for the previous application that had not been referred to within the report for this application.  The Chairman noted the report for this application set out that the Highways Section had stated the access was acceptable.

 

The Principal Planning Officer, HJ stated that the access being discussed is existing with space for around 30 or so spaces within the site at present. The proposed development would demarcate the spaces, totalling 21 spaces, therefore there would be limited scope for movements as a result of the development.

 

The Chairman noted the application had been moved by Councillor J Clark and seconded by Councillor I Jewell and asked Members to vote.  Upon the vote being taken, the vote was tied.  The Chairman noted he was minded to approve the application and in exercise of his casting vote the application was approved.

 

RESOLVED

 

That the Committee was MINDED TO APPROVE the application be subject to referral to the Secretary of State and the conditions detailed in the Officer’s report to the Committee.