Agenda item

Demolition and alteration of listed building at former Three Tuns Hotel (existing student accommodation) to create additional student accommodation (Full Planning and Listed Building Consent).

The Senior Planning Officer, Barry Gavillet, 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 demolition and alteration of listed building at former Three Tuns Hotel (existing student accommodation) to create additional student accommodation (full planning and listed building consent) and was recommended for approval, subject to conditions and a Section 106 (s106) Legal Agreement as set out within the report.

The Senior Planning Officer noted two updates in relation to the report, that delegated authority was sought for Officers for an additional condition relating to ecology mitigation.  He added that in reference to the contribution via the s106 agreement, the amount was now £82,051.30, representing a 50% reduction in respect of limited on-site provision and a further reduction in terms of removal of a need for children’s play equipment.

Members noted that the site already had permission in terms of student accommodation, a change of use having been granted in 2013.  The Senior Planning Officer noted that the site was located near to the Durham University Student Union, Old Shire Hall, and a number of shops and businesses.  He added that Elvet Methodist Church, together with its associated Caretaker’s house, was situated adjacent to the site.  Councillors noted that a speaker representing the Church would address the Committee with their concerns.

The Senior Planning Officer explained that the hotel was a Grade II Listed Building within the Durham (City Centre) Conservation Area and that in reference to the proposed elevations, there was not a significant change, with some infill next to the Police Station.  It was explained that there had been a lot of conversations between the Applicant and Officers and it was felt that the application enhanced the Conservation Area.  Members noted the layout of the site and it was explained that no windows faced the Caretaker’s property, No.8 Old Elvet.

The Committee noted no objections from statutory or internal consultees subject to conditions and a s106 legal agreement.  It was explained there had been five letters of objection, with a summary of their concerns set out within the report.  The Senior Planning Officer concluded by reiterating that the recommendation was for approval, subject to conditions, delegated authority in relation to an additional ecology mitigation condition, and a Section 106 (s106) Legal Agreement, as amended per the Officer’s statement.

The Chairman thanked the Senior Planning Officer and asked Mr John Chamberlain representing Elvet Methodist Church to speak in objection to the application.

Mr J Chamberlin thanked the Committee and noted he represented the Caretaker living at No.8 Old Elvet in addition to the Elvet Methodist Church.  He noted that the application was akin to having student accommodation in the back yard of No.8 and also the Church was not happy with the density of student accommodation as proposed within the application.  Mr J Chamberlin added that there was concern in terms of the lack of communication from the Applicant and it was hoped that this would change in the future.

Mr J Chamberlin explained there was concern in relation to noise, not only during construction, but also when the student accommodation was occupied.  He added that the condition in terms of no works on an evening or Sunday was welcomed, however, the Church had activities at various times throughout the day and every day of the week. 

Mr J Chamberlin reminded the Committee that No.8 Old Elvet would overlook an entrance and cycle store, another source of potential noise at all times.  He added that the Church welcomed the conditions in relation to materials and hoped that this could be looked at in reference to the cycle shed in terms of noise mitigation.  Mr J Chamberlin asked that the management methods for the site could be reviewed once the site was up and running, and that if residents nearby experienced issues, for example such as noise nuisance, that there would be a contact, preferably by telephone, so that matters could be acted upon quickly.

Mr J Chamberlin noted a fire escape that led out on to Church owned land, with no discussions with or communications from the Applicant in this regard to date.  He added that in relation to the car park belonging to the Church, if access was required by the Applicant then they would need to fully discuss this and seek agreement from the Church beforehand.  Mr J Chamberlin noted plans for basement areas adjacent the car park and therefore the Church would need assurance that works would not undermine the car park, asking the Applicant to speak to the Church.

The Chairman thanked Mr J Chamberlin and asked Mr David Coundon, to speak on behalf of the Applicant in support of the application.

Mr D Coundon thanked Members for the opportunity to speak to Committee and referred to the conclusion set out within paragraph 58 of the report, with Officers stating the application would “…result in an enhancement to both the Listed Building and the Conservation Area.”  Mr D Coundon noted that the sections proposed for demolition were poor quality 1970s-1980s extensions and the removal of these was a positive step.  Mr D Coundon explained that he was a local lad and that he felt the redevelopment of an important site within the Conservation Area was vital in terms of the city centre, with the proposals representing a high quality and sustainable use.  He added that the design featuring a varied roof line respected the medieval buildings, the Cathedral and the surrounding area.  Mr D Coundon noted that the proposals would restore the historic street front, utilise local materials and retain important features such as oriel windows and the carriage entrance.  He added that the design had been such to retain the quality views from the world heritage site.

Mr D Coundon explained that the need in respect of student accommodation was already well established and that the number of rooms for students was 118, and he reminded Members that the former use was as a hotel and it was likely that there would have been more noise from that use.  He emphasised that the statutory and internal consultees had raised no objections to the application.

Mr D Coundon noted that the genuine concerns raised by the Church and sought to address them in noting that there would be a construction management plan in place while works were undertaken and a management plan for when the accommodation was occupied.  He added that there was acoustic mitigation within the design and that fire escape mentioned was an existing established feature, however, this was not required.  In relation to the basement, Mr D Coundon explained that there were two existing basements and the relevant measures would be taken in terms of construction.  He concluded by noting the Officer’s recommendation for approval and asking Members to go along with their Officer.

The Chairman thanked Mr D Coundon and asked the Senior Planning Officer to respond to issues raised by the speakers.

The Senior Planning Officer emphasised conditions within the report: Condition Three referring to a construction management plan, including issues relating to traffic and noise; Condition Five referring to construction hours and no works on evenings, Sundays or Bank Holidays; and Condition Seven relating to a student management plan, with options that may include CCTV or a warden on site.

The Chairman thanked the Senior Planning Officer and asked the Committee for their questions and comments, asking Councillor D Freeman as a Local Member to speak first.

Councillor D Freeman noted that there clearly was some merit in returning the former Three Tuns Hotel back to use, and while he would have preferred another use, the use for student accommodation was acceptable.  He noted that the Senior Planning Officer had referred to the proposals as being three and four storeys, however, the existing buildings were three storeys and therefore the application represented a higher building and roof-scape that did not mirror the existing buildings.  Councillor D Freeman noted he had sympathy with the points made on behalf of the Church and the resident at No.8 Old Elvet.  He noted that while the plans protected the views to the world heritage site, there were still the issue of noise from the adjacent courtyard, entrance and cycle store.  Councillor D Freeman noted that information in respect bus stop and the footpath and highlighted that the footpath was very narrow and may not be able to cope with the volumes of people and would welcome the views of the Highways Section on the matter.  He also asked for further information in relation to the change to the s106 contribution.

The Senior Planning Officer explained that the amount of contribution would be calculated from the open space needs assessment, with on-site provision being a higher value, a 50% reduction for provision off-site.  It was added that further to this the use of the site for student accommodation negated the need for children’s play space, further reducing the contribution. 

In relation to the points raised by the Councillor as regards the footpath, the Senior Planning Officer noted that Highways Officers had not provided any objections to the application and had not asked for any improvements to the footpath.

Councillor D Freeman asked about the figure and the Senior Planning Officer replied that the figure in the report was incorrect as it had now been reduced.

Councillor J Clark asked for the slide with the site layout to be displayed and for the Officer to highlight the entrances, cycle stores and access to the courtyard.  The Senior Planning Officer highlighted those areas, explaining that the access to the courtyard area was that already in place from New Elvet.

Councillor M Davinson noted he felt that given the close proximity of the Caretaker’s property a more reasonable start time for works each day would be 8.00am and suggested that the Committee may wish to include this change to Condition 5 within any decision they made.  Members agreed with Councillor M Davinson.

Subject to the amended start time for works in Condition 5, the amended s106 contribution and delegated authority as mentioned by the Senior Planning Officer for an additional ecology condition, Councillor J Clark moved that the application be approved, she was seconded by Councillor A Laing.

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and s106 Legal Agreement as detailed in the Officer’s report, with the amendments as detailed by the Officer within his presentation and Members in relation to working hours.