Agenda item

DM/19/00324/AD - Student Castle, Claypath, Durham

4 no. vertical halo illuminated signs.

Minutes:

The Senior Planning Officer, Colin Harding, 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 application was for 4 no. vertical halo illuminated signs and was recommended for approval.

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted that the address of the property was not Student Castle, rather 20-29 Claypath, Durham City.  He referred Members to the site plan and photographs showing the ongoing works at the prominent location at Claypath, the construction of a purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA).  Councillors were asked to note several listed buildings in the area, most notably Christchurch a Grade II listed building adjacent to the application site and The Big Jug Public House on the opposite side of Claypath.  The Senior Planning Officer explained that the PBSA was nearing completion and accordingly the applicant was seeking advertisement consent for 4 no. vertical halo illuminated signs and presented proposed elevations with the signs on the screens for Members.  It was highlighted that two of the signs would be within recesses along the main elevation, and the other two would be on the gable ends of the new PBSA, one next to 17 Claypath and the other next to Christchurch.  The Senior Planning Officer explained that the sign would comprise of individually cut letters, silver in colour and halo illuminated individually with warm, white light emitting diode (LED) lights.

 

The Committee were informed of objections from the City of Durham Parish Council in relation to the appearance, in the context within the Conservation Area and nearby listed buildings, and whether there was a need for the signs to be illuminated.

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted no objections from the Highways Section and no objections from the Design and Conservation Team.  He added that Durham Constabulary initially had objected in relation to potential confusion in terms of the brand and the existing University College, know as “Castle”, being located within Durham Castle.  It was noted that further to internal discussions within Durham Constabulary, they withdrew their objections, noting their command and control systems could be updated to mitigate the possibility for confusion.

 

Members noted that no objections had been received from any individual properties, however there had been objections received from St. Nicholas’ Community Forum and the City of Durham Trust with their objections as summarised within the report.

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted that the application was for advertisement consent and the criteria for consideration were that of amenity and public safety. 

It was added that Officers felt that in terms of amenity the proposed signage was appropriate and would not represent a negative impact.  Members were informed that in terms of the name on the sign, it was felt this was outside the scope of the application, though were referred back to the comments from Durham Constabulary, offering no objection.  The Senior Planning Officer reiterated that the recommendation within the report was for approval.

 

The Chairman thanked the Senior Planning Officer and asked Parish Councillor John Ashby, representing the City of Durham Parish Council to speak in relation to the application, noting he had accompanying slides which would be displayed on the projector screens.

 

Parish Councillor J Ashby thanked the Committee and explained that the Parish Council had carefully examined the designs of the four proposed signs and the applicant’s accompanying letter which explained that “the purpose of the signs is to signpost the business and brand within the street-scene and directionally for those arriving at the scheme for the first time.”  He added that the Parish Council did not believe that it was necessary to have illuminated signs promoting the business and the signs should be the name of the building. 

 

Parish Councillor J Ashby referred to a slide showing the Gala Theatre and noted that there were very satisfactory non-illuminated signs for the Gala Theatre nearby and for other PBSAs such as New Kepier Court, which would be much harder to find.  He added that indeed, having found the Student Castle scheme in Claypath for the first time it would appear unnecessary for the student residents to have to be reminded every day and night thereafter of where they lived in Durham. 

 

Parish Councillor J Ashby referred to further slides showing that most of the PBSAs had prominent names, for example: Chapel Heights; St Giles’ Studios; Ernest Place; Elvet Studios; and Rushford Court.  He noted that the last example showed the developer’s name as well as the name of the PBSA.  He added that this was fine, though noted none were just the developer’s name only.

 

Parish Councillor J Ashby explained that there was also the matter of the County Council’s naming policy which emphasised at paragraph 7.3 that the Council would endeavour to promote street names that reflected local, geographic or historic significance in the area.  He added that the local residents’ group had suggested to the Council’s Street Naming Officer that this principle should appropriately apply to the naming of this new and very prominent building, and that recent history could be well captured by naming it Palladium Court, after the cinema that stood there.  Parish Councillor J Ashby noted that the Planning Officer’s report at the time of the original application had stated “the former Northern Gas Board offices and the former Palladium Cinema are considered to be of particular significance.”

 

Parish Councillor J Ashby referred to his final slide setting out the Naming Officer’s reply to the residents’ group: “I will forward your comments in full to the developer and can reassure you that the developer’s business name Student Castle will not be used in the building name for the development.” 

 

Parish Councillor J Ashby noted that the residents’ group had also raised concerns about confusions in an emergency between the application site and Castle, the colloquial name for University College.  He added that this concern was also raised by the Police and although protocols have been put in place to address this, the risk must remain.

 

Parish Councillor J Ashby explained that the Parish Council continued to believe that such large illuminated business advertisements were not appropriate or necessary in this prominent and sensitive location.  He added that there would be no objection to non-illuminated signs that would usefully have the name of the building on them and noted the Parish Council believed that the assurance of the Council’s Naming Officer should be upheld.

 

Parish Councillor J Ashby concluded by explaining that the Parish Council objected to the proposed signs being illuminated on the grounds of: having an adverse impact on significant features of historic interest within or adjacent to the site, contrary to Saved Policy E21 of the City of Durham Local Plan 2004; would detract from the character or appearance of the conservation area, contrary to Saved Policy E22 of the City of Durham Local Plan 2004; would detract from the setting of a listed building, contrary to Saved Policy E23 of the City of Durham Local Plan 2004; and would be detrimental to visual amenity whilst showing no particular attention being paid to the impact of the signage upon the character and setting of listed buildings and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, contrary to Saved Policy Q16 of the City of Durham Local Plan 2004.  

 

The Chairman thanked Parish Councillor J Ashby and asked Mr Alastair Willis of Lichfields to speak on behalf of the applicant.

 

Mr A Willis thanked the Committee for the opportunity to speak and noted that there was a clear summary within the report as regards why the applicant felt the application should be approved.  He added that the 445 bed PBSA and retail use on the ground floor would be open for use later in 2019.  He noted that the high-quality student accommodation would need signs to direct students and visitors to the accommodation.

 

Mr A Willis explained that there had been three objections at the consultation stage, with Durham Constabulary than having withdrawn their objection.  He added that he did not support the objectors’ position in terms of the impact upon the Conservation Area, noting the Council’s Design and Conservation Section had themselves not offered any objections to the application.  Mr A Willis explained that the design of the signage was clean and simple and would not increase the prominence of the building and was in keeping in terms of materials and use of subtle illumination, not detracting from the character or appearance of the Conservation Area or the overall street scene.

 

Mr A Willis explained that he felt the application did not detract from the heritage assets in the area, with there being a restriction in terms of the brightness of the illumination set out within Condition 8 of the Officer’s recommendation.  He added that the signs were located at the gable ends or within recesses within the building. 

 

Mr A Willis noted that the address of the property would not change and remain 20-29 Claypath and therefore would be compliant with the Street Naming and Numbering Policy.  He reiterated that Durham Constabulary had withdrawn their objection to the application in terms of potential confusion with the University College.

 

Mr A Willis concluded by noting that the application was in line with policy, that policy was for approval unless the application was harmful in terms of amenity or public safety and reiterated that the Officer’s recommendation was for approval.

 

The Chairman thanked Mr A Willis and asked the Senior Planning Officer if he had any comments in terms of the points and issues raised by the speakers.

 

The Senior Planning Officer reiterated that the Committee were not being asked as regards the name of the building, which was 20-29 Claypath, rather the application as set out within the agenda papers.  The Senior Planning Officer referred to Parish Councillor J Ashby’s slides giving examples of existing signage at various PBSAs.  He noted that while illuminated signs were not suitable in all situations, as there was a mix of signage at Claypath it was not felt unreasonable.  He added that the examples given showed some signage that had the name of operators on them and it was felt to be reasonable for a commercial operator to have some presence on their building. 

 

The Chairman thanked the Senior Planning Officer and asked Members of the Committee for their questions and comments.

 

Councillor J Robinson noted that he travelled past the application site a number of times each week and while he understood the need for signage, and he felt the signage on the Gala Theatre was good, he asked whether there was a necessity for signage of the size proposed and whether there was a need for four of them.  The Senior Planning Officer noted that whether four was acceptable was an issue for the Committee to consider, however, the opinion of Officers was that the proposals were acceptable and that the positioning of the signage would be such that usually only one of the signs would be visible at a time.

 

Councillor P Taylor noted that he felt there was merit in the comments made by Parish Councillor J Ashby and that he felt that one sign could be sufficient and added that while he could live with the sign, he did not see the need for it to be illuminated.

 

Councillor D Freeman explained he was a Member of the City of Durham Parish Council, however, was not a member of their Planning Committee and had no input into their comments on the application.  He noted he agreed with those Committee Members that had already spoken, adding that he felt that the signs represented the worst form of visual pollution in a historic street within the City.  Councillor D Freeman noted that many students made do without signage at their accommodation and therefore he did not feel they were required.  He added that should Members be minded to approve the application he did not feel they needed to be lit, with Claypath itself already being lit. 

Councillor D Freeman noted he questioned the need for four signs, or indeed any, and suggested two was more reasonable.  He added that given the historic nature of the street and area he felt the applicant had missed an opportunity in terms of incorporating something into the name of the PBSA.

 

Councillor O Temple asked for further information as regards “halo illumination”.  The Senior Planning Officer explained that they would be usually LED, backlighting around the individual letters, less prominent than neon or “swan neck” externally lit signage.

 

Councillor M Davinson asked what the Committee could decide upon in terms of suggesting less signage, no illumination or other options.  The Senior Planning Officer noted that advertising consent was not the same as full planning applications and that if Members had concerns as regards the number of signs they had options for a split decision in terms of this.  He added that in terms of the illumination, this element could not be disaggregated without the applicant wishing, and without illumination would be considered a different application.

 

Councillor P Taylor moved that the application was deferred to allow time to seek clarification from the applicant as regards what they would be happy with, in terms of numbers of signs and with or without illumination. 

 

Councillor D Freeman seconded Councillor P Taylor and added that the applicant had heard the concerns raised by Members and Officers and the applicant would be able to discuss in more detail.

 

Councillor I Jewell noted concern in terms of deferment, noting what Members may want may be difficult.  Councillor P Taylor noted he felt deferment was preferable to guessing in terms of what may be possible and would provide the developer the opportunity to consider their application.

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application be DEFERRED.

 

Supporting documents: