Agenda item

Infrastructure works including provision of new footpath route, highways works including new signalised crossing at the Hollingside Lane and South Road junction, and the creation of a car park of up to 215 spaces at Upper Mountjoy

Councillor Corrigan informed the Committee that she was a Council appointment to the Durham City Access for All Group which was mentioned at paragraph 81 of the report but had not attended any meetings which had discussed this application.

 

The Planning and Development Solicitor informed Councillor Corrigan that this would be noted for the Minutes but that there was no need to leave the meeting.

 

The Committee considered a report of the Principal Planning Officer regarding an application for infrastructure works including the provision of a new footpath route, highways works including new signalised crossing works at Hollingside Lane/South Road and Howlands Lane/South Road junctions and the creation of a car park of up to 215 spaces at Upper Mountjoy on land south of The New Inn junction along South Road to Mount Oswald and Hollingside Lane to Upper Mountjoy (for copy see file of Minutes).

 

H Jones, Principal Planning Officer provided a detailed presentation of the application which included a site location plan, aerial photograph of the site, site layout, existing photograph of the pedestrian route and proposed images.  Members of the Committee had visited the site the previous day and were familiar with its location and setting.

 

The Principal Planning Officer informed the Committee that since the publication of the report three letters had been received from the Durham Access for All Group, the Durham Bicycle User Group and the City of Durham Trust.  While there were several points of overall support the following key points were raised:

·        That a Condition should be added to ensure that the proposal meets the Equalities Act as informed by an independent accessibility audit;

·        A chicane barrier on the proposed cycle route through Little High Wood must be carefully designed so to ensure that it did not prevent access for all users;

·        Some detailed cycling and footpath improvement proposals were raised – a section of path in the vicinity of the Hub at the bottom of Hollingside Lane is unnecessarily narrowed and it reiterated the need for dropped kerbs throughout the development

·        Objection was maintained to the proposed 215 space car park and that element of the proposal should be refused;

·        The scheme should be accompanied by an updated University Travel Plan.

 

In response, the Principal Planning Officer proposed that the County Council add, in the event of approval, two Conditions:

·        One to resolve the final detail of the chicane feature to ensure it did permit as many users as possible through it, and

·        There was a specific landscape feature within the Hub design which seemed unnecessarily to narrow one of the footpaths and a Condition was proposed to ensure the final landscaping did not narrow this route unnecessarily.

 

Councillor J Ashby of the City of Durham Parish Council addressed the Committee.

 

The City of Durham Parish Council considered that the University’s application for a new “super route” for pedestrians and cyclists was most welcome in principle and represented a major investment to tackle longstanding problems.  It was further welcome that the new alternative routes, whilst in University land, would be available for the general public to use.

 

In considering and welcoming this footpath and cycling scheme in principle, the Parish Planning Committee drew attention to particular concerns with the original application, and requested that the application as submitted should be referred back to the University to address these concerns.

 

The revisions as set out in the DPP letter to DCC dated 4 July 2019and accompanying documents met most of the concerns expressed by the Parish Council.  Cyclists and pedestrians would generally have separate paths, wheelchair users would have a step-free route, and adverse impact on trees had been significantly reduced.  The positive response of the University to those concerns was to be applauded.

 

Having said that, the Parish Council continued to believe that the Masterplan had very significant economic, social and environmental impacts on the city and beyond, and should be subject to a comprehensive assessment in its totality instead of being advanced piecemeal through individual applications and assessments.  The Parish Council had advised the University of this view.

 

There remained an important point of concern with the revised super route application.  The application still included provision of a 215 space car park.  This involved far greater vehicular use of Hollingside Lane and would significantly worsen conditions for pedestrians and cyclists on this at present relatively quiet lane.  The Parish Council considered that the 215 space car park element of the current application should not be approved and instead should be part of a an updated comprehensive sustainable travel plan that addressed ways of influencing modal shift away from car usage.  The County Council’s own Durham City Sustainable Transport Delivery Plan recognised that, “of great relevance to demand management through car parking policy, is the extensive parking that is available free of charge at major employment sites across the city. This represents an opportunity to control both the quantity and price of parking available to people working in Durham City, with the consequent potential to influence peak hour travel in particular.”

 

The Parish Council considered that the University, as a major employer in the city, should play its part in significantly reducing car usage through such measures as pricing, sharp reductions in the overall quantity of staff parking space, and a ban on students, other than on disability grounds, bringing cars to Durham city. 

 

The Parish Council therefore considered that the car park component should await a comprehensive Travel Plan that demonstrated a significant shift away from car usage and much reduced need for car parking capacity.

 

Mr Lowe of the City of Durham Trust addressed the Committee.  The Trust welcomed the application to improve pedestrian and cycle routes within the University’s estate because this would help to accommodate its planned significant increase in student numbers.  It was essential to ease the pressure on existing public pavements that were already heavily congested in this area and elsewhere in the City.  The Trust also welcomed the revisions to the application that now provided for a route suitable for cycling and motorised wheelchairs via a footpath just inside Little High Wood.  This would also provide segregation between cyclists and pedestrians for that part of the route.

 

The written submission of the Trust made some detailed suggestions about further improvements to access segregation that would be desirable on particular parts of the route which the Trust hoped the University and County Council would address during the implementation of the scheme.  Mr Lowe welcomed he proposed additional Conditions suggested by the Principal Planning Officer during his presentation.

 

The objection of the Trust to the application focussed on the proposal to provide car park spaces at Upper Mountjoy.  For such a significant car park proposal it was unacceptable that the application was not accompanied by a current travel plan and proposals for demand management.  The latest available version of the University’s travel plan only ran up until 2020.  Without an up to date travel plan it was not possible to make a proper assessment of the need for the car park and access road.  The Durham City Sustainable Transport Delivery Plan noted that the principal opportunity to reduce the amount of car parking provided by employers was likely to be as part of new developments where opportunities to better manage car as part of a wider travel plan could be investigated.  This needed to be done in conjunction with the County Council and in conjunction with an assessment of the possible impact on neighbouring on-street parking.

 

In conclusion, while generally welcoming the new cycle and footpath provision the Trust requested that the car parking and access road elements of the application should be deferred pending further information from the University about its future travel plan and car parking demand management.

 

Mr Loudon, Director of Estates, Durham University addressed the Committee.

 

Durham University was seeking to improve the existing infrastructure provisions along South Road and Hollingside Lane in response to concerns raised by public consultations on its masterplan which had identified existing pressures on pedestrian and road user provision on around Durham sites.  The project had been driven through safety concerns, not just for the University community but also the wider Durham community.

 

Significant consultations had taken place with members of the public, the local planning authority and various statutory and Durham County Council consultees.  A consultation event had been held in the Pallatine Centre which members of the public were invited to attend and comment on the plans.

 

The proposals would result in an investment by the University of £8m in Durham City and into the University’s academic estate which already made a significant contribution to the economic success locally, regionally and the UK economy.  The scheme would improve the safety of all pedestrians and cyclist users and would ease congestion which was recognised to be an existing problem on South Road by improving the efficiency of movement and the permeability by pedestrians and cyclists in the north, south and east-west direction in the Elvet Hill/South Road area.

 

The proposed development would bring significant benefits by bringing about implementation of improvements to alleviate identified and recognised health and safety issues related to movement in the South Road area and as a result would address the existing and future capacity constraints of the existing network.  The scheme represented the implementation of a key component of the Durham University Masterplan 2017-2027 and was consistent with the University’s academic plans.  Investment in infrastructure around the University’s Mountjoy estate would support the delivery of improved and desired future schemes in line with the Masterplan including two new colleges a new teaching building coming on stream in September 2019 and the new thematic computer science building which was under construction.

 

With reference to tree loss the University had spent considerable time and expense to ensure that no dig construction techniques were used to minimalise the impacts on existing trees with appropriate and considered mitigational planting.  Mr Loudon assured Members that the University had listened to consultations and had changed the design to take into account comments from the local community.  The scheme fell within the definition of sustainable development.

 

The University had discussed the proposed car park at length, which was seen as being important to the delivery of this project.

 

J McGargill, Highway Development Manager informed the Committee the Council had been advised that the proposed car park would replace existing car parking within the City.  Placing a car park which was at the periphery of the City was preferable to having car parking space which was in the centre of the City.

 

Councillor Wilkes was pleased that the application had finally been submitted.  He had raised concerns repeatedly about the expansion of the University without pedestrian and cycle safety being addressed.  Councillor Wilkes thanked Council officers and University staff for their work in bringing the application forward.

 

Councillor Wilkes had concerns about the junctions and crossing signalisation which it was suggested was dependent upon some surveys.  Councillor Wilkes sought assurance from highways that what was proposed would happen.  Councillor Wilkes concurred with the Parish Council and the City of Durham Trust that an updated travel plan was needed as part of this application and Councillor Wilkes asked if this could be conditioned if the Committee supported this.

 

A huge number of trees were being removed as part of the application and Councillor Wilkes asked whether the proposed tree planting could take place in the autumn/winter of 2019.

 

Councillor Jewell informed the Committee that he had considered the application in detail.  If car parking was not provided, cars would still come in to the City which would result in a worse situation.  This scheme was an improvement on what was there prior.  This was a positive scheme and Councillor Jewell moved approval of the application.

 

The Principal Planning Officer referred to the request for a travel plan and informed the Committee that there had been no objections in principle from the highway authority to the proposed car park and no objections had been received from the Sustainable Travel team and that was why there had been no request for an updated travel plan to accompany the application.  If the Committee was not satisfied then the applicant could be asked how feasible it would be to resolve an updated travel plan under a Condition.  Referring to tree loss there was a Condition to ensure that there was a compensation scheme for the tree loss.  The University was keen to progress the scheme if permission was granted and therefore there was a requirement to agree what the landscaping compensation would be early in the application process.

 

Ged Lawson, Principal Landscape Officer informed the Committee that there was a Condition which required a scheme to be submitted for mitigation prior to the development.  As part of that the Council would look to identify which elements could take place as soon as possible in advance sites which were well clear of the actual construction works and which would need to wait until the construction works took place.  Discussions would take place with the University to progress as much as possible and then phase the work as the site progresses.

 

The Highway Development Manager, referred to the signalised junctions and informed the Committee that a Condition had been requested regarding the junctions because modelling work had been carried out to ascertain how the junctions would operate and the modelling exercise submitted by the applicant failed to prove that the junctions could be delivered in the way that was suggested.  The signalised junctions performed the tasks of controlling traffic running through them and providing crossing facilities for the cycle/pedestrian routes.  There were no doubts that crossing facilities could be provided for cyclists and pedestrians the concerns were could the signals be introduced to control the flow of traffic.  However, the flow of traffic at Hollingside Lane was so low that a traffic signalled junction may not be necessary.

 

Councillor Richardson informed the Committee that the application proposed a long and winding footpath/cycleway and asked whether there were any areas where users may feel concern for their safety, particularly on dark evenings.  The Principal Planning Officer replied that a lighting scheme was proposed and the police had raised no issues during the consultation on the application.  Additionally, this was an alternative route to the existing footpath on South Road with its adopted lighting columns which could be used.

 

Councillor Laing seconded approval of the application.

 

Councillor Wilkes sought clarification in terms of the updated travel plan.  The intimation from the Principal Planning Officer was that if the Committee was minded to support the proposal then it could ask for this to be Conditioned.  Councillor Jewell, the mover of the report, informed the Committee that he agreed for this to be included.

 

The applicant informed the Committee that the University already had a sustainable travel plan which was due to be revised next year.

 

Upon a vote being taken it was

 

Resolved:

That the application be approved subject to the Conditions contained in the report and those Conditions proposed by the Principal Planning Officer and the submission of an up to date travel plan.