Agenda item

Demolition of sections of enclosure and provision of access in association with use of a car park and associated works.

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 for demolition of sections of enclosure and provision of access in association with use of car park and associated works and was recommended for approval.

The Principal Planning Officer, HJ asked Members to note the adjacent caretaker’s lodge that was now used as storage, the proposed point of access on to Freemans Place, and the land opposite the former Sands Car Park, the site for the new Durham County Council headquarters.  He added that the land immediately to the side of the application site was formerly used by the Sixth Form as parking, this area now forming part of the headquarters application, the site for a multi-storey car park.  It was added that the works on the former tennis courts to create car parking had been undertaken over the summer and represented permitted development, with the partial demolition of the wall with railings, access arrangements and removal of mesh fencing and lighting columns being the matters to be determined.  The Principal Planning Officer, HJ explained that the existing footpath would be replaced and temporary timber fencing that had been visible when Members visited the site would also be removed.  He noted all trees would be retained and a tree friendly method of construction would be used, and lighting columns would be removed, with some replacement columns to be installed.

The Principal Planning Officer, HJ noted objections had been received from the City of Durham Parish Council, with their reasons as set out within the report and they were represented at Committee.  He added that there had been no objections from the Highways Section, the section having noted the impact upon traffic being negligible and the access proposals being acceptable.  The Committee were informed that the Environment Agency had no objections, subject to conditions.  They had noted the area was a 3a Flood Zone and that the loss of 12m³ of floodplain needed to be compensated for with alternative floodplain storage.  The Principal Planning Officer, HJ explained this was the case and was secured via condition.  He added that there had been no objections from internal consultees, subject to the conditions set out within the report, including: Landscape and Arboriculture; Archaeology; Design and Conservation; Ecology; Contaminated Land; and Air Quality. 

Members were informed that in addition, Environmental Health had replied with no objections in terms of the proposed lighting columns.  The Principal Planning Officer, HJ advised members that there are references within the Committee Report to a pending application for works to trees on the site and that this had now been determined with no objections raised.

The Committee noted that three letters of representation had been received, including from the City of Durham Trust and the World Heritage Site Coordinator, the Principal Planning Officer, HJ noted a summary of their comments were set out within the report and included issues relating to: the submission of the application in a disconnected manner from the Council headquarters application; loss of sports courts; impact upon wildlife and ecology; and flood risk.

The Principal Planning Officer, HJ explained that in terms of policy as some were considered out-of-date, then Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) would be applicable which stated that an application should be granted permission unless there were policies that protected areas or assets and provided a clear reason for refusal, or if any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.  He explained that the adverse impact was limited with a section of the non-designated heritage assert, the wall and railing, to be demolished, the majority to be retained.  The Principal Planning Officer, HJ noted that the limited impact was not felt to outweigh the benefits of the scheme.

The Chair thanked the Principal Planning Officer, HJ and asked Parish Councillor John Ashby representing the City of Durham Parish Council to speak in objection to the application.

Parish Councillor J Ashby thanked the Committee for the opportunity to speak and Case Officer for his presentation.  He explained that the quantum of parking around the new Durham County Council (DCC) headquarters was claimed in that Committee Report to reduce by 81, and that was advanced to offset concerns about traffic levels on Freeman’s Reach and Providence Row.  He added that the claim was challenged at the time by the Parish Council, asking what was to be done to replace the Sixth Form Centre’s car parking spaces.  Parish Councillor J Ashby noted it was now clear that the Sixth Form Centre’s parking arrangements would result in an overall increase in the quantum of car parking spaces and of vehicular traffic.

Parish Councillor J Ashby noted the Sixth Form Centre’s application had itself had a bumpy journey, failing to offer a Planning Statement and its Transport Assessment having failed to include the approved new DCC headquarters and multi-storey car park, an astonishing omission. 

Parish Councillor J Ashby explained that the Parish Council had to point this out and a revised Assessment had then been produced.

Parish Councillor J Ashby referred to the Environment Agency’s response in July that the application should be refused because the submitted Flood Risk Assessment did not adequately assess the flood risks posed by the development.  He added that a revised Assessment was necessary; acceptable to the Environment Agency provided that the loss of 12 cubic metres of floodplain was adequately compensated for via an alternative scheme.  He noted the Officer’s report confirms that a condition to ensure this was therefore necessary in the event of any approval.  Parish Councillor J Ashby noted that no alternative scheme was before the Committee today.  He added that given the risks involved, it was unfortunate that the Sixth Form Centre has not provided an acceptable alternative scheme to deal with the risk of floods in the whole area.

Parish Councillor J Ashby explained that the submitted drawings showed a proposed footpath from the new car park to the new DCC headquarters.  He noted this would be essential, however, needed to link with the footpath that would be required for the adjacent multi-storey car park.  He stated that these would necessarily make the narrow road with a very sharp, blind bend even narrower.  Parish Councillor J Ashby noted these were serious concerns about safety in this scenario, both for pedestrians and for people in vehicles.  He stated that the footpaths would be used by some of the 700 or more employees at the new DCC headquarters, by pupils at the detached part of the Sixth Form Centre adjacent to Ferens Court, and by residents of the four housing estates along The Sands.  Parish Councillor J Ashby noted the vehicles on the road would include large buses having dropped off tourist visitors and the buses bringing children from 19 schools that have swimming lessons at Freeman’s Quay every week.

Parish Councillor J Ashby concluded by noted that accordingly, the Parish Council considered that consideration of the current application should be deferred so that satisfactory arrangements on flood risk and on pedestrian safety can be provided to resolve the concerns raised.

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor J Ashby and asked the Mr D Southwell, Chair of Governors at the Durham Sixth Form Centre (DSFC) to speak in support of the application.

The Chair of Governors, DSFC noted he was appalled to say the least as regards the comments from the City of Durham Parish Council.  He noted the Chair of the City of Durham Parish Council had been invited on to the site and had appear to have no objections to the proposals.  He reiterated the comments made by the case officer, with the County Council having no objections to the application.

The Chair of Governors, DSFC noted that health and safety was paramount, and the proposals would guarantee the safety of staff and students.  He noted accommodations the DSFC had made in terms of the temporary footpath that had been put in place, compound provided when the nearby Passport Office had been constructed, compound for other works, and providing additional capacity when the Lumiere event had been held.  Chair of Governors, DSFC stressed that the application was a positive application and noted that in terms of disassociation from the DCC headquarters, he felt that the only footpath was linked, the rest of the application was within the DSFC.  He noted there were plans as regards the former caretaker’s cottage and reiterated that the DSFC were proactive and good in bringing positive schemes forward and thanked the DCC officer who he felt had been excellent in their work in relation to the application.  He concluded by reiterating he felt he application was positive and an asset to the City, in contrast with a lack of activity from others within the City.

The Chair thanked the Chair of Governors, DSFC and asked the Principal Planning Officer, HJ if he would respond to issues raised by the speakers.

The Principal Planning Officer, HJ referred to the comments made by Parish Councillor J Ashby in terms of the quantum of parking.  He noted he wished to clarify that the headquarters application had not stated a loss of 81 car parking spaces, rather the increase of 81 spaces.  He added the total of the spaces at the former Sands Car Park and those spaces utilised by the DSFC had totalled 256 spaces and the provision of surface parking and the multi-storey would be 337 spaces, an increase of 81.  He added that where the HQ report discussed reductions vehicular movements this was due to the due to the loss of over 1,000 car parking spaces at the current County Hall site.  The Principal Planning Officer, HJ noted that as the application constituted a “minor” application a Planning Statement was not required, and the transport assessment had been updated to include the DCC headquarters.  He reiterated that a condition within the report referred to the scheme in terms of flood risk.  He concluded by noting that in terms of pedestrian safety, there had been no objections raised from the Highways Section, with standard footpath widths of around 1.8m.

The Chair thanked the Principal Planning Officer, HJ and asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

Councillor A Laing thanked the speakers for their comments on the application and reminded all that decisions must be based upon relevant planning grounds.  She noted that upon listening carefully to the Officer and speakers she felt the key aspects included the impact upon the conservation area, with no objections from the Design and Conservation or Landscape sections she felt therefore the was no harm to the conservation area. 

She added another aspect was in terms of highway safety, in the context of the area and the DCC headquarters development, that being already approved.  Councillor A Laing noted the response from the Highways Section was that the impact would be “negligible”, and the access proposed was safe in terms of pedestrians and vehicles.  She added that in respect of air quality issues, Officers had noted negligible impact and that in terms of flood risk, the Environment Agency had set out their position, no objection subject to the replacement of the 12m³ floodplain that would be lost.  As this was set out as a condition, Councillor A Laing noted she supported the application and proposed that it be approved as per the recommendation and conditions set out within the report.

Councillor M Davinson noted that within the conditions there was no specific reference to a Construction Management Plan (CMP) and asked if this was something that would be needed for this application and if so for how long.  He also asked if there was an indicative plan as regards the replacement 12m³ floodplain or if this was something that would require an extra condition or be agreed under delegated authority at a later stage.  The Principal Planning Officer, HJ noted that as a “minor” application, and given much of the works had been completed over the summer holiday period under permitted development rights, it was not felt necessary by Officers for a CMP.  He added that the only works to be carried out would be in terms of the creation of the access and removal of fencing and lighting columns, not sufficient to warrant a CMP.  The Principal Planning Officer, HJ noted that Condition Five of the recommendations set out that prior to completion of the vehicular access the scheme of compensatory floodplain storage must be submitted and there was no need to add or amend the conditions.

Councillor D Freeman noted he wished that the current situation in respect of the displacement of parking for the Sixth Form had not been reached.  He conceded that as the parking was being displaced there was a need for parking to be provided and the area to be utilised had been unused for several years.  He added the Officer had noted the trees would be retained and that flood storage was conditioned and therefore he reluctantly supported the application and would second that it be approved as per the report.

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions as set out within the report.