Agenda item

Hybrid planning application comprising detailed planning application for an office block (Class B1) with associated parking and landscaping on land known as Plot C and an outline planning application, with all matters reserved apart from site access, for the demolition of the existing County Hall site and the development of a business park (Class B1) with supporting retail and leisure uses comprising uses within Class A1 (retail), Class A2 (financial and professional services), Class A3 (food and drink), Class D1 (non-residential institutions) and Class D2 (assembly and leisure) with associated landscaping, multi-storey and surface car parking, servicing and relevant infrastructure

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer with regards to a hybrid planning application comprising detailed planning application for an office block with associated parking and landscaping on land known as Plot C and an outline planning application, with all matters reserved apart from site access, for the demolition of the existing County Hall site and the development of a business park at Aykley Heads, Durham (for copy see file of minutes).

 

The Senior Planning Officer provided a detailed presentation which included a site location plan, aerial photographs of the site and photographs of the site and plans showing the proposed site layout.

 

The Senior Planning updated the Committee that since the publication of the committee report that further comment had been received from Sport England maintaining their previous objection to the proposed development following the receipt of further information.

 

He also advised that he considered that an additional planning condition be attached to any permission that a car parking management and enforcement plan be secured across the whole site, in addition to the existing proposed condition securing this in relation to Plot C. He also recommended an alteration to the wording of Condition 2 in order to extend the floorspace restriction to all non-office town centre uses in addition to A1 retail floorspace. He also advised that the time limit for the submission of Reserved Matters set out in Condition 22 be extended from 3 years to 15 years, in line with the phasing timeframe set out within the application.

 

Councillor J Ashby spoke on behalf of the City of Durham Parish Council and confirmed that they supported the principle of the Aykley Heads development which had been confirmed this by allocating the site in their Neighbourhood Plan and the Parish Council welcomed any steps that might offer up to 4,000 high-quality jobs for County Durham. The Masterplan phasing would enable periodic reviews of the longer-term changes in work practices following COVID-19 and the need for home working.

 

Many of the issues raised at the time the application had been submitted had been settled by the formal adoption of the County Durham Plan. The Parish Council were pleased that the Council had issued a Decision Statement on the Neighbourhood Plan, clearing it for the referendum to be held.

The Parish Council did not agree with the way that some of the Neighbourhood Plan policies had been presented in the report, particularly that Policy T1 of the Neighbourhood Plan had been brushed aside despite very substantial parts of the policy having been left in place by the Examiner, for example, the need to propose improvements to walking, cycling and public transport in the area around the development, and stipulations regarding design and priority for different modes within the site. This was a highly important set of requirements and a serious omission to have disregarded Policy T1.

 

Councillor Ashby confirmed that the Parish Council representations were with regards to sustainable travel, zero-carbon aspirations, high-quality design standards, and impacts on the Green Belt. He advised that the City of Durham Trust would address the issues relating to the Area of Higher Landscape Value and World Heritage Site with comments that were fully endorsed by the Parish Council.

 

Councillor Ashby continued that the Parish Council was concerned with the document provided by consultants setting out responses to objections as it had consisted almost entirely of repeated statements taken from the documents to which the objections were made. He asked Members to place no reliance on it when determining the application.

 

A further concern was the inclusion of several ancillary uses that the County Plan Inspector had struck out of Policy E3, deleting the paragraph that had sought to justify them and had judged that in principle they were town centre uses.

 

Councillor Ashby confirmed that the Parish Council strongly supported the condition which proposed to limit the retail ancillary use to 400 square metres of floorspace in total and the protection of Framwellgate Moor local centre and Durham city centre should be added to the justification for Condition 2. Policy 9 only controlled the size of retail developments, so the Parish Council considered that a new condition was needed requiring the Masterplan to ensure that all the other non-B1 uses were of an appropriate small scale.

 

The Parish Council supported all of the other conditions that were proposed in the report and the application could be supported if it were to include the proposed conditions and the suggested amendments from the City of Durham Trust. Should they not be accepted, Councillor Ashby suggested that the application be refused as it conflicted with County Durham Plan Policies 3, 9, 21, 22, 29, 39, 44 and 45 and Durham City Neighbourhood Plan Polices E1, H1, H2 and T1.

 

Councillor L Brown, Local Member confirmed that she welcomed any employment in the area following the COVID-19 pandemic however she was worried by this application. She considered it may have been rushed through after the Government had announced 9 billion pounds available for projects that could meet an associated timescale. When the project had first been discussed Councillors had been told that the applications would be phased through as several detailed applications and therefore she was surprised to see it as one hybrid application.

 

Councillor Brown suggested that in the race to get the application part funded, the Council had not factored in the impact that COVID-19 and working from home would have for generations to come. She did not consider there to be a need for such a large area of office space that may never be filled on one of the main routes into Durham. She was concerned about the ancillary uses that may be used to fill the space which would be to the detriment of Durham City and the Arnison Centre.

Councillor Brown was disappointed by the plans to build on the Green Belt to the south of the site. The outline development for two 4 storey office blocks (Plot A) was within the sight lines of a World Heritage Site - Durham Cathedral and Durham Castle, and most of the reservations from herself and residents were centred on two areas, sustainability and traffic problems.

 

Councillor Brown questioned why a County which was looking to be carbon neutral in thirty years, had a seven and a half storey car park within the outline plans and asked why there were no bus and cycle routes within the site. She had also hoped to see Park and Ride bus stops within the development alongside dedicated bus lanes and cycle routes.

 

She continued that sustainable energy sources had not been mentioned in the detailed application and in her opinion the Council should have started with the detailed application for Plot C and then continued putting in applications based on how the latest recession played out.

 

Councillor Brown confirmed that she had called the application before the Committee so that they could consider imposing conditions that would make the application acceptable to residents. Officers had already placed some conditions on the approval and the City of Durham Parish Council had suggested more. She particularly welcomed the suggestion that all non B1 space be curtailed to protect the nearby city centre.

 

Councillor Brown wanted the Committee to consider Conditions 16,17 18 and 19 and emphasise public and active transport which would go some way towards alleviating the fears of residents. It would be good to have a travel plan to adhere to, as others in the area had not been. She queried the possibility of imposing a condition that required developers to put money towards developing cycle lanes in the area.

 

Councillor Brown hoped that all of the development on this site would be carbon neutral with sustainable features built in, and although this was not a perfect development, it could be one that Durham could be proud of.

 

The Senior Planning Officer responded that Policy T1 of the City of Durham Neighbourhood Plan had not been disregarded, and the issues raised with regards to the provision of various modes of transport had been set out in the report. He continued that this could be addressed at reserved matters as the level of detail required had not yet been submitted. There was no reason that this could not be incorporated into reserved matters submissions and accord with the policy. He also clarified that Policy T1 could be afforded significant weight except where the Neighbourhood Plan Examiner had recommended amendments to the policy wording.

 

With regards to Councillor Browns concerns, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that although a portion of the site was within the green belt, Policy 3 of the County Durham Plan included provision to remove that part of the site from the green belt and therefore only a very small part of the site would remain, and no built development was proposed in this area.

 

The Senior Planning Officer responded to suggestions on sustainable transport and confirmed that cycle routes and improved pedestrian routes could be incorporated in the overall strategy as it developed – again under reserved matters. He advised that the Highways Officer did not believe the benefits of bus routes within the site would be significant as it would make journeys longer for other users and potentially discourage them from using the service. It had been acknowledged that the site was immediately adjacent to a road with transport links across the County and the majority of the site was within 400m of a bus stop.

 

The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that Plot C did not meet all the requirements of the County Durham Plan Policy with regards to green credentials, however there was scope to ensure that the application as a whole would be developed to a ‘very good’ BREEAM standard and had been conditioned as such.

 

The Councils Solicitor addressed the additional condition that had been suggested by Councillor Brown and advised that requiring a developer to pay money for cycling lanes was not something the Council could lawfully impose.

 

Mr Hurlow addressed the Committee on behalf of the City of Durham Trust and confirmed that they were obliged to object to the application in its present form as they believed comments from a range of local, professional and experienced members of the Trust, other organisations and the wider public had been dismissed by the Council.

 

The Trust considered there to be inadequacies in the Heritage Impact Assessment and when considering the strategic importance of the site, ICOMOS Guidance required an exemplary development that would be at the forefront of sustainability. Mr Harlow suggested that the only way of improving this application would be to impose more stringent conditions or refuse it. All County Durham Plan policies should have been applied to ensure adequate continuing democratic scrutiny.

 

Mr Harlow confirmed that the Trust sought a number of conditions. With regards to Design code, the information submitted did not constitute a full and coherent Design Code for the outline application and this should be required to include the full range of sustainability needs.

With regards to Sustainable Transport, the Trust believed that a more demanding Travel Plan, off-site improvements for walking and cycling access, an on-site path network plan and a detailed disabled accessibility assessment, and provision for bus access into the site and a subsidised service, were required.

 

With regards to Sustainable Energy, Mr Harlow suggested that a BREEAM excellence standard was required to use of the best of current heating generation, as well as 50% electric vehicle charging points and separate storage and collection of recyclable waste.

The Trust believed that to sustain the Landscape and Heritage environment, a more detailed analysis was required to include community input and conformation to ICOMOS standards. He continued that height constraints should be applied to Plot C and in the Design Code to avoid penetration of the green areas of the World Heritage Site inner setting and ensure that the impact would be less than that of the current County Hall. If penetration was essential, there should be mitigating design and building ‘greening’ to merge this into the backdrop.

 

With regards to the Green Belt and Landscaping, the Trust suggested a requirement of detailed analysis of the relationship of Plot A South to the adjacent Green Belt and its boundary and an assessment of the impact and mitigation landscaping. As there was limited space for tree planting, realistic estimates were needed of the timescale and effectiveness of screening value and advance tree planting was required for all plots except C.

 

The Highway Development Manager confirmed that the B6532 carried 3 bus stops south and north bound which were served by 8 services including the park and ride at Sniperley and travel to Consett, Newcastle and South Shields. Most of the site was within 400m of a bus stop, so it was deemed to be one of the better supplied sites for public transport. With regards to sustainability, there was a condition on parking control within the site, which promoted sustainable transport use and he did not consider it necessary to insist on 50% electric charge points as most charging was believed to take place at a place of residence and most journeys were under five miles so did

not require on site charge points. He considered that internal links within the development could be provided for pedestrians and cyclists and there were external links around the development.

 

The Senior Planning Officer responded that many of the suggestions raised by the Trust went beyond what was required within planning policy. In determining the acceptability of the proposal - although BREEAM Excellence would be admirable, a BREEAM rating of ‘very good’ was all that was required by policy and therefore that was the standard the Planning Authority had to hold the Applicant to. With regards to electric charging points he advised that 50% was significantly more than what was set out in the Councils adopted parking standards and it would have been unreasonable to require provision beyond that.

 

The Senior Planning Officer responded to comments regarding impacts upon heritage assets and the World Heritage Site, and advised that the application was accompanied by detailed analysis, including a Heritage Visual Impact Assessment. Both Historic England and the Councils Design and Conservation Officers had agreed with the conclusion that the harm of the development would be less than substantial. The work undertaken so far provided a reasonable assessment of the heritage impact but further consideration would require specific design information which had not yet been submitted, however it would be considered at the reserved matters stage. He also advised that the comments relating to concerns rasied by ICOMOS were in relation to another development proposal on a different site, and that caution should be used in drawing conclusions from them, and that this proposal should be considered on its merits.

 

Ms J Robison, Planning Consultant, spoke on behalf of the Applicant and confirmed that the County Durham Partnership Vision 2035 was to bridge the gap between Durham and rest of the UK and the Council had pledged to achieve by committing to develop major employment sites in areas that would attract investment and to build a strong and competitive economy and establish Durham as premier place in the North East to do business. The Delivery of Aykley Heads and its associated 4000 jobs was a crucial part of realising that vision.

 

Ms Robison confirmed that the Master Plan proposed would deliver a key strategic employment site in accordance with its allocation in policy 3 of the County Durham Plan. Permission was sought mainly for office use but also some small scale ancillary uses which were tightly restricted in size so not to compete with any other local centre, but would provide supporting services on site and were typically offered in successful business districts and supported in Policy 2 of the County Durham Plan.

 

This was a high quality, modern, central location, which was within walking distance of a mainline train station, giving Durham a unique offering and the opportunity to compete on a large scale, providing an opportunity to retain graduates from local colleges and universities. Ms Robison continued that the majority of the Master Plan was in outline with detail for most plots at later reserved matters stage, however further detailed plans had been submitted for Plot C which was the first plot would act as catalyst for further investment.

 

Ms Robison confirmed that funding for £6m had been allocated from the LEP and brought forward to kickstart this investment. The Project Team had considered the scale of developments were appropriate to ensure there would be no negative impact on heritage and landscape at later reserved matters and Condition recommending the submission of sustainability statements was included for reserved matters. The walking and cycling routes would be enhanced and lit and there would be a travel plan for each plot. To address concerns about the Green Belt, Ms Robison confirmed that with the recent adoption of the County Durham Plan, there was very little Green Belt left within the red line.

 

Ms Robison summed up that this was a proposal that would deliver 4000 new jobs and a significant economic benefit for Durham, which would offer a unique business location within a mature parkland setting and allow to compete for large investors, new businesses and create new and better jobs on a significant scale, showcasing the City as being open for business. It was compliant with polices in the County Durham Plan and the emerging City of Durham Neighbourhood Plan, and it also delivered on pledges made by the County Durham Partnership and should therefore be approved.

 

Councillor Wilkes confirmed that he had concerns with regards to the amount of traffic the proposal would generate on Aykley Heads roundabout, yet no improvements had been proposed. The Highway Development Manager confirmed that the amount of trip generation for the new development was less than what was generated by the existing development and that was due to demand management in place and a restriction on parking provided within the site. The transport assessment had confirmed that the number of trips on the local network would not increase and therefore no improvements to the roundabout were required.

 

Councillor Wilkes referred to Plot C which was being used as a car park and for the nearby Trinity School, there was an unofficial car park. There was insufficient parking when school was built and staff travelled from all over the region doing extremely difficult jobs and the Council had a moral duty to ensure they had somewhere to park. Promises had been made that someone would give advance detail as to where staff would be able to park but he was yet to be given a guarantee.

 

The Highway Development Manager confirmed that Trinity School had been constructed with parking which had been justified by a transport assessment and the school themselves. The school were subject to a travel plan and although drivers had taken the opportunity to park on a piece of development land, it was now closed off, and drivers had taken the opportunity to find free parking elsewhere in the area. In terms of providing them with parking in future, it was up to those individuals to find their own solution to parking demands, the Park and Ride would provide suitable provision for people in the area along with other suitable means of sustainable transport.

 

Councillor Wilkes asked specifically whether Plot C was proposed to be heated using gas boilers and whether any renewable energy had been proposed as part of the application and the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that no detail had been provided as to what the heating system would be and there did not appear to be any renewable energy. He had contacted the Applicant with regards to parking for Trinity School and understood that some dialogue had taken place between the two parties.

 

Ms Robison confirmed that details relating to the heating system were still being considered but they were not something that would need to be determined as part of the planning process. She referred to the £6m funding which had been secured from the LEP and described the application as the catalyst to kickstart interest in Aykley Heads and bring the development forward. Various sustainable energy measures had been considered including the use of low energy LED lights fittings, electric vehicle charge points, solar reflective glazing.

 

With regards to Trinity school, there had been a parking plan drawn up and rejected by the school as there were concerns that the minibus may not be able to turn around, however discussions were ongoing.

Councillor Wilkes referred to condition 22 and the potential that it could be 15 years before the application was brought forward to reserved matters. Given the outline elements of the application barely met the current minimum environment and sustainability standards, climate standards would be impossible to achieve – if the application was approved, the applicant would be getting away with building to current BREEAM standards in 2035.

 

The Senior Planning Officer advised that the County Durham Plan period ran up to the end of the development period therefore there was no reason to think the requirements would change before the period was up. In addition, there were building regulations which also contained elements of sustainability and green design which may also be updated.

 

Councillor Atkinson had listened to the debate and considering the recommendation was minded to approve, and the Committee could not predict what was going to happen in the future, although there were some concerns. Having listened to the debate, he moved the recommendation to approve for the reasons outlined in the report.

Councillor Hopgood wanted the Committee to consider Condition 17 with regards to transport plans and parking. Trinity School had a Transport Plan which was unable to be enforced and when it didn’t work for them it was dismissed, with no replacement provided. Most of the children attended school in transport or minibuses and at 2pm the main road was nose to tail with taxis on double yellow lines. Traffic enforcement had never taken place in 6 years and she wanted to ensure Plot C had an overflow car park for the school and adequate parking and a waiting area for school transport should be included in the management plan.

 

Councillor Hopgood confirmed that this road was the only route to a special school, new Police Headquarters and a huge new housing estate. She referred to Netpark, of which all of the infrastructure was in place before the buildings were erected and suggested that if the Council wanted to lead the way, they should be doing this the right way around. She acknowledged that most were in support overall but some of the detail was missing, especially around infrastructure and safety.

The highway development manager advised that the Council had been working with school and that most pupils arrive by taxi and minibus but parking within the school itself needed to be addressed as enforcement was unlikely. The area of development was never allocated as a carpark, and he referred to supply and demand for parking provision and there was a risk that if uncontrolled parking continued to be built, people would choose to use it and that did not measure up against promotion of sustainable travel and transport ethos as people would choose to use their vehicles. Condition 17 required parking management and would ensure parking management was suitably implemented for the whole of the site.

 

Councillor Tinsley acknowledged that everyone seemed to be in agreement that the principle of development was welcome. This was an opportunity to compete with other large cities, providing 4000 high quality jobs and he warned Members there was a danger of losing the application.

 

With regards to the traffic issue, Councillor Tinsley advised that Members should not forget proximity to the railway station, the site was serviced by significant bus coverage and bus stops were accessible by 400m across the whole of the site. In his opinion he did not need to include a bus stop within the site, 400m from a bus stop.

If the Committee was to grant outline permission there was a possibility that reserved matters would come forward in 15 years, giving scope for flexibility. There was no evidence that the development would impact the setting of the WHS, no objection from Historic England, the design was positive and further design details would be taken care of at reserved matters. The height of building was lower than the existing height of County Hall and incursion into the Green belt was very minor, with minimum ancillary use.

 

With regards to prematurity, Councillor Tinsley argued that there was a specific policy in the development plan which related to this site which had been ongoing for a decade, therefore comments with regards to prematurity could not be supported.  The proposal included contributions of £300k to cover replacement playing fields and overall, many of the issues raised would be dealt with at reserved matters.

 

Councillor Tinsley noted that the development would have to comply with Building Regulations, which were likely to develop. From a planning perspective, the benefits of the scheme heavily outweighed any possible negatives and the recommendation was minded to approve, which could be reviewed by the Secretary of State.

 

The Chair shared some of the disappointment as what had been hoped would be a flagship scheme would fall short in terms of climate aspirations however he did not share worries about the future as standards would be improving all the time.

 

In response to a question from the Chair, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that future applications would be dealt with as reserved matters with an opportunity to be called to Committee by Members. The Solicitor also confirmed that this was the case.

 

The Chair confirmed that he agreed with the statement made by Councillor Tinsley; this was a similar application to the new Council HQ, the basic planning application had come before the Council had announced the climate emergency. The Council needed to play catch up and ensure anything coming forward was a flagship development.

To determine the application, the Committee had to consider whether it was acceptable and balance the dissatisfaction with the economic benefits of the development. Whilst the Committee needed to worry about Plot C in terms of climate and monitor closely, the key issue was that that Members could not reject the development as on balance it was so massively beneficial to the economy of the County.

 

Councillor Wilkes asked whether the Council managed the minibuses and taxis as at school closing time dozens of vehicles turned up and the LA refused to ticket them because there was no alternative – the school had not been built for its capacity.

 

Councillor Wilkes referred to Plot C, an application submitted by this Council, with environmental standards below the minimum environmental standards proposed in the County Durham Plan. It was unacceptable for the Local Authority to propose the construction in the City centre, of a building that was not even close to carbon neutral, making it more difficult to meet climate change. The proposal breached Policy 29 of the County Durham Plan, as it did not meet minimum BREEAM ratings. He proposed that the application be conditioned to meet the minimum BREEAM standards seconded by Councillor Hopgood.

 

Councillor Wilkes fully support the principle of development of the site but the Council had just passed a County Durham Plan with minimum standards and if the Committee were not going to insist on those requirements being met, he failed to see the point of it.

 

Councillor Hopgood asked in addition to the proposed condition that it was a requirement for a Travel Plan across the whole site and the condition be amended for it to ensure a Travel Plan was always in place. The reality was that the Travel Plan with Trinity School did not work and ended up thrown out. She asked that Condition 17 relating to car park management and enforcement include the Trinity School site as it was one of the biggest issues and it would have a knock on effect on Plot C and the rest of the development if it was not improved.

The Solicitor confirmed that of the issues raised, one was an existing highway/parking issue and was not appropriate to expect this development to rectify a pre-existing situation, and it should be addressed outside of this forum, and an additional condition would be not appropriate. With regards to the travel plan, Condition 16 could not be more specific, it was a requirement.

 

The Senior Planning Officer advised that Conditions 16 and 17 did apply to the whole development and were robust enough to expect compliance and he would expect the Travel Plan to remain and be regularly reviewed. He was not aware of or involved in any possible failure to adhere to a planning condition in relation to the Trinity School Travel Plan, so could not comment in detail with regards to this. He also stated that he agreed with the Highway Officer that it was unreasonable to expect the development to solve a problem that was not in control of the Applicant. He also clarified that itit was clear in the report that Plot C did not meet BREEAM standards but the issue had been raised with the Applicant and who had advised that they were unable to do so. However, he considered that the application, when

considered as a whole, had general compliance with County Durham Plan Policy 29.

 

The Highway Development Manager confirmed that he was confident that a Travel Plan could be secured and implemented for the site. Condition 17 which required a parking management plan could be brought forward and would include enforcement. Parking control would be within the site and there was no reason there shouldn’t be one at Trinity School. Vehicles parked on the road as they arrived before the school gates were opened, the road was wide enough, but it was difficult to enforce as by law, Officers had to allow an observation period, and if you started observing a vehicle on double yellow lines, the driver would leave. The Council had worked extensively with the Taxi Association and the school, and it was an existing problem, but discussions with the relevant people were ongoing.

Councillor Tinsley stated that he was satisfied that the parking issue had been addressed, but was confirmed that he was concerned with regards to the proposal by Councillor Wilkes. Paragraph 271 identified that the building did not hit the BREEAM standard but also that when the overall development had come to fruition, that overall, the required BREEAM standard would be met.

 

If the Committee chose to impose the condition, it could require fundamental changes in design which would render it difficult to proceed with a permission and taking balance into consideration he was content to proceed with the building and the energy efficiency rating as proposed.

 

Cllr Atkinson reiterated that he supported the recommendation as outlined in the report.

 

Cllr Hopgood questioned how the Council could ask a third party in planning to meet conditions in the County Durham Plan, if the Council failed at the first opportunity they had. She had listened to the Highway Development Manager and there was a Travel Plan for Trinity School which the school chose not to accept and therefore there nothing in place and the same could happen, without a condition to say there had to be one permanently.

 

The Chair referred noted paragraph 272 which stated that a redesign of Plot C would increase the risk of LEP funding timescales not being met and the whole scheme could be lost. Members could not throw away the whole application when finding one problem with it – to propose an extra condition the Committee had to be saying they would reject it otherwise.

 

The Solicitor advised that he had previously been incorrect with regards to a BREAAM condition on Plot C, however he was concerned that an additional condition relating to Plot C achieving BREEAM standards would not be achievable and suggested that the applicant clarify this. He also made some comments with regards to Cllr Hopgood’s request for additional Travel Plan condition.

 

Ms Robison advised that there was £6m LEP funding available which had been offered for this development and to get to BREEAM standards would require the process to start again and they would not be in a position to start again and get the LEP funding.

 

The Chair asked Members to vote on the recommendation to approve the application subject to the amended condition proposed by Councillor Wilkes.

 

Upon a vote being taken the motion was lost.

 

Resolved:

 

That the Committee be MINDED TO APPROVED subject to the referral of the application to the Secretary of State; and in the event of the application not being called in, the Head of Planning be authorised to determine the application, and, subject to the completion of an internal transfer of funds within the Council to secure the following:

 

·        £160,000 towards the re-provision of the existing hockey facilities

·        £140,000 towards the re-provision of the existing tennis facilities;

 

and the conditions outlined in the report, and as amended by verbal update.