Agenda item

Change of use of office headquarters (sui generis) to higher education (Durham University Business School) (Use Class F1a)

The Committee considered a report of the Principal Planning Officer regarding an application for the change of use of office headquarters (sui generis) to higher education (Durham University Business School) (Use Class F1a) at The Waterside Building, Riverside Place, Durham (for copy see file of Minutes).

C Teasdale, Principal Planning Officer provided a detailed presentation on the application which included a site location plan, aerial photograph and site photographs.  The Principal Planning Officer advised that since publication of the report there had an been three additional representations including a representation from Durham County Council Labour Group.

Prior to addressing the Committee to object to the application, Mr Southwell, local resident requested that the meeting be deferred.  It was one of the most important County Planning meetings to have ever been held and one Member had submitted apologies, three Members had declared interests and left the meeting giving a total of four Members of the Committee who were not in attendance for the item.  Substitutes should have been approached.  N Carter, Planning and Development Solicitor advised there was no legal basis for a deferment because the Committee was quorate.

Mr D Southwell, local resident, addressed the Committee to object to the application.  Prior to outlining his reasons for objecting to the application Mr Southwell explained to the Committee the meaning of democracy and reminded the Committee of the seven principles of Public Life, the Nolan Principles.

In April, 2019, a Planning Application from Durham County Council was considered by the County Planning Committee and Mr Southwell spoke in support of the application as a resident who had a wealth of experience of the site.  At that meeting the Deputy Chief Executive, a Business Representative and the Architect all spoke in in support of the application.  Mr Southwell informed the Committee he had not been approached by any political party to speak in support of the application.

Although there were also speakers against the application the Committee voted for approval.  The Secretary of State was asked by Durham County Council if he wanted to inspect the application and approval and he declined to do so.

In May 2021, following the local elections, there was a change of political power at Durham County Council and the then ruling Group lost control to a Joint Administration of Councillors.  The Joint Administration had never asked the residents their thoughts on the new Headquarters in Durham, and Mr Southwell considered they were just playing politics.

Statements had been made by Councillor Bell, Councillor for Barnard Castle, that the Building was fit for purpose but in the wrong place.  This point was discussed at the Meeting in April, 2019 and the site was agreed to be fit for purpose.

Some Cabinet Members had made comments regarding comments made by residents and Mr Southwell asked whether residents had been given all the facts and advantages of the site by having the staff work there?

Residents were fed up of the Joint Administration and they would have no respect for the County Planning Committee if it approved this application from the University.

Over 800 residents had been contacted with a return of 2 plus Mr Southwell.  One was for and one was against the application for the change of use

Previous to this application from Durham University approximately 3 years ago Durham University lodged plans with Durham County Council Planning Department for a new build on the old swimming pool site and car park for a Business School and this application was still pending.  The application today cherry picked what the University wanted from what was approved in April, 2019.

The University stated that they did not require planning permission for internal alterations and Mr Southwell suggested it would be dismantled.

The number of students and staff who would occupy the building was three times the number of people who would occupy the building if occupied by the County Council staff.  There were approximately 2000 students and staff at the Sixth Form Centre and when added to university students, Passport Office staff and visitors to the Passport Office, the numbers would exceed 5000.

The application was weak in content and it should not be forgotten that the majority of students and staff had to get across the City.

Nothing had changed with the application for the new build for Durham County Council at the Sands at Durham, apart from a late application regarding Common Land, which had been approved.  The building and car park were both now completed.

Mr Southwell urged the Committee to reject this change of use application and send a message to the Joint Administration that the Committee stood by its original decision of April 2019.  If the Committee approved the application the building would be sold and Durham County staff would be Nomads for ever.  Durham County Council would never have a fit for purpose headquarters which would be a poor legacy for this historic Durham County Planning Committee.  If the Committee did not refuse the application the proposed redevelopment of the Aykley Heads site could be delayed by three years and this would impact on employment opportunities.

Professor O’Malley, Pro-Vice Chancellor (Global) of Durham University addressed the Committee in support of the application for the relocation of Durham University Business School from Mill Hill Lane to the Sands.

Professor O’Malley hoped that Members would agree that Durham University was a jewel in the crown of County Durham.  It was the third oldest university in England with a 200^th anniversary in 2032.  It was a global world-class university with over 120 countries represented amongst staff and students and it was Durham’s university supporting local jobs, young people, schools and businesses.  The latest study showed the university to be worth £400m to the County Durham economy every year, supporting nearly 7,000 local jobs.  This was based on 2014/15 figures and would be worth significantly more than this now.  In addition staff and students were active in the local community giving 35,000 hours a year in volunteering, in support of charities and good causes.

Durham University Business School was central to the universities success and was playing a key role in the regeneration of County Durham.  It was world ranked, in the top 50 of Business Schools in Europe and had 38,000 alumni in 140 countries.  These were all ambassadors for County Durham in businesses worldwide.

The Business School was currently worth £83m a year to County Durham and supported approximately 600 jobs.  The university was looking to relocate the Business School to the Sands area to provide an attractive work and study environment for academics and students and to attract leading business partners.

The application site had a great location close to transport hubs and the City centre.  An independent report by BiGGAR Economics had calculated that the relocation would be worth nearly £30m a year to County Durham by 2032 and would support an extra 170 jobs.  The internal refit of the building to support the change of use would bring local investment and employment.

Durham University was working in a competitive global environment with huge investment in universities in Asia, Europe and America.  Durham University Business School needed a new home so it could continue to thrive and compete successfully in this global marketplace.

In preparing the application the University had consulted extensively with statutory bodies and with local community stakeholders.  The application was not about increasing student numbers at the Business School, it was about providing excellent facilities for an excellent faculty.

The Business School had quite a different demographic to other faculties.  Many more of its students were post-graduates and mature students, often well in to their careers, sometimes at an executive level and chiefly international.

Council officers had reviewed the application and based on planning policy had recommended support.  Durham University Business School aimed to ensure that more Durham University graduates stayed in the north-east and started new businesses, boost productivity, raise income levels and reduce unemployment.  Professor O’Malley hoped this was a vision which everybody supported and hoped that the Committee would support the application to help to achieve this vision.

Councillor Boyes sought clarity on the numbers using the building on a day to day basis and at any one time, as this was not clear from the report.

Professor O’Malley replied it was difficult to say how many would be using the building at any one time as the Business School had a complex timetable and students would only be in for the hours scheduled for them.  It was not anticipated the building would be full of the 2,000 students all of the time.  The same applied to staff who may be out making partnerships with local businesses for example.

Councillor Boyes informed the Committee that in view of the uncertainty of the numbers who would be using the building at any one time in a building which was built for 700 council staff, with 2,500 plus people now being mentioned, he was concerned at the effect this may have on the City centre and the City of Durham Trust had expressed concerns about flooding issues.  Councillor Boyes moved that the application be deferred.  Seconded by Councillor Roberts.

The Chair considered that Professor O’Malley had answered the question as fully as she could, there would be up to 2,500 students within any given time but they would not all be there at any one time.

Councillor Jopling considered that the building when built had a capacity and would have been underused by the Council.  The application could only benefit the University and the Council.  Councillor Jopling could not understand the flooding argument and asked whether the County Council had built a building in the middle of Durham and not looked into this prior under the previous administration?  Stringent measures regarding flooding were taken during the construction of the building.

Councillor Martin was unsure what more the Committee would get from deferring the application.  While understanding Councillor Boyes point of view that the numbers using the building at any one time was unknown, this was the nature of university buildings.  The Committee knew the absolute capacity of the building and Councillor Martin informed the Committee he would be voting against the deferment.

Councillor A Bell considered that the case officer would have looked at projected numbers in the building to ensure these were within the capacity of the building.  With reference to the footfall, these would be students who were already in Durham but moving to another building.  A positive of the application was the decreased number of vehicles which would be using Providence Row and Councillor Bell moved approval of the application.  Seconded by Councillor Hunt.

The Planning and Development Solicitor clarified that there were two motions, one for deferment of the application and one for approval.  Before taking a vote on deferment the Planning and Development Solicitor sought clarity on what the purpose of this was.  It had been stated that the Committee would want further and better information as to the number of students in the building at any one time but the Planning and Development Solicitor was unsure whether any better information could be provided.  The capacity of the building in terms of its maximum numbers was known and the applicant had stated it would be difficult to predict exactly how many students would be there at any given time.  The Planning and Development Solicitor then asked whether this information would make any difference.  Officers had assessed the application on the basis of the maximum number of students that could be present and had recommended the application for approval.

The Principal Planning Officer added that the applicant had been clear about the number of students that were expected and this had been out to consultation.  In terms of flooding this had been considered and the Environment Agency had no objections to the application.

The Committee took a vote on the motion to defer the application and this was lost.

Upon a further vote being taken it was

Resolved:

That the application be approved subject to the conditions contained in the report.

Councillors Marshall, McKeon and Shaw re-joined the meeting.