Agenda item

Conversion of parts of the ground, first and second floors to create 28 bed student accommodation (Sui Generis) with ancillary communal social area, plant room, cycle and refuse storage.

The Principal Planning Officer, Paul Hopper 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 conversion of parts of the ground, first and second floors to create 28 bed student accommodation (Sui Generis) with ancillary communal social area, plant room, cycle and refuse storage and was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions and s106 Legal Agreement as set out in the report.

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted the report erroneously referred to Policy 16 within the first sentence of paragraph 87, with Members to note it should have referred to Policy 6.

 

The Chair thanked the Principal Planning Officer and asked Parish Councillor Grenville Holland to speak in relation to the application.

 

Parish Councillor G Holland thanked the Chair and Committee and explained that the Officer’s report clearly identified the concerns of the residents of Durham City.  He added that, however, the recommendation for approval tried to interpret Policy 16 of the County Durham Plan (CDP) in favour of the applicant by finding a new route, one which he would put to the Committee was never intended by those who drafted and approved the CDP two years ago.

 

He explained that the key part of the Policy, concerning student accommodation read:

 

“All proposals for new, extensions to, or conversions to, Purpose-Built Student Accommodation on sites not allocated for student accommodation, will be required to demonstrate: 

a. that there is a need for additional student accommodation of this type in this location; 

b. consultation with the relevant education provider pursuant to the identified need;” 

 

Parish Councillor G Holland added that the precise definition of the English word “need” was: “Because it is essential or very important, rather than just desirable.”

 

He noted that therefore the question before Members was: do we need Robson House as offered in this form and can that need be shown?  Was it essential or merely desirable?  He explained that, of course, we did not need it and suggested asking residents and the University, who would tell you that we did not need it, and while it might be nice to have a few more beds for extras but was not essential.  He stated that the only person who needed it, and for whom it was also desirable, was the developer.

 

Parish Councillor G Holland explained that, if approved, the outcome would be a curious melange of C3/student purpose build student accommodation (PBSA) that would surely become a larger PBSA within a short space of time, thereby losing the C3 accommodation needed in this part of the city.

He reminded Members that Policy 16 was designed to avoid that situation.  He added that was with good reason, and that residents did not want Robson House to be turned into a student development; and the University had neither asked for it or endorsed it, confirming that, despite the recent glitch in their admissions process last August, the PBSAs already in existence, coupled to the College rooms and HMOs available, were sufficient to keep them on course to manage their future student numbers until 2027.  

Parish Councillor G Holland noted that because the University would not endorse the application, the developer went behind their back by unofficially approaching the Colleges in an attempt to overcome the constraint of “need” and “consultation” required in Policy 16.  He noted that, however, the reference within the Committee Report to statements by individual Colleges and an article in Palatinate (student newspaper) carry no weight in the determination of the application because neither were the education provider, as required in Policy 16.2.  He added that furthermore, Members should take into account that the students already have a large PBSA available to them called Student Castle which was just across the road from Robson House.

 

Parish Councillor G Holland noted that the applicant has also used a StuRents report to suggest that there was an accommodation shortfall in Durham.  He explained that StuRents was a national service for private letting agencies and therefore, that report did not include accommodation from the Colleges and other University owned properties. 

 

He added that the developer had also devised a supposed need by suggesting that a slight modification in the design of his property would create an alternative choice in the market and, while that may be desirable, it did not prove need.

 

Parish Councillor G Holland noted that device involved stretching a phrase in the Policy 16 explanatory paragraph 5.141 discussing ‘need’ for additional student accommodation where it notes that “PBSAs can increase choice for the student population and is an alternative to Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO)”.  He added that then so do the University Colleges and other more private arrangements increase that choice, with paragraph 5.141 merely balancing HMOs against PBSAs.  He noted that, to help further their cause, the developers also provided a report to demonstrate that their plans would be well received by the student body.  He explained that report should not influence Members and that such reports were designed and funded with such a purpose and the Officer had given it far too much weight.  He noted the report was demonstrating desire, not need.

 

Parish Councillor G Holland noted that there was therefore nothing special about Robson House that could allow it to enjoy an enhanced consideration in this present planning context, noting that Policy 16 Part 2 applied.  He explained that the real problem that faced all of those who were concerned about the future of Durham City was that the process of C4 encroachment would go on until residential accommodation in our City had become a thing of the past.  He added that Robson House could, of course, provide welcome C3 accommodation to that part of the city, whereas the proposed melange of C3/PBSA would be an unhealthy and unsustainable arrangement.  He noted that alternatives for the site should be identified following the guidance of CDP Policy 15.

 

Parish Councillor G Holland noted that, in the time available to him, he had only been able to look at CDP Policy 16 Section 2 paragraphs a and b, by both of which the application failed.  He added that, in the final analysis, the application also failed the test of Policy 16 Section 2, paragraphs c, e, and g.  He noted it failed Policy 29, Sustainable Development, sections e and f, and the guidance of paragraph 5.287.  He explained it also failed Policy 31, Amenity and Pollution, whose concerns would be briefly mentioned by another speaker.  He concluded by noting that the application also fell well short of the intentions of Paragraphs 91 and 127 of the NPPF and sections of the DCNP Policy 5 and therefore, for those reasons, the Parish Council felt the Committee should refuse the application

 

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor G Holland and asked John Ashby, representing the City of Durham Trust to speak in respect of the application.

 

J Ashby thanked the Chair and Committee and explained he was speaking both on behalf of the City of Durham Trust and the St. Nicholas Community Forum in respect of the application and would refer to presentation slides to give additional context.

 

J Ashby reminded Members that the history of the site was a saga of unsatisfactory applications that were either withdrawn or refused, including two that were lost on appeal.  He explained that finally, in 2018, approval was sought for C3 residential development, with the applicant having mentioned that the apartments could be attractive to students, which the Trust opposed.  He noted that assurances were sought and given that the development would not be for students and approval was duly granted only for C3 residential accommodation, with conditions on noise, waste management and construction.  He noted that, however, we were at Committee today with an application for the conversion of parts of the ground, first and second floors of William Robson House to create 28-bed student accommodation.

 

J Ashby stated that for a PBSA, which the application was for apparently, Policy 16.2 required proof of a need for additional student accommodation of that type in that location.  He noted that it was agreed by the Trust and the Planning Officer that there was not a quantitative need for the accommodation.  He added that the applicant’s various submissions on need were spurious, and he would gladly demonstrate that if asked.  J Ashby noted that therefore the proposal should be refused, however, the Committee Report recommends approval. 

 

He noted that the Trust disagreed with the Committee Report in that the proposal met a qualitative need, with that argument destroying requirement (a) of Policy 16.2.  He added that the Trust disagrees with the Committee Report in that the University’s views could be set aside, with that argument destroying requirement (b) of Policy 16.2.  He noted that there was simply no point in having had those carefully-crafted requirements hammered out in the CDP Examination in Public, only for them to be turned into anything goes for developers.  He added that the proposed C4 student accommodation use raised potential problems with noise, waste management, and construction.

 

In respect of noise, J Ashby explained that whatever was done to protect the students from external noise, none of that prevented adverse impacts upon nearby residents in Blue Coat Court from noise from the student occupants, especially from music and celebrations with windows open onto the yard adjacent to Blue Coat Court, and with student occupants returning at all hours from a night out in town.

 

In reference to waste disposal, J Ashby noted that applicant explained that:

 

“Provision has been made for external refuse storage with three 1,100 litre bins for general waste and two 1,100 litre bins for recycling. The bins will be moved to Claypath by private contractors in line with the method previously employed for the offices and collected weekly or as frequently as needed.” 

 

J Ashby asked where on Claypath would those huge waste bins be placed, with a run of three bins being four metres in length.  He added that if the bins were placed in front of the Durham Food Store they would not only block access into that shop but would also obstruct the passage on the pavement of wheelchairs and prams because of the ‘no waiting’ post there.  He noted that equally, if they are placed in front of The Big Jug public house, the pavement would be blocked because of the fixed litter bin, as shown on the presentation slide.  The Committee were referred to a further slide showing the 1,100 litre waste bins typically used at student premises, with the poor state of bins shown also being noted as typical by J Ashby.

 

In respect of construction, J Ashby explained that work had already started on the approved scheme for William Robson House, with large lorries and cement wagons having disgorged their contents on Claypath, obstructing both pedestrians and vehicles for hours.  He noted that clearly the existing management plan was not good enough.

 

J Ashby noted that, over and above all those issues, CDP Policy 15 and DCNP Policies D2 and D3 seek 25 percent of residential units to be affordable, and 10 percent to be suitable for older people, and 66 percent to be accessible and adaptable.  He noted none of those provisions were included, adding that disabled students required proper provision.  He noted that the Trust and Community Forum believe that the approved C3 residential use should be retained, following the successful example across the road of the former Royal Mail offices at Claypath Court, converted to much-needed older persons’ accommodation that was, in Durham City terms, affordable.  J Ashby concluded by noting that the application should be refused as it conflicted with the requirements of CDP Policy 16.2 and Policy 15 and DCNP Policies D2 and D3.

 

The Chair thanked J Ashby and asked Steve Major, Agent for the Applicant, to speak in support of the application.

 

S Major thanked the Chair and Committee and explained that throughout the application, the applicant and their team had engaged proactively with the Planning Department in relation to NPPF and CDP policies.  He noted the Committee report gave a fair and balanced summary of the proposals and referred to the applicant’s statement within the report.  He noted compliance with Policy 29(c) in terms of minimising CO₂ and use of low carbon energy, and use of insulating fabric and air source heat pumps. 

He noted that the applicant’s aim was for a high level of quality, giving use to a significant building in a sustainable way.  He added he would be happy to answer any questions from Members as necessary.

 

The Chair thanked S Major and asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

 

Councillor L Brown noted that, when looking at the plans via the Planning Portal, she could not see any disabled access to the upper floors and communal areas, as required by Policy 15 of the CDP and paragraph 5.146 of Policy 16.  She added that the Parish Council and City of Durham Trust had questioned the need for the proposed student provision, and could not see any independent demonstration, indeed with the University’s Senior Property Asset Manager, Matthew Wright referring to the proposals as ‘lower quality accommodation’.  She added that paragraph 99 of the Committee report referred to reports within Palatine that there was less student accommodation as a result of the pandemic, however, that was hearsay and not data and therefore should be disregarded.

 

Councillor M Currah asked for clarification from Officers in terms of need.  The Principal Planning Officer noted there was quantitative and qualitative need, in terms of the range of accommodation available.  He explained that the report set out the requirements in terms of range and variety and attached weight accordingly.  He added the offer was significantly different from other PBSAs in the city centre and HMOs within the city, noting it was that difference that was considered in this application.  He noted there were opportunities for communal living and to live alone within the proposals and noted the report set out the reasons why Officers felt the application was in line with Policy 16.  In reference to the question from Councillor L Brown in terms of disabled access, the applicant’s agent may be able to provide comment.  The Chair allowed the agent to respond.  S Major noted that the proposals were for conversion of an existing building and explained that the ground floor was actually lower than ground level.  He noted a lift for access to the first, second and lower ground levels, although noted three steps to the lower ground level.

 

Councillor A Bell noted he had listened to the objections raised, however, he was struggling to find reasons for a refusal of the application and moved approval.  He asked as regards the use class and whether if an HMO it would not have come to Committee, with over 85 percent of those living in the nearby areas being students.

 

Councillor C Marshall noted he appreciated the sensitivity in terms of student accommodation within the city.  He added there was a larger issue in terms of the range and choice of student accommodation, noting that was not satisfactory. 

He noted that the University had given views on need and demand, and he recalled stating, around six months ago, that there was a need for the Council and University to speak to key stakeholders on the matter.  He added that until real evidence was produced, and the student policies were looked at, he would agree with the Officer’s recommendation for approval, seconding Councillor A Bell, noting that the proposals would enhance the offer to students.

 

Councillor C Kay explained he had known the application site since the 1980s, when part of the area was used for motorcycle parking.  He noted that the area was not what it once was, and the building was currently vacant.  He asked as regards other PBSAs in the area and the demand levels, or lack of, as referred to by Councillor L Brown.  The Principal Planning Officer noted comments from Councillor L Brown in terms of quantitative need, but that the need the application sought to address was qualitative need.

 

Councillor J Elmer asked Members to think back over the last few years, with the various arguments in relation to the need for student accommodation, specifically within the city.  He noted the issue of quantitative need, the University and Colleges would want as many students as possible within their accommodation, and similar for private landlords.  However, looking at need, he would say that the top priority was for the needs of permanent residents within the city, for affordable and appropriate provision, for example for older persons.  He added that he had concerns relating to the mix of residents and failure to meet nationally describe spaces standards (NDSS).  He noted that the Parish Council, City of Durham Trust and St. Nicholas Community Forum all objected to the application and therefore it was important that the Council understood the importance of local determination of issues, with none of those bodies wanting the application approved.  He added he would want any application to comply with the needs of residents, and their opinion should be given weight.  He noted the issue of bin storage and concluded by noting he felt the application undermined CDP Policy 16, part 2 and therefore he would recommend refusal, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation.  Councillor L Brown noted figures she referred to had been provided by the Parish Clerk from precept / Council Tax information.  She added she would second the motion for refusal put forward by Councillor J Elmer, the application being contrary to Policies 15 and 16, noting the lack of disabled access for all.

 

The Principal Planning Officer noted the NDSS related to new dwellings, adding it was not easily applied to the unique offer proposed and that there was no absolute policy requirement to do so.  He noted that an issue that could be looked was the size of bedrooms and communal areas and noted the choice being offered between communal living and self-contained units.

 

Councillor K Shaw noted the same issues always came forward when looking at these types of student accommodation applications, however, he could see the clear lines for qualitative need, as set out within the Officer’s report, and the choice they would give to students.  He noted the University’s opposition to the proposals, though added they would prefer students to use their accommodation.  He noted that he felt the application on balance was acceptable, adding there was also a significant s106 contribution which he felt would be welcome, adding he would welcome such a contribution in his Electoral Division.

 

The Chair noted he felt there was not a qualitative need, with many other PBSAs and HMOs and Colleges providing all types of different provision within the city centre, whether through the private sector or the University.  Councillor C Marshall noted had the opposing view to the Chair, adding he felt it was not possible to have it both ways, both supporting the expansion of the University then looking to refuse applications for additional student accommodation.  Councillor J Elmer noted he felt that the Council did not support mass expansion, rather it supported the needs of the University as it expanded.

 

Upon a vote being taken it was:

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions and s106 Legal Agreement as set out within the report.

 

 

Councillor A Bell left the meeting at 14.28pm