Agenda item

Erection of new ancillary student accommodation facilities building built within grass embankment; minor external changes to existing Harding building including re-instatement of historical entrance location and implementation of associated landscaping scheme.

The Senior Planning Officer, Louisa Ollivere (LO) 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 the erection of new ancillary student accommodation facilities building built within grass embankment; minor external changes to existing Harding building including re-instatement of historical entrance location and implementation of associated landscaping scheme and was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The Senior Planning Officer (LO) noted some updates to the report, with proposed changes to Condition 5 within the report, to change the open hours of the hub/bar for serving drinks and/or food to 0730 to 2300 Mondays to Thursdays, 0730 to 0000 on Fridays and Saturdays and 0730 to 2230 on Sundays.  She added that the Local Member had also suggested changes to the hours of operation in relation to construction works, deliveries and so on, to take place 0800 to 1800 on Monday to Friday and 0800 to 1400 on Saturday and with no works or deliveries to take place Sundays, Public or Bank Holidays.

The Chair thanked the Senior Planning Officer (LM) and asked Jeremy Cook OBE, Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Colleges and Student Experience) from Durham University and Matthew Roe, agent for the applicant to speak in support of the application.

J Cook thanked the Chair and Committee for the opportunity to speak and the Officer’s feedback on the report and positive recommendation.  He noted the strong partnership of the University with Unite Group in terms of the development in 2019/20 and the development for another college within the University. 

He noted the Council and University also working in partnership, looking at issues in terms of students including less reliance on houses of multiple occupation (HMOs) and to have accommodation for students that drew them into the city.  He noted the collegiate approach taken in Durham and explained how the college became the student’s ‘family unit’ and noted the proposed senior and junior common rooms to help students interact, and not just stay in their bedrooms.  He noted the proposals would allow for temporary use by the College of St. Hild and St. Bede while their old site was restored, then for use by a new, eighteenth college for Durham University.

M Roe noted the work with the Council, proactive in ensuring the design was sensitive to heritage assets, noting the report stated that any harm would be ‘less than substantial’.  He added that the public benefits of the proposals were significantly greater than any minor harm, including: providing an eighteenth college for Durham University; temporary use by the College of St. Hild and St. Bede; addresses student need; provides a 21.6 percent total net increase in habitat units; and significant CO₂ savings.

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

Councillor J Elmer noted he was pleased to see such a development come forward from the University.  He noted the pressure on the city in terms of HMOs and those large Purpose Built Student Accommodations (PBSAs) that were not under University control.  He noted the design was good, with creative use of the sloping location, being very well screened and with many elements designed to go a long way to mitigate harm to the surrounding area and non-designated heritage assets.  He noted the work in terms of biodiversity and CO₂ savings and added that the biggest issue was that it took the pressure off the permanent residents of the city.  Accordingly, he moved that the application be approved, subject to the amended conditions as referred to by the Senior Planning Officer (LO).

Councillor A Bell echoed the comments from Councillor J Elmer, noting the design fit very well into the site and existing buildings.  He noted that the photomontage within the presentation really helped to understand the design and its relationship to the other buildings and surrounding area and thanked Officer for that.  He seconded the motion for approval put forward by Councillor J Elmer.

Councillor C Marshall noted he agreed with the points raised by Councillors J Elmer and A Bell, however, he noted that one application was not a ‘golden bullet’ and noted that there was still a lot of work to be done with the Council and the University to look to manage student property demand. 

Notwithstanding, he noted the proposals represented exactly the type of student accommodation that was needed, and he looked forward to more quality schemes of this nature coming forward in the future, with such good design.

Councillor L Brown noted that the application was within her Electoral Division and noted that it provided no more accommodation, rather provided a student hub and facilities.  She added her thanks to the Senior Planning Officer (LO) for the amended conditions to construction times, a benefit to local students and residents, and noted she supported the application.

Councillor K Robson noted he was very happy with the proposals, noting purpose built student facilities were always preferable to retrofitting into older, existing properties and he supported the application.

Upon a vote being taken it was:

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions as set out within the report and amended conditions relating to hours of operation and construction hours.