Agenda item

Redevelopment of existing shopping centre comprising partial demolition of the shopping centre above the existing mall level (levels 5 and above) and erection of replacement commercial units (Class E), a hotel (Class c1) and purpose built student accommodation (Sui Generis) at Level 5 and above, along with a new outdoor public square and public realm improvements. External alterations to the boat repair and maintenance workshop including use of external areas to create outside terraces for leisure use (Levels 0 and 1) (Class E), external alterations to the elevations of the retained areas of the shopping centre and car park, hard and soft landscaping and other associated works.

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an application for redevelopment of existing shopping centre comprising partial demolition of the shopping centre above the existing mall level (levels 5 and above) and erection of replacement commercial units (Class E), a hotel (Class c1) and purpose built student accommodation (Sui Generis) at Level 5 and above, along with a new outdoor public square and public realm improvements. External alterations to the boat repair and maintenance workshop including use of external areas to create outside terraces for leisure use (Levels 0 and 1) (Class E), external alterations to the elevations of the retained areas of the shopping centre and car park, hard and soft landscaping and other associated works at Prince Bishops Shopping Centre, High Street, Durham (for copy see file of minutes).

 

L Ollivere, Senior Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation which included a site location plan, aerial photographs, site photographs from various locations in the city and proposed site layout plans for each level of the development and proposed visuals of the development. The presentation also covered consultee and public responses and how the application had been assessed in terms of the EIA regulations before outlining the conclusions.

 

The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that a response from Durham University had been received following publication of the committee report and they had clarified current student figures and their intention for student numbers to revert to target levels once pandemic intakes have graduated. In response to this the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the Councils position was now that the need had been accepted, not based on the figures provided by the Applicant, but to broaden the choice of accommodation in this location, particularly with regards to International Students. 

 

A correction to report was confirmed to state that the number of consultation letters sent out was 368, exceeding statutory requirements.

 

The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that a supportive letter had been received from MP Mary Kelly Foy, in support of the application and that an update had been received from the Economic Development Team, also in support.

 

It was reported that The Councils Travel Team had responded broadly agreeing with Active travel England and asking for condition no. 23 to be amended for cycle parking to be monitored after implementation for a six-month period.

 

Councillor J Ashby, addressed the Committee on behalf of the City of Durham Parish Council confirming that whilst the Parish Council welcomed the development in principle, the development should have presented wider benefits to the city.

 

He confirmed that the principle of Purpose Built Student Accommodation (PBSA) on the upper floors to give financial support for the ground floor retail units was supported, however he raised concerns in relation to Paragraph 190 of the report.

 

New PBSA proposals had to demonstrate a need for this type of accommodation in this location and the County Durham Plan recognised that need was both quantitative and qualitative. The applicants argued that there was a massive quantitative need and had projected the number of students to increase by between 4,360 and 11,930 by the 2027/8 academic year, resulting in an under-supply of between 2,683 and 9,333 student bed-spaces, however this was incorrect. 

 

Numbers had previously increased above the intended figure, due to the impact of COVID-19, however since then the University had successfully managed its total numbers back down to 21,588, and the Vice-Chancellor had confirmed that numbers would remain stable at around 21,500.  He suggested that the statement regarding need and reference to increased student numbers and a shortage of bed-spaces, be disregarded. 

 

The conclusion in the report should have been similar to the previous PBSA application determined at the former Bingo Hall in New Durham.  The report for this application had considered that whilst the proposal was unlikely to meet a quantitative demand, it complied with Policy 16a of the County Durham Plan in that it would meet an identified need to broaden the choice and variety of student accommodation available within the city.  This was even more relevant for this application as numbers were lower.  The proposal was welcomed by the Parish Council on its qualitative locational merits and it met Policy 16.2 without any need for incorrect numbers.

 

The Parish Council were concerned that the absence of larger retail units could undermine the on-going role and function of the city as a sub-regional centre and therefore welcomed assurances that the internal walls within the scheme would be made capable of accommodating larger retailers. 

 

Councillor Ashby confirmed that the Parish Council supported residents’ desire for one ground floor unit for community use.  In addition proposed carbon reduction measures were welcome, however they would not be sufficient to ensure that the full site was powered by renewable, green energy sources.  Water Source Heat Pumps appeared to have been discounted despite the close proximity and energy potential of the River Wear.

 

The Parish Council were also concerned about the impact of the prolonged and disruptive construction works which would cause significant disturbance to residents and existing businesses.   A comprehensive plan for minimising disruption was vital and should have included practical help to relocate the existing retail businesses that would otherwise be lost.  This was partially addressed in the condition requiring a construction management plan, but should have been enhanced.

 

The Parish Council also supported the visitor economy concerns expressed about possible impacts on the day visitor sector during construction, but also in the longer term around the proposed hotel’s target market, cramped location and restricted amenity offer.

 

Due to the inevitable harmful impacts on the city over a period of years, the Parish Council stressed the need for the full Section 106 monies to be applicable and were opposed to the reductions which had been made.

 

Finally, Councillor Ashby reiterated the inaccurate content regarding student numbers and need for more student bed-spaces in Durham city and suggested that it should not be endorsed as it could set a precedent for future applications.  The application contained the potential to enhance the city in the longer term, however it also carried some risks and he asked the Committee to take those into account when making their decision.

 

Councillor Freeman, local Member and fellow member of the City of Durham Parish Council endorsed the comments made by Councillor Ashby.  Residents were unhappy about the proposed changes, however he accepted that there had been changes in retail and large retailers did not intend to return to the city.  The reconfiguration would better suit the needs of national and independent retailers and a new hotel would encourage visitors to stay in the city.  The proposals would provide long term viability which was at risk.  Historical concerns from the original planning application still remained and this application would slightly enhance the area. 

 

Councillor Freeman did not accept the figures on student numbers and was led to believe that there had been 1000 empty beds during 2023-24.  Whilst the Committee had to consider need for beds, the identified need had not been proven.  He hoped that PBSA would reduce Houses of Multiple Occupation.

 

With regards to the Section 106 contributions, Councillor Freeman was content with the money allocated to the NHS as the surgery in the city was at full capacity, however there was an existing shortfall in the provision of all types of open space in Durham city area.  The Open Space Needs Assessment had identified a need to protect existing open spaces and provide open space as a key priority in the area.  The report confirmed that the offsite requirement would normally require a significant contribution however the assessment recognised that this could drop to a lesser amount if the applicant was able to look at upgrades to facilities within the site.  As part of the proposals there were proposed upgrades to the existing space in the shopping centre, however it had never been accepted that this was a public space and the scheme would not change this as it was private space.  The city did not lack for nearby public open space, having both the Market Place and Millennium Square and therefore a new public space was not required.  The reduced amount offered by the developer was unacceptable and Councillor Freeman asked the Committee to reconsider if minded to approve the application.

 

M Phillips, addressed the Committee on behalf of the City of Durham Trust and presented a number of slides to Members which included design and site location plans.  He advised that the design of the river frontage deserved the highest quality and it was not good enough to accept the slight proposed enhancement.  It remained intrusive in scale and irregular, and more improvements could be delivered by condition.

 

Mr Phillips advised that the focus of his submission was on cycle parking, the quantity of which was adrift from policy requirements as the Developer had used 2014 standards and reduced the provision by 14%.  There was no space to store nonstandard cycles which was contrary to Neighbourhood Plan policy.  The long stay spaces on the lowest floor of the multistorey, were accessible from river level where cycling was not permitted.  The secure cycle parking would not work as designed and could not be accessed safely and legally.

 

Active Travel England had also made these objections and requested long stay cycle parking accessed from High Street level.  The Developer had made no changes and defended the provision by comparing it with the original shopping centre, which had not included any cycle parking.  A proposed condition to for a small increase in provision if required, included wording which assumed that the provision was for students only.

 

He questioned the acceptability of the Officers assessment of policy failings as limited negative harm weight.  He referred to Air Quality Action Plan which considered that Policy 21, Delivering Sustainable Transport, would be one of the three most effective means to improve air quality in the city.  The Climate Emergency Response Plan also looked to reduce car use and boost walking, cycling, and public transport.  The Developer had failed to deliver adequate cycle parking and failed to deliver Council policies.

 

The Developer had stated that parking could not be sited elsewhere and Mr Phillips suggested various suitable locations.  He suggested that the condition be reworded to require relocated cycle parking at High Street level and redesigned with provision for non-standard cycles.

 

J Taylor addressed the Committee on behalf of the Applicant and confirmed that they had been given the opportunity to acquire the Prince Bishops in 2022 and started discussions with Officers that Autumn.  They had consulted with key stakeholders to shape the scheme before Members.  The Applicant valued public engagement and had been pleased with the extensive engagement and willingness of stakeholders to be involved in the process.

 

The scheme would be transformative for the city centre.  The shopping centre was operating at a significant loss and was not financially sustainable.  It had been built when larger store former national retailers were prevalent, however due to changes in retail, the centre was unable to respond.  It was too expensive for independent retailers and the Applicant was working to address this.  Footfall had halved since 2009 when the centre had peaked in retailer investment value.  There were many factors which had accelerated the decline in more recent times, however it had been gradual over a much longer extended period.

 

Looking forward, Mr Taylor advised that the scheme would reinvigorate the location.  The student population was a major economic driver for the city and was being utilised to reinvent the high street.  The new public space had been designed as an event space and would be publicly accessible at all times, with no vehicular access and a new panoramic view of the city, would be created to appreciate the city assets.  The design had been restricted to the existing massing and the Applicant had made various improvements, as supported by the Councils design officers and Historic England.  With regards to sustainability, it was a high efficiency design, incorporating air source heat pumps and rooftop solar photovoltaic panels.

 

With regards to the comments raised about cycle provision, Mr Taylor confirmed low occupancy rates in the area and made comparisons to Durham Castle at 3% and Durham University at 7%.  The scheme provided 20% and if the demand was there, it would be increased to 40%.

 

With regards to the comments received from the City of Durham Parish Council, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the position had changed slightly after receiving comments from Durham University, however it had not altered the outcome as the need was based on the requirements of international students.  They were increasing by 250 every year and preferred city centre PBSA. Whilst the Parish Council had expressed desire for the provision of a community hub, this was outside of planning remit however she suggested that the Parish Council could liaise with the Developer regards this issue outside of the meeting.

 

The Senior Planning Officer detailed there was a condition which required an updated Construction Management Plan with advice from Environmental Health which would cover any residential amenity impact.  It was also outlined that it was in the Developers interest to consider the needs of existing retail occupiers to ensure they returned to the site.

 

With regards to open space, the Senior Officer explained that the figure for off-site public open space would have been calculated at £645,000 however consideration had been given to whether there were any other suitable sites that would be used by students, but a suitable alternative could not be found.  The Developers had agreed to pay £98,100 for improvements to the Riverside which would also benefit the public.

 

Councillor Elmer queried the contradictory calculations which had been put forward with regards to Section 106 contributions and S Reed, Planning and Development Manager confirmed that if a Developer provided a substantial part of the required open space, it was not uncommon that a greatly reduced financial sum had to be accepted.  This would not be the case if there was no on-site quantified improvements.  Following negotiations with the design team, the proposal included an on-site public square and as a result, the Developer had met a significant part of the open space requirements on site.

 

Councillor Zair left the meeting and did not return.

 

Councillor Wilson acknowledged the improved street scene and approval from Heritage England.  The scheme would improve the retail offer and provide a hotel. The cycle provision was in excess of what Durham University would require and the proposal included contributions that would improve the Riverside.  Given the shopping centres existing status, he moved approval of the application.

 

Councillor Shaw considered the proposal would provide a mix of use in a modern context.  He advised that many local Members were experiencing similar issues with failing High Streets.   The proposal sat well within the historic setting and the hotel would extend visitor stays.  The provision of the student accommodation would not prevent change of use on domestic dwellings, but needs would be met in a less detrimental way and many other benefits would be provided.  The concerns raised by the City of Durham Parish Council were not fundamental reasons to object.

 

Councillor Atkinson confirmed that there was a significant need for the substantial benefits of the scheme.  He had considered the issues raised with regards to the design, cycle parking and the Section 106 contributions, however he supported the recommendation.

 

Councillor Bell considered the application to be positive for Durham City.  The Developer had a proven track record and speakers had acknowledged improvements to the design.  Concerns had been raised about the offer for public open space, however the application was beneficial for Durham and he supported the recommendation. 

 

Councillor Martin noted that with such significant private investment, it was unlikely Developers would include items that were not required.  If opposing HMOs, proper housing had to be provided.  He supported the consolidation of retail and sustainable energy, but would have preferred more.  The application would improve the impact on the medieval city.  He supported the application but having heard from the Parish Council and local Member, he made reference to the Section 106 contributions.  He did not consider that the area was public open space and moved an amendment to the recommendation, to secure more accurate open space funding.

 

Councillor Elmer considered the ability to house in PBSA to be more desirable and it removed the pressure of HMOs.  Appreciating the prominent position of the building, he was pleased that serious consideration had gone into the appearance of the fascia however he suggested that more improvements could have been made.  It was frustrating that water source heat pumps had not been considered, although acknowledged the implementation of air source heat pumps.  The Applicant had responded to concerns about cycle provision and concluded that there was no evidence for demand, however that was due to the existing inadequate provision.  To continue to provide inadequate provision would lead to no change.  He would welcome any opportunity to make the provision more useful, by extending it and making better use of the space.

 

Whilst not a material point, Councillor Elmer referred to the likely cost for a student to rent a room as being more than a large mortgage for a house. He seconded the amendment.

 

Councillor Jopling disagreed that the Section 106 contribution should be reduced due to the existing open space.  This was a prestigious development and she would prefer the estimated contribution to be considered.

 

In response to a question from Councillor Atkinson, N Carter, Planning Solicitor confirmed that a motion had been proposed and seconded to approve the application in accordance with the recommendations outlined in the report.  A subsequent motion which included an amendment to the Section 106 obligation for offsite open space had also been proposed and seconded.

 

It would normally be appropriate for the amendment to be voted on however he advised Members that as there was no policy basis for requesting additional Section 106 contributions and such contributions would not be CIL Regs compliant then there was no lawful reason to approve the application with this requirement.

 

Councillor Atkinson was concerned that the Committee were debating an item that would impact the Applicant, yet they had no opportunity to respond.

 

Councillor Marshall had listened carefully to the debate and did not consider it conducive for the Committee to redesign applications during the meeting.  Following extensive consultation, an application that met the needs of the Council had been received by the Committee.  He welcomed provision of a hotel as the lack of beds in the city was holding the economy back.  He had long advocated for a properly planned and managed approach to the provision of good quality accommodation to resist the temptation for landlords to purchase properties for profit.

 

The application had only received seven formal objections from residents and with £6.8m of private investment in this climate, he hoped the Committee would approve the application with the recommendations outlined in the report.

 

Councillor Martin clarified that he was not asking for a redesign, but he supported the request of local members to re-evaluate the funding allocated.  He respected the legal advice which had been given and suggested that an alternative defensible figure could be considered.  He disagreed with the proportion of public open space that was being delivered, but supported the application.

 

Councillor Atkinson considered it unfair to consider revising the calculated figures.

 

Councillor Wilson suggested that the Committee move to a vote on the substantive motion, given the legal advice that there was no legal basis for the revised financial payments subject of the amendment.

 

Councillor Bell suggested that the issue could have been raised by Members prior to the meeting.  It was not appropriate to consider revising the figure during the meeting and could result in the Applicant revising the design of the public open space.

 

Resolved

 

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in the report and the completion of a Section 106 Planning Obligation to secure the following:

 

·      Contribution to Open Space: £98,100

·      Healthcare provision: £85,680

·      The requirement to enter into a S.39 Agreement to secure the long-term management and maintenance, including a monitoring strategy of the biodiversity land.