Agenda item

Reserved Matters submission for the matters of Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale pursuant to hybrid planning permission DM/20/01846/FPA, to create a Data Centre and ancillary office space (Use Class E(g)(ii)) with associated landscaping and infrastructure on Plot D

The Committee considered the following applications for the Variation of Conditions 1 (Approved Plans), 2 (Floor Space and Use Classes), 5 (Travel Plan) and 10 (Ecology) pursuant to hybrid planning permission DM/20/01846/FPA, to create a Data Centre and ancillary office space (Use Class E(g)(ii)) with associated landscaping and infrastructure on Plot D, and Reserved Matters submission for the matters of Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale pursuant to hybrid planning permission DM/20/01846/FPA, to create a Data Centre and ancillary office space (Use Class E(g)(ii)) with associated landscaping and infrastructure on Plot D, on Land at Aykley Heads, Framwelgate Peth, Durham, DH1 5UQ (for copies see file of minutes).

The Senior Planning Officer gave a detailed joint presentation which included a copy of the Aykley Heads Masterplan which had been previously approved in January 2021, a site location plan, aerial photographs, site photographs from various locations of the site, a previously approved Parameter Plan at Plot D, a proposed Parameter Plan at Plot D, a proposed site plan Plot D (Reserved Matters), and various illustrative elevations with details of the proposed height and materials.

The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that following publication of the report, Durham University had responded to comments received from the City of Durham Trust and two Members of the public, to confirm that they had considered a number or alternative sites in the Durham City area and Plot D was considered the most suitable.

In relation to Condition 7 set out at the bottom of the Reserved Matters report, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that this condition required further documents to be submitted which related to tree protection measures during the construction period.  The required documents had been submitted by the Applicant, and the Landscape officer had advised that they were acceptable. The updated tree report and construction management plan would therefore be added to the approved plans list under Condition 1, and Condition 7 was to be removed, as it was no longer necessary.

The second update was regarding Condition 8, which was set out at the bottom of the Reserved Matters report.  Condition 8 required further documents to be submitted which related to technical drainage matters.  The Applicant had since submitted further documents as required by Condition 8, in an effort to remove the condition.  The Drainage officer had not yet had the opportunity to consider the details and therefore had been unable to advise whether they were acceptable.  It was therefore considered that Condition 8 was still required, to secure the submission and consideration of those plans.

The Senior Committee Services Officer read out a statement from Councillor L Brown which was also on behalf of Councillor E Scott.  Local Members were both in support of the applications.

The original application was granted permission in January 2021 so the presumption of development was in place.  The original permission as laid out in Policy 3 of the County Plan referred to class B1 development.  This classification no longer existed and was class E(g) which encompassed this application, however a variation of condition had been submitted which could not be refused in the circumstances.

The Aykley Heads Strategic Employment Site was originally going to provide 4000-6000 jobs, but this aspirational figure was no longer achievable in this post covid world and latest figures showed that showed that 9.9% of office space in regional centres was lying empty (6.6% in London). This equated to 105 million square feet of empty office space across the country, which is a lot of space to fill before building starts on this site.

Local Members saw this development as a catalyst which would bring other high technology companies into the area. Durham University was regularly ranked among the top 10 universities in the UK and given the advancement of AI, it required IT provision to go with this.  The one caveat shared by both the Parish Council and the City of Durham Trust was that they would prefer to have seen the heat generated by the centre utilised in some way rather than wasted.  Although this was not a material planning consideration it was something that needed to be considered. The Queen Mary University in London had recently announced it was using its data centre heat to warm campus buildings. The technology was there and Local Members hoped it could be applied to this scheme.

City of Durham Parish Councillor G Holland addressed the Committee on behalf of the Parish Council.  He referred to the balance of the applications when measured against the integrity and interpretation of the Aykley Heads Masterplan, as well as the specific parameters for the development of Plot D which had been carefully drafted and approved in January 2021.  At the time, the Parish Council believed they provided a substantive guideline which defined the layout and use on each of the identified development areas.

From the outset the Parish Council had made it very clear that they fully supported the University and the ambitious programme to bring a supercomputer driven Data Centre to Durham City.  Its presence would benefit and lift the profile of both the University and the city, and it would enhance the North East.  The reason that both applications had been called to Committee was not to block its progress but to give residents the opportunity to understand this proposed initiative, as it related to the special role of the Aykley Heads Strategic Employment Site and the community.

He referred to the Applicant’s document L009 and advised that the Parish Council still felt there were three unresolved matters.  Although reference had been made to justifying the very low number of jobs on site, this justification was missing from L009. This was important to sustain one key purpose of the Aykley Heads Strategic Employment Site, namely for achieving 4,000 jobs across the whole site.  The response in the report was inadequate. 

Councillor Holland continued that the building parameters for Plot D had recommended three buildings each with a 1,000sqm footprint.  This had been converted this into a single footprint of over 3,000 square metres and the document stated that this would merely increase the maximum floorspace parameter by 1,032sqm and that this was minor when viewed within the context of the wider scheme.  The parameters for Plot D however had identified three separate units which had been at least 15 metres apart, with trees retained between each unit to maintain the parkland quality for which Aykley Heads had been promoted.  This constraint had been set aside. 

L009 also lacked adequate details about how waste heat would be captured and re-distributed. All which had been offered was a schematic diagram of cooling systems, with no location for the necessary pumps, and no information on whether external modifications were required.  Any heat transfer scheme relied on building allocations on adjacent sites.  To justify this significant deviation from the original design, it had been argued that the approved 2020 Masterplan was indicative only, that consent for the wider Masterplan was outline only and that the arrangement on Plot D was one of many design arrangements that could have been put forward at reserved matters stage.  This justification had confused the indicative nature of the Masterplan with the highly specific parameters for Plot D set out in the planning application approved in January 2021 and it was reasonable for the Parish Council to ask under what circumstances such carefully designed requirements were able to be set aside.

Councillor Holland suggested that to an extent the officer’s report echoed this document when it justified these exceptional circumstances under the guise of functional need and he wondered how many times the persuasive cover of functional need would be used again in the future.

The Parish Council considered the application had been recommended in haste to approve a worthwhile scheme however it was vital that the Committee re-affirmed that Aykley Heads was for the creation of 4,000 high quality jobs on a site with high design standards.  If not, it could be too easy for any future applications to step outside of the essential qualities which had been designed to safeguard Aykley Heads as the premier employment site in the County.

Councillor Holland advised that Durham’s location and fitness to host the Data Centre was beyond question.  It would service not only the five regional universities but also would provide opportunities in areas such as Healthcare, Life Sciences, Finance, Engineering and Manufacturing and therein lay its employment potential.  Furthermore, in a national setting Durham was perfectly located between Bristol, Cambridge and Edinburgh with a university fully qualified to manage and make best use of the 4th of these major research centres.  Every effort should be directed towards Durham University joining the elite group of Bristol, Cambridge and Edinburgh.

In response to the government’s cautious statement on 2 August 2024, and to achieve that goal in a financially competitive world, it was important that the strongest possible research and political reasons were presented to central government via the wider university community.  Furthermore, Mary Foy MP was giving the project her full personal support, a support which might usefully include her fellow MPs whose university-based constituencies would also benefit from this Data Centre.  In conclusion the Parish Council fully supported the application and wished Durham University and the Council every success with this initiative.

Mr Gemmill addressed the Committee on behalf of the City of Durham Trust and in objection to the proposals.  He had prepared a slideshow presentation to accompany his speech.

The Aykley Heads Masterplan had aimed to attract new businesses to Durham and create 4,000 jobs by providing high quality accommodation within in a parkland setting.  Detailed parameters for Plot D had been set out with a cohesive design language for the whole site.  The proposal had claimed to only slightly exceed the original approved parameters, however it would have a much larger floor area.  A tree belt would be removed and the area would be filled with large box 14m high, with a similar appearance to a warehouse and a 2.4m security fence to worsen this appearance.  These significant amendments were a major departure from the original Masterplan.

Other aspects of the proposal were equally concerning.  Instead of attracting hundreds of jobs, the facility would only create 15 jobs on site.  This application would contribute nothing to the job target for this designated strategic employment site.  The supposed further benefits of the scheme to attract businesses were entirely speculative and no indications of likely use other than by the university, had been offered.  Durham University had argued that it had evaluated several locations and found none other suitable, however no details of these assessments had been provided.  They had also accepted that operations would mainly be carried out remotely so there was no need for users of the facility to be located nearby. 

The final issue was the lack of sustainability.  Despite generating significant heat, it would be wasted and only due to the Parish Councils interference had any thought been given to how this could be fed into a future district heating scheme.  Mr Gemmill suggested that the Council had facilitated the applications in haste to support Durham University’s bid to host a supercomputer, despite it not being the right building or location and without sufficient grounds to deviate from a carefully considered Masterplan.

Mr Hurlow addressed the Committee on behalf of the City of Durham Trust in objection to the proposal.  He had prepared a slideshow presentation to accompany his speech.  The application failed to deliver on the promise of a high quality business park.  It offered a building that fell short of the expected standards and with added intrusive security fencing, the design would not disguise that it was a featureless large block.  The use was not what had been intended for the site and landscaping was not in accordance with the original submission.  The proposal resulted in the loss of mature trees which had been protected by the parameters of the original design and the jobs created was insignificant compared to the original target.  This was not an appropriate site and he suggested that the Masterplan should have been revised rather than changes being made plot by plot.

Ms Folley addressed the Committee on behalf of the Applicant of item no. 5b).  The application to facilitate the construction of a Data Centre was integral to Durham Universities’ advanced research potential and would replace underutilised brownfield land.  The scheme was acceptable in principle and the amendments were minor when viewed in context of the wider scheme.  The Data Centre would enhance the universities offer, support technology and generate new jobs with advanced skills.  It would also act as a catalyst for market exposure.  The scheme had a low environmental impact and facilitated a connection to any future heating system.  The benefits of the scheme aligned with both national and local policy and overall it was a sustainable project with wide benefits.

Mr Bain addressed the Committee on behalf of the Applicant in relation to item no. 5c).  Durham University generated over 11,000 jobs in the region, making it one of the largest employers and many of its students remained in the North East.  The success of the university had raised the global profile of both the city and the region.  The scheme would provide a high-performance computer in the heart of Durham with physical hardware to attract businesses and it would contribute to the science transformation programme.  The location would deliver the greatest benefits for the university and the county.  The Data Centre had been designed for one or more super computers, not just for use by distant users.  It was a research facility for academics and other organisations seeking to use technology to enhance business and it would attract businesses to the area.

Mr Bain confirmed that alternative locations had been considered however none had been suitable.  The University had consulted with key stakeholders and were grateful for the support of Councillor Holland.  Considerable engagement and consultation had been undertaken and it was important to note that the project depended on external funding which would more likely be granted with the benefit of planning consent.

In response to a question from Councillor Elmer regarding the use of excessive heat, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that further information had been received to confirm that the design was capable of redirecting heat through the local heat network and this could be secured through a condition.

Councillor Shaw referred to the original Masterplan which contained significant economic benefits.  He questioned whether approval of this application would impact on the projected number of jobs and if so, whether alternative provision was being considered.  The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that Officers would try to maximise employment on other plots as they came forward, however planning permission was not required for a change of use.  The merit of any future applications would be considered as and when they were submitted.  He was unable to confirm whether the target of 4500 jobs was still a possibility as no other applications had been received.  The Planning and Development Manager added that this figure had been the suggestive target of an earlier application and reminded the Committee that projected figures for employment and similarly outline housing were always subject to a degree of flexibility.  Officers in both Economic Development and Corporate Property and Land had been consulted and deemed the applications appropriate to move the site forward.  Whilst this application would not provide jobs in isolation it was considered innovative and Officers were confident it was in accordance with the employment led aspirations that were set out in Policy 3 of the local plan.

Councillor Martin agreed with some of the concerns raised by the City of Durham Trust however he had always considered the aspiration to provide over 4000 jobs too difficult to deliver.  The point of developing the site was to provide jobs in the city.  The use of the building was not up for discussion and whilst the long-term strategic objectives were a concern, there were no grounds to argue that the application would harm the overall development aims.  The original plan was to develop the site in stages and if rejected, there would be a wait for future developments.  Although he had concerns, he could see no reason to reject the development.

Councillor Boyes questioned the debate on employment as the application was to determine whether the plans submitted for the amendments to the building were acceptable.  The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that Members were being asked to determine the suitability of the building, including scale, layout, appearance and landscaping.

The Planning Development Manager confirmed that the original approved development could have been submitted without the requirement for a change of use.  He added that there was acceptance from all parties, including the Economic Development team, that this development would create additional jobs, was in accordance with the allocation to bring forward high quality employment use, and it would increase the sites attractiveness overall.

Councillor Shaw agreed with comments from the City of Durham Trust; that the site should have been developed in accordance with the agreed Masterplan.  He was concerned that similar applications could be received with equally disappointing employment benefits and it would be a wasted opportunity.  This site was the most strategically important site in the county and he wanted assurance that applications would be in accordance with the original approval.  The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that as the case officer for the wider site, he could ensure that all applications were referred to the Committee if they were likely to lead to a comparable loss.   It was difficult to refuse the application based on what may happen on other plots.  Councillor Shaw remained concerned and suggested that a new masterplan was developed.

Councillor Bell agreed with the validity of the points raised regarding employment, however he reminded Members that there had been significant changes to working arrangements since 2021.  The number of jobs in the Masterplan had been aspirational and the Committee could only consider application before them.  He moved a motion to approve both applications in accordance with the recommendations outlined in the reports and the amendments reported by the Senior Planning Officer.

Councillor Oliver confirmed that whilst important to ensure there were jobs in the city, this was not the scope of the decision to be made.  The question was not whether the Data Centre was an acceptable scheme as it did not require permission.  He remained optimistic about the potential of the site in terms of the comments made by Durham University.  The jobs created would be of high value.  He seconded the motion to approve the applications.

Resolved:

      i.         That application DM/24/02829/VOC be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in the report.

     ii.         That application DM/24/02888/RM be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in the report and the amendments outlined by the Senior Planning Officer.