Agenda item

Demolition of existing garage/workshop buildings in association with development of student accommodation scheme.

 

The Committee considered a report of the Principal Planning Officer regarding the demolition of existing garage/workshop buildings in association with the development of a student accommodation scheme (for copy see file of Minutes).

 

The Principal Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included photographs of the site.  Members had visited the site earlier in the day and were familiar with the location and setting.

 

The Principal Planning Officer advised the Committee of late updates to the application, made since the report had been prepared and circulated, as follows:

 

In relation to Condition 2 of application 4/12/00851/FPA – The condition should refer to plan no. D210_03 B and not C.

 

In relation to Condition 8 of application 4/12/00851/FPA – The sustainable transport officer has requested additional cycle storage, which is allowed for under condition 5.  

 

In relation to Condition 20 of application 4/12/00851/FPA – Variation to specifically refer to accreditation by the management company, parking/access control as well as the management plan.

 

An extra condition to be added for the agreement of existing and proposed ground levels prior to work commencing.

 

One further letter of support had also been received.

 

Councillor G Holland, local member, addressed the Committee. In stating that the application was one of the most significant he had ever seen, he dealt with three key themes – the purpose of the development, whether the development was needed and whether the development was appropriate.

 

In addressing the issue of the purpose of the development, Councillor Holland believed this to be speculative.

 

In addressing the issue of whether the development was necessary, Councillor Holland argued that it wasn’t. In quoting from a letter of the University’s Director of Estates and Buildings, Councillor Holland informed the Committee that the University were opposed to the development, further advising that the University were in consultation with the Council on developing an accommodation strategy which the County Durham Plan would provide support for.

 

Councillor Holland believed that the development would jeopardise the transition of the area and the application made no reference as to how the premises would be managed.

 

The design allowed for little social space and the developer had neglected to engage with the University on management issues. Furthermore Councillor Holland informed the Committee that not only did the University not support the proposals, nor did the Police.

 

In addressing the issue of whether the development was appropriate for the surrounding conservation area, Councillor Holland argued that it was wholly inappropriate. It would be a speculative build of no long term benefit, which would double the population of that area and have detrimental impact on drainage systems, and local residents. It was inevitable that the introduction of 223 students to a residential area would have an adverse impact on families already living in the area.

 

Whilst Councillor Holland acknowledged that the site was in need of restoration, he felt a holistic approach should be taken and any development should be linked in with the recently approved housing development in that area.

 

Councillor Holland informed the Committee that the proposals were contrary to various planning policies and was wholly unsuited to a conservation area. He called for the application to be refused.

 

Councillor N Martin, local member, addressed the Committee. He began by declaring an interest in that the owner of the site was a neighbour of his however having sought advice from the Monitoring Officer, would speak on the item as they did not have a close association.

 

In addressing the issue of the impact of students in the area, Councillor Martin informed the Committee that he had 34 years experience of supporting students professionally, and was as such aware of the issues which could arise. He believed that the introduction of a large number of students would have a big impact on local residents, in particular, the generating of noise particularly late at night.

 

Councillor Martin felt that there was insufficient communal space within the proposed development which was not conducive to the social interaction of the students, meaning they would inevitably “spill out” of the development into the area outside.

 

Councillor Martin informed the Committee that the management company who would operate the site were a newly established company and as such had no proven track record. The company could seek accreditation from Unipol who Councillor Martin knew to have expensive experience and were well established, he therefore requested that if the Committee were minded to approve the application, a condition be imposed requiring the appropriate accreditation to be sought.

 

Councillor Martin informed the Committee that the University did not support the development and had been unable to make contact with the developer to discuss the proposals. It was imperative that the management company established a good working relationship with the University and Councillor Martin suggested a further condition be imposed on the application requiring the management company to establish a clear memorandum of understanding with the University as to how the premises should effectively be run.

 

Mr G Bishop, a committee member of Friends of Flass Vale, addressed the Committee. Mr Bishop informed the Committee that Flass Vale was a conservation site with nature reserve status and the Friends of Flass Vale had concerns about the proposed development because of the impact it could have on the Vale.

 

The heights of the three buildings would be immense and had limited architectural merit, not in keeping with the setting which included various listed buildings. Furthermore the development had a distinct lack of carparking spaces and drop off bays, which also gave cause for concern. The footprint of the development was extensive and was completely out of character for the area.

 

Mr Bishop informed Members that the drainage system for the area had overloaded on several occasions and this issue would only be intensified by the development.

 

Other issues included light pollution which would have a detrimental effect on bats and badgers, as well as noise pollution and the risk of irresponsible behaviour, all of which could impact on the areas wildlife.

 

Mr Bishop suggested that the design to be reduced by 1 storey and the footprint of the development to be reduced. He called for the Committee to reject the current application.

 

Ms J Levitas, local resident, addressed the Committee. She informed the Committee that the University felt that the development infringed policy H16 and would have a detrimental effect on the area. A significant proportion of complaints made to the University related to disorderly behaviour, drunkenness and rowdy behaviour, all causing distress to local residents.

 

In relation to managing students at the development, Ms Levitas informed the Committee that noise from parties within the premises was not the issue, it would be noise on the streets surrounding the development which would be the issue. Indeed the main thoroughfare for students making their way to and from the city centre would be predominantly residential.

 

It was widely acknowledged that many students did not embark into the night-time economy until nearing midnight and they were very noisy, it was therefore going to be made worse for the residents in the streets surrounding the development with the introduction of 223 students.

 

Ms Levitas concluded by stating that the University were in favour of seeing the site developed however were keen that families and children were encouraged to the area.

 

Mr G Pearson, local resident, addressed the Committee. In relation to blocks 2 and 3 of the proposed development, Mr Pearson informed the Committee that two thirds of the space encroached onto the nature reserve area.

 

An immediate neighbour to Mr Pearson had done an assessment of the people who resided in the area and had concluded that once the 223 entered the area, the proportion of students to long term residents would be 1:23 respectively.

 

Mr R Coleman, local resident, addressed the Committee and was permitted to circulate to Members a copy of his presentation. He believed the key issue regarding the proposed development to be the damaging effect that the development would have on the quality of life of residents for a generation and beyond. This was an issue he believed was of overriding importance more so in light of the fact that permission had recently been granted for a housing development in close proximity to the site which would introduce a further 50 residents to the area.

 

Mr Coleman believed the proposals to be contrary to the Governments sustainability objectives and applicable policies. He highlighted that the stated objective in the Local Plan Preferred Options was to attract families to come and live in Durham. He highlighted that the officers report did acknowledge the potential issues concerned, at paragraphs 114 and 138. However at paragraph 186 he felt there to be a contradiction in the conclusion made by officers.

 

Mr Coleman spoke of the harm that the development would inflict on local residents, such as substantial noise, particularly at night. In supporting his concerns Mr Coleman drew attention to the views of the Area Planning Policy Team and the Police Architectural Liaison Officer detailed within the report.

 

Furthermore he highlighted the strong opposition of the University to the proposals, quoting from a letter sent to the Planning Officers from the Durham University Estates and Buildings department.

 

Mr Coleman felt that the application and the report showed a total disregard for the existing problems of student noise in the area and the distress it already caused to neighbours, quoting from a statement written by a resident of Waddington Street.

 

Mr Coleman expressed concerns that the development would exist outside of the framework of the University’s supervision and control, believing that student accommodation of such a large size could only work if it was integrated into the college and university structure where the university could actively perform a disciplinary and pastoral role.

 

Quoting from paragraph 104 of the report, Mr Coleman stated that he believed that there had been ample demonstration that the development should be considered contrary to Policy H16.

 

He also believed that although Environmental Health had made no objections to the development, that was because late night noise from students was something which was outside of their remit.

 

Mr Coleman raised concerns over road safety, informing the Committee that the approach roads and footpaths leading to the development were very narrow and that Ainsley Street and Waddington Street already met at a dangerous blind junction, situated where traffic from the new residential development at the bus depot site would join that street. He believe that the traffic required to support a further 223 students would substantially add to existing traffic in the area. Although he noted that the Highway Authority has raised no objections to the proposals, he referred to advice from the Highways Agency on the planning website, which was confined to the issue as to whether there was sufficient room for service and refuse vehicles to turn, as well as raising the question of emergency access. He felt that the report recommendations did not take into account that important relevant consideration.

 

Mr Coleman informed the Committee that he believed the proposals contravened numerous policies including H13 and H16 of the Local Plan, as well as paragraphs 58 and 123 of the NPPF.

 

He believed there to be no long term benefits of the development at a number of levels. The University objected to the proposals, he felt that students would not benefit from living in a premises which lacked all the benefits of the collegiate model and in a location removed from the hub of the University, and there would be an inevitable detrimental impact on local residents. Mr Coleman concluded by stating that to grant permission would show a reckless disregard for the interests of local residents in particular, but also for the clearly stated interests of the University and the student body for which it was responsible. He called on the Committee to reject the application.

 

Mr J Parkinson, applicant, addressed the Committee. He informed the Committee that every effect of the proposals had been thoroughly examined, as required.

 

In referring to the NPPF which advocated that new sustainable development should go ahead without delay, he argued that this was a vacant site with good transport links and the proposals were meeting a very definite need within the City, for the provision of further student accommodation.

 

He felt that the concerns of the University were unjustified and highlighted that they had not put forward any accommodation strategy for scrutiny. He continued that as and when the University did develop such a strategy, the proposed development would not jeopardise that in any way.

 

He acknowledged it was vitally important to engage with the University and stated that the developer had requested a meeting with the University on 25 August 2012.

 

Mr Parkinson informed the Committee that the University was growing at speed, stating that between 2006-12 there had been approximately a 10% increase in the number of full time students. Furthermore, the University’s strategic document for 2010-20 stated that there would be a drive to recruit more mature, overseas students. He argues that the University was unlikely to provide high quality accommodation which was required in the short term.

 

The primary aim of the proposed development was to cater for post graduate international students, which he believed would alleviate concerns of anti social behaviour and respect for the surrounding area. He argued that the development would not have an adverse effect on residents in the area, highlighting the opinion of the Environmental Health officer.

 

A draft management plan had been submitted to the University and the Council, which reflected the University Code of Conduct. The development would be safe, secure and socially acceptable, and Mr Parkinson had no objections to the suggested conditions to be imposed on the permission.

 

Mr Parkinson highlighted that the company had spent 9 months working with the Council to achieve an acceptable design balance, and all concerns raised by officers had been allayed.

 

The Principal Planning Officer responded to the issues raised as follows:

• He disagreed that the development was speculative, rather there was a definite need and an ever increasing demand for student accommodation within the city. In relation to a future strategy, he informed the Committee that there was a short term need for student accommodation in the city which he did not feel the University were able to provide in the short term on their own;
• The concerns about the number of students in the viaduct area was acknowledged and it was further noted that this number had been increasing for some years. As such the contained development was a preferable option;.
• In referring to the issue of communal space within the development, he stated that the development would be a residential environment rather than a social one, and it was felt that keeping communal space to a minimum was beneficial to the surrounding area;
• In relation to the Management Company, the Committee were assured that the Planning Officers would specify that the management company achieved accreditation, acknowledging that this was essential for a legitimate scheme.
• Scale of Development – The rear of the development would be level with the Miners Hall and whilst the development may have an impact, it would not be detrimental in the context of the surroundings, the topography of the area would naturally frame the development;

 

Councillor Taylor acknowledged the complexity of the issues raised and though he would have preferred to have seen a residential application for the area, he appreciated that the current application was the only proposal for the site. He found the proposals to offer a good and acceptable layout and was pleased that the inhabitants would be likely mature students. He moved approval of the application.

 

Councillor Moran acknowledged that the issue was very emotive. He felt it would be helpful to know how many new students were expected to enter the city each year and how many would be seeking accommodation. Councillor Martin pointed out that any TO LET signs which were visible in student areas at the present time did not denote current vacancies, rather they were displaying signs to attract students for the next academic year.

 

Councillor Robinson was satisfied with the application with the inclusion of the condition relating to the accreditation of the management company.

 

Councillor Charlton also acknowledged that the application and the arguments given by both sides made the issue a difficult one to determine, however she could see no reason to refuse the application.

 

Councillor Freeman agreed, acknowledging that additional purpose built accommodation was required and was not being provided by the University. He felt that the development would only begin to address accommodation problems but felt that it could see some students leaving residential areas to move into the purpose built accommodation.

 

Resolved:

That the application be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in the report and the late representations outlined at the start by the Principal Planning Officer including specific reference in condition 20 to accreditation of the management company.