Durham City Neighbourhood Plan

The Forum has submitted responses to the following consultations.

Consultations on Article 4 Direction for HMOs and Interim Policy on Student Accommodation

Consultation website. The Council’s consultation covered two proposals which will impact on student accommodation particularly in Durham City. These are:

• an Article 4 Direction which would mean that all future changes of use from a residential property to a HMO (house in multiple occupancy) would require planning consent in Durham City
• an interim policy on HMOs, Student Accommodation and PBSA (purpose built student accommodation

NPF Response Interim Policy 32 and Art 4 Direction Consultation

Durham City Conservation Area Character Appraisal

Consultation website. Durham City Conservation Area has existed since 1968. The Council’s consultation covered:

• a proposed Article 4(2) direction which would remove permitted development rights to make external alterations to some properties
• a revised conservation area boundary
• a draft document covering the City area, and sub-areas within that (Crossgate. Elvet, Framwellgate, Gilesgate, Peninsula), defining the unique characteristics which make the historic city centre so special and identifying negative aspects, threats and opportunities to its preservation and enhancement.

NPF Response Conservation Area Appraisal

Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) Stakeholders Consultation

The purpose of this survey is to assist Durham County Council with its Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) update. The overall purpose of the SHMA update is to enable the Council to identify and understand local housing markets, and to objectively assess the need for market and affordable housing across County Durham. The SHMA will identify the scale, and mix of housing types and tenures required.

NPF Response SHMA Survey

On 15 May, Durham County Council applied for a Judicial Review, challenging the Inspector’s interim report on the Local Plan. The Defendant was the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). The Court has now (24 September) approved a ‘Consent Order’ with DCLG accepting that the Inspector’s conduct of the Examination in Public of the Local Plan was procedurally unsound. The Inspector’s Interim Report is now withdrawn. However, the County Council has to withdraw the Local Plan, amend and refresh it and submit it to another Examination in Public. The Council’s Judicial Review Statement says:

“We now have a resolution which will see the inspector’s interim report quashed and a new examination held under a new inspector as soon as possible. To enable this to happen we will withdraw the plan before resubmitting an amended and refreshed version. This updated plan will proceed through a new public examination providing a further opportunity for all interested parties to have their views heard.”

The ‘Durham City Trust’ and the ‘Friends of the Durham Green Belt’ have issued a press release:

“Durham County Council has shocked campaigners from the City of Durham Trust and the Friends of the Durham Green Belt by withdrawing the controversial County Durham Plan. This means that plans for the future development of County Durham will remain in limbo for at least two more years.

Roger Cornwell, chair of the City of Durham Trust, commented: “Back in February an independent Planning Inspector gave the Council two options: either substantially amend the Plan or withdraw it. They rejected both and launched a high-level legal challenge to the Inspector’s advice. Here we are, more than six months later, and the County Council has ended up back where it started.”

He added “In many ways it is the worst of all worlds, because the County Council intends to produce merely an ‘amended and refreshed’ version of the withdrawn Plan instead of tackling the key faults identified by the Inspector. So there is a real risk that in two years’ time the new Inspector will find the same fundamental flaws and we will be no further forward.”

The decision to withdraw the County Durham Plan was made as part of a compromise deal struck between the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and the County Council. As a result the DCLG has agreed to quash the Inspector’s highly critical Interim Report and in exchange the County Council has agreed to withdraw the Plan.

When the Inspector’s report was published both groups offered to work with the Council to fix the Plan. “Had the Council accepted our offer, we would be six months closer to having a County Durham Plan agreed”, said Kirsty Thomas, Chair of the Friends of the Durham Green Belt. “We are strongly in favour of sustainable development, and want a plan which would help the economic gains to be enjoyed by communities across the County rather than sacrificing the beauty and tranquillity of Durham City’s green belt.”

The DCLG has not conceded that any of the Inspector’s conclusions were wrong. The only point they have accepted is that the Inspector’s conduct of the public enquiry may have been procedurally unfair.”

The ‘Friends of the Durham Green Belt’ will be holding a demonstration on the steps of the Town Hall at 12noon on Saturday 26 September. They are asking local people to join them.

The ‘Chronicle’ has published a news story on this topic.

Planning Application for Student Accommodation
Fram Well House, Diamond Terrace, Durham DH1 5SU
Reference: DM/15/02129/FPA
Deadline for objections 31 August

The proposal is for the demolition of the existing building and a new build of 7 townhouses to accommodate 131 students

Sidegate Residents’ Association has produced a detailed objection to this application, which can be seen at:

http://publicaccess.durham.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=NR89VUGDLFI00

In summary their objections are:

(a) There is no evidence of the need for additional student accommodation or of a partnership between the developer and the University to establish need.

(b) The proposed development would lead to a concentration of student accommodation that would adversely affect the amenities of existing residents.

(c) The proposed site is unsuitable for student accommodation.

(d) The proposed development would encroach on City of Durham’s Green Belt.

(e) The proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area.

(f) The proposed access road to the development is problematic.

For further information contact:

John Lowe
Chair, Sidegate Residents’ Association

Following on from the well- attended Open Meetings at the Town Hall, and the information from the completed questionnaires, the Durham City Centre Neighbourhood Planning Forum have identified the key issues from the information gathered, which will form the basis for the policies to be included in the Neighbourhood Plan.

Sue Childs, a member of the Forum said; “Running as a golden thread throughout the Neighbourhood Plan will be the desire to preserve and promote the unique character and heritage of Durham City Centre, and create a cohesive vision for its future.”

The key messages to emerge from the public consultation include:

• The use of brownfield land for building a wide spectrum of housing types
• Protect and enhance the quality of the street scene
• Provision for recreation and well-being resources for all age groups
• Strengthen tourism
• Safeguard and improve green spaces and the green belt
• Improve provision for cycling, walking and all sustainable transport
• Student accommodation – assessment of need, and protection of resident communities
• Firm and consistent enforcement of existing laws, regulations and conditions

The next stage is to draw up a draft plan, which will then be submitted to a public consultation.

We are senting up a mailing list for all the people who expressed interest in the work of the Forum: we will use this to keep you informed about what the Forum is doing.

If you haven’t already expressed an interest to be kept up to date, or be more actively involved, contact us on   If you live, work or run a business in the Durham City Centre area covered by the Forum you can apply to join the Forum. Details are available here.

The Inspector’s Interim Report on the County Durham Local Plan states that policies 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, and 32 are unsound and that policies 9 and 10 should be deleted. These policies cover the following aspects:

• Policy 6: Durham City
• Policy 7: Aykley Heads
• Policy 8: Durham City Strategic Sites
• Policy 12: Executive Housing Allocation
• Policy 13: Other Executive Housing Proposals
• Policy 32: Houses in Multiple Occupation and Student Accommodation

and

• Policy 9: Western Relief Road
• Policy 10: Northern Relief Road

For the Council and objectors responses to this Interim report look at the letters pages of local newspapers, and press releases.

A parliamentary debate on the Local Plan was held in Westminster Hall on 3^rd March, after which the County Council issued this press release, announcing they were to have a meeting with the Planning Inspectorate.

The NPF was a party to this correspondence with the Planning Inspectorate, seeking a meeting with them to balance the meeting that the Council representatives were having.

On 22^nd January 2015, 6.30 to ~8.00pm, a public meeting on student accommodation was held in the Town Hall. The meeting was called and chaired by Roberta Blackman-Woods, the MP for Durham City. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss planning applications and schemes in development for purpose built student accommodation in the City centre. The schemes discussed comprised: The County Hospital, Lower Claypath, Kepier Court, Berendsen Laundry and The Gates.

The meeting raised a number of issues and concerns about these schemes:

Design & Scale

The design, massing and scale of the proposed buildings are inappropriate, and damaging to the character of the areas they are located in. For the County Hospital and Lower Claypath schemes, which are in strategic positions in the conservation area, this will be detrimental to the historic character and buildings of the City, affect views to and from the World Heritage site, and result in a negative impact on tourism. The potential for refurbishing and making the historic buildings a central focus of the schemes is not being realised.

Population & Housing

The schemes are located in areas which already have large student populations, e.g. estimated at 87-88% in the viaduct area, ~90% in the Kepier Court area. They will worsen the already significantly unbalanced community in the City centre. Suggestions were made for other uses for these sites, e.g. housing for families, older people and young professionals, retail and commercial properties, cultural amenities and amenities for tourists. Though students do contribute to the economy of the City centre, they are only present for ~6/7 months of the year. In vacations, businesses are negatively affected. A more balanced community would bring year-long economic activity to the City centre. Additionally, students and the owners of full-time student accommodation are exempt from paying council tax.

The concentration of significant numbers of students in the City centre which is also the main evening leisure centre for the surrounding areas raises concerns about antisocial behaviour and safety of individuals.

The argument for purpose built student accommodation is that this will result in students moving from terrace housing in the City centre and thereby releasing his housing for permanent residents. This outcome is not obvious: what do the students think? Will owners of buy-to-let properties just lower prices leading to a bidding war? Will unused properties be saleable, or will they stay empty and deteriorate? How much money will need to be spent on returning these properties to family homes? The reclaiming of such properties will require action and management by the Council and the involvement of organisations such as housing associations.

Infrastructure

The impact of these schemes on the infrastructure of the City centre has not been considered. The schemes provide little or no off street parking. Students living out of college cannot be prevented from bringing cars to Durham. Even if only a minority of students bring cars, this will have a significant negative impact on car parking and level of traffic in the narrow and constrained streets in the City centre. The pressure at the beginning and end of terms will be huge as students arrive or depart en masse. Emergency access to these schemes is poor. The Berendsen Laundry is located on a busy intersection on the main A167 road and near to two schools. This raises safety concerns for the schoolchildren, as well as for the students. Students will also have a large impact on the bus services on routes from the City centre to University sites.

Policy & Need

An effective policy on purpose built student accommodation and houses in multiple occupancy is required. This policy needs to be implemented and its implementation monitored and enforced. The County Council produced a policy for student accommodation – Policy 32, Houses in Multiple Occupation and Student Accommodation – in the Durham County Local Plan. At the Examination in Public of the County Plan, local residents argued that this policy was completely ineffective and unsound. The Inspector required the Council to hold a meeting with objectors to try and improve the policy. Until the Inspector’s decision on the Plan, and his views on Policy 32, have been published and considered it is premature for the Council to make any planning decisions about proposals for purpose built student accommodation.

There is no need for this quantity of purpose built student accommodation. The University has a moderate growth strategy with an increase of only ~500 in student numbers up to 2020. They have plans to increase the percentage of student beds in University colleges to a minimum of 50%.

The schemes need to be considered as a whole, not as individual, isolated proposals, because of the cumulative effect they will have on the balance of the City’s community and the nature, character, and infrastructure of the City centre.

Actions

The following actions were agreed:

• Roberta Blackham-Woods will write to the Council and to the Inspector.
• Individual residents should write to the Council about their views on individual applications.
• The residents groups in the City centre should hold a joint meeting to consider joint action.
• Volunteers for the Durham City Neighbourhood Planning Forum are needed.

The next meeting of the Durham City Neighbourhood Planning Forum will be held on Friday 5th September in The Miners’ Hall, Redhills. The meeting is for Forum members only. Minutes of Forum meetings will be placed on this website.

The Examination in Public of the County Durham Plan has started. The first event held was a Pre-Hearing Meeting in the County Durham Cricket Ground on 31st July. I attended this meeting on behalf of the Forum.  At the meeting the Inspector explained the procedural details for the EiP. The first hearings will start on 1st October. For details of the EiP plus relevant documents vist the Council’s consultation website. The Forum is planning to attend the hearing sessions relevant to the Durham City area covered by the Forum. A copy of the response we made to the pre-submision version of the Plan is available: Forum Response County Plan Consultation. Deadlines for action on the EiP: 8th August: apply to attend specific sessions; 29th August: submit documents for each of these sessions.

The next meeting of the Durham City Neighbourhood Planning Forum will be held on Friday 25 April at 2pm in The Miners’ Hall, Redhills. The meeting is for Forum members only. Minutes of Forum meetings will be placed on this website.