County Hospital Development

Correspondence between the developers and the County Council

On 25 November 2014, Roger Cornwell, who chairs both the City of Durham Trust and the Crossgate Community Partnership, submitted a freedom of information request to the County Council for details of meetings between the developers and the Council, and for copies of any correspondence. This has now been received, along with this covering sheet. Meetings took place on 29 September and 25 November, but we have been advised that there are no recorded notes or minutes of either meeting.

The correspondence we have is between Andrew Inch, Team Leader, DCC Strategic Planning Office and Simon Chadwick, Managing Director of Signet Planning.

The following documents were also attached. We have not yet had time to ascertain whether the plans are the same as the ones submitted with the new planning application, or whether they were subject to further revision:

Plans
Proposed building: fifth floor
Proposed building: sixth floor
Proposed building: seventh floor
Proposed building: eighth floor (NB this shows the roof, not living accommodation)
Proposed Roof Plan
Proposed site section
Proposed elevations: Block B Stair 2
Proposed elevations: Block B Stair 3
Proposed elevations - Hub

Other documents
Draft Statement of Common Ground (accompanied email of 26 September)
Letter 8 October , Simon Chadwick to Andrew Inch, following meeting of 29 September
Sketches showing revised proposals (accompanied letter of October 8)
Letter, 31 October, Andrew Inch to Simon Chadwick: “…it is Officers view that the reduced height, scale and massing would be capable of overcoming the reason for refusal.”
Revised landscape layout plan (accompanied email of 21 November)

The sequence of emails and meetings is:

21-Aug-2014 10:08:50 Simon Chadwick to Andrew Inch
Andrew,
I wanted to update you on where we are with the County Hospital site. Following the refusal of planning permission we have taken legal advice in relation to progressing with an appeal and moving forward with potentially a new application. We are going to be lodging an appeal and also look at a new application. As you know the 2014 Planning Appeal Procedures Regulations require appellants to carry out quite a lot more work than was previously the case in terms of lodging an appeal. Included within that work is the production of a draft statement of common ground with the Council and any other relevant parties. I am therefore going to be asking that you co-operate in the production of a first draft statement of common ground on the relevant points. Given English Heritage’s involvement, Caroline Hardie is going to be talking to them separately about a SCG with them.
I am going to be on leave for the next couple of weeks and will hopefully have a draft SCG available when I return on 9 September. I will therefore endeavour to send you a draft in that week and then we might want to meet to go through the document. Obviously from going through Peter Herbert’s committee report and just from knowledge of the issues, it seems to me we can agree a lot of material in the SCG – indeed the reasons for refusal only really cover one issue albeit the implications of that issue are relating to conservation, heritage and residential amenity aspects. We would like to continue the discussions in relation to scale and massing issues under both headings of appeal and new application upon my return.
Kind regards
Simon
Simon Chadwick
Managing Director
15-Sep-2014 09:47 Simon Chadwick to Andrew Inch
Andrew,
Further to my email at the end of last week on the SCG and further discussions on potential new application, are you able to meet some time on Thursday this week as that will be most convenient for myself and the architects.
Kind regards
Simon
Simon Chadwick
Managing Director
15-Sep-2014 12:45:16 Simon Chadwick to Andrew Inch
Andrew,
I have recently returned from leave and would like to make some progress in terms of trying to agree the content of the new planning application on the hospital site and also the Statement of Common Ground for the appeal. My client is likely to be lodging an appeal as I have previously informed you. As far as the Statement of Common Ground is concerned I think it would be helpful to agree with principles of its content at this stage and perhaps you could confirm my understanding based on Peter Herbert’s report in that:
  1. There is no objection from the Council to the principle of student accommodation on the site.
  2. We can agree the relevant policies applying and the status of them (some of these are also in Peter’s report) but we can probably enlarge upon the policies that have been considered and with which the proposals do not conflict.
  3. The planning history of the site – this can be factual.
  4. A site description – we can agree as factual matters what is currently on the site; the building heights; the floorspace; footprint etc.
  5. The pre-application process – I think we will be able to agree that was carried out in liaison with the planning officers and the Statement of Community Involvement is an accurate representation of that.
Obviously the matter between the parties as far as the refusal is concerned is the issue of scale and massing as covered in the two reasons for refusal.
Caroline Hardie is dealing separately with English Heritage to try and achieve some common ground with them in terms of their consultation advice. We can refer to their letters as matters of fact in terms of the consultation and determination process.
The key thing for us to agree, if we can, is the difference between the parties on the scale and massing issue. We have discussed this before. Our view is that we can say the common ground on this issue is provided in the meeting notes of 23 May. I have attached these but I am sure you are familiar with them.
I have also asked John Freeman from Church Lukas to prepare sketches of a potential scheme which shows the changes that are referred to in these notes.
Could we please arrange as meeting to go through the common ground issues. If you are happy with the principles I have set out above I will draft something that we can discuss at the meeting. I would not envisage the meeting would be necessarily dealing with the acceptability of the design issues for a new application but we will be happy to discuss those further because we are intending to make a new application (subject to viability considerations) and we want that to be capable of officer support. Could you give me some dates when we can have a meeting with you and perhaps one of your design colleagues and I will bring John Freeman or Brendan McMullan if they are available.
Kind regards
Simon
Simon Chadwick
Managing Director
17-Sep-2014 11:19 Andrew Inch to Simon Chadwick
Simon,
Thanks for the emails.
Diary is full now until 25 th . Perhaps you could suggest some dates around then.
If your client does want to pursue an appeal, do you know at this stage whether you are likely to request a public inquiry or an informal hearing?
Regards,
Andrew
Andrew Inch
Team Leader
17-Sep-2014 16:33 Simon Chadwick to Andrew Inch
Andrew,
Thanks for your email. It is unfortunate we cannot meet until 25 September at the earliest. I am tied up both 25 and 26 September. To answer your question about the appeal it would be a public inquiry. We have already consulted a barrister hence the need to try and agree a draft Statement of Common Ground with the same process under way with English Heritage. Given the amount of public interest in the refusal it would be impractical to deal with the matter through an informal hearing in our view.
As far as meeting is concerned, could we try the afternoon of Monday, 29 September, please. By then I will have sent you a draft of the SCG that we might agree for the appeal but I will also get John Freeman to send through the drawings related to the scheme described in your meeting notes of 23 May. I am not suggesting the meeting that we are going to have should go over again the same design constraints and issues. We see the need for officers to confirm their position prior to the client committing to the expense of a re-design exercise with a new application and for the purposes of the SCG.
Kind regards
Simon
Simon Chadwick
Managing Director
19-Sep-2014 14:39 Andrew Inch to Simon Chadwick
Simon,
2pm on 29 th here at County Hall?
Regards,
Andrew
Andrew Inch
Team Leader
19-Sep-2014 14:59 Simon Chadwick to Andrew Inch
Andrew,
That is fine thank you. I think I will be sending you the draft SCG and the drawings showing the manifestation of the scheme we discussed at the meeting of 23 May in advance. It will just be me at the meeting because we do not need to discuss the design constraints again. See you on 29 th .
Kind regards
Simon
Simon Chadwick
Managing Director
23-Sep-2014 11:49 Andrew Inch to Simon Chadwick
Simon,
If we are going to be discussing an mended scheme, it might be beneficial to have the architect there.
Regards,
Andrew
Andrew Inch
Team Leader
24-Sep-2014 10:18:45 Simon Chadwick to Andrew Inch
Andrew,
I will bring John Freeman along. Our view is that your officers are very familiar with all the design aspects of the site and its constraints from the various meetings we have had and therefore we do not particularly see the need to go over all those again. We will, though, send you the drawn up version of the scheme that was discussed at the meeting of 23 May in advance of the meeting on Monday. I am also in the process of doing a draft Statement of Common Ground which I will send you shortly. It has gaps in it but I think the sooner we can agree this or have a draft that is somewhere near the better.
See you on Monday.
Kind regards
Simon
Simon Chadwick
Managing Director
26-Sep-2014 13:38:31 Simon Chadwick to Andrew Inch
Andrew,
In advance of Monday I have started to pull together a draft of the SCG. We can doubtless discuss format and comments on Monday. I think the Regulations do not necessarily need us to agree this before the appeal is submitted but if there is a draft available that would assist.
Caroline Hardie, who is our heritage advisor, is talking to English Heritage about doing a separate one with them if that is possible.
Kind regards
Simon
Simon Chadwick
Managing Director
26-Sep-2014 (afternoon) Andrew Inch to Simon Chadwick
Simon,
Thanks for the document.    We will endeavour to review by Monday afternoon, although it ’’ s unlikely that we have the time to consider it in detail.
Regards,
Andrew
Andrew Inch
Team Leader
29 September 2014: meeting
Attended by Andrew Inch, Peter Herbert and David Sparkes from DCC, Simon Chadwick from Signet Planning and John Freeman form Church Lukas.
08-Oct-2014 16:58:23 Simon Chadwick to Andrew Inch
Andrew,
Here is the letter and plans following our meeting of 29 September 2014. Self-explanatory I hope but if you have any queries please let me know.
Kind regards
Simon
Simon Chadwick
Managing Director
09-Oct-2014 18:00 Andrew Inch to Simon Chadwick
Simon,
Thanks for your email.
Meeting next Friday (struggling to do sooner due to EiP attendance) to discuss/review internally and I hope to come back to you with a firm officer view early in w/c 20th.
Regards,
Andrew
Andrew Inch
Team Leader
13-Oct-2014 10:42:52 Simon Chadwick to Andrew Inch
Andrew,
Thanks for your reply. It will be very good if we can have a response in the early part of next week. You will recall I agreed to hold off lodging the appeal against the current refusal on the site for a couple of weeks. Whilst on the basis of our encouraging discussions at our last meeting, we are expecting a positive written response for the latest scheme proposals and you will appreciate I cannot hold off lodging the appeal for very long. Our clients also reviewing the viability issues that the latest proposals raise and those calculations should be done by the end of this week. So if we are able to receive a positive response and the viability issues are resolved, that would be a reasonable basis to proceed. You will though understand my client wishes to reserve the right to appeal.
So therefore if we could have a response early next week that would considerably assist.
Kind regards
Simon
Simon Chadwick
Managing Director
22-Oct-2014 10:29:52 Simon Chadwick to Andrew Inch
Andrew,
Further to our discussions I enclose the elevation plans of block B that shows the extent of the massing of the refused scheme as well as the existing hospital buildings (particularly the Rushford Wing) on both the Waddington Street and Ainsley Street elevations. You will see from the dotted red line on each case the small difference between the highest part of the Rushford Wing and block B/C. We would emphasise that the lower part of block B would be read as four storeys with the fifth element set back compared to the flat roofed section of the Rushford Wing which will be read as higher.
The upper part of block B is similar to the Rushford Wing height with the exception of where the new building turns the corner into block C. For reasons we have discussed this is a significantly less visible part of the building.
We trust this information allows you to confirm that the revised massing of block B/C will be acceptable as part of a re-submitted application.
We have also submitted revised sections QQ and FF which you should compare with the refused planning drawing 08 309 Rev A. This demonstrates (particularly QQ) that the reduced massing of block B/C will open up more of the existing hospital building into view which I assume is one of the purposes of your suggestions. You will also see the how the reduced height of block B/C can be compared to the massing of the existing hospital building. The maximum height of the proposed building is now appreciably lower than the general ridge height of the existing hospital building.
Could you therefore please confirm to me in writing as previously discussed that should a re-submitted application be pursued on the basis of the reduced scale and massing of block B/C as indicated on the latest plans that this would be likely to received planning officer support.
Kind regards
Simon
Simon Chadwick
Managing Director
24-Oct-2014 17:34:37 Simon Chadwick to Andrew Inch
Andrew,
I would be grateful if you could update me as to where you are with providing us with the letter relating to the potential reductions in the scale and massing of the buildings as sent through to you in the most recent form on 22 October 2014. We have also received a letter from Catherine Dewar of English Heritage to Peter Herbert of today’s date. What this continues to demonstrate is that EH has a different view about the principles of the redevelopment of the County Hospital site to the planning department who as you are aware were keen to encourage the linear form of the redevelopment. That linear form has since evolved to the point where we now have two new blocks (or three if you count blocks B and C as separate) and we are seeking to reach agreement with the planning department on the acceptability of the scale and massing of that scheme.
We appreciate EH has a different view on the principles of the redevelopment. However, as discussed at our meeting on 29 September it was agreed that a letter confirming the planning officers position on the reduced scale and massing of the scheme based on the evolved linear development would then hopefully be the basis of an application which planning officers could support. It was recognised that EH may take a different position so their most recent letter should not change planning officers views of what would be acceptable in terms of scale and massing of the current form of the scheme which originated to accord with the planning department’s position on their preferred form of the redevelopment.
If as we hope officers are supportive of the revised scale and massing of the scheme, we will endeavour to persuade EH of its merits. Perhaps you could therefore let me know when we are likely to receive your letter.
I also ought to update you as to the situation that has arisen with the letter from Durham University to the Inspectorate requesting the call-in of existing and proposed applications/appeals for student accommodation in the city. You may be aware of their letter dated 2 October 2014 but we have done a reply to it (to the Planning Inspectorate) that you may not have seen.
Kind regards
Simon
Simon Chadwick
Managing Director
31-Oct-2014 14:25:50 Andrew Inch to Simon Chadwick
Simon,
Please find attached letter in respect of the County Hospital site.
As discussed, I would be grateful if you would advise us of your intentions in this matter at the earliest opportunity.
Regards,
Andrew
Andrew Inch
Team Leader
21-Nov-2014 11:42:33 Simon Chadwick to Andrew Inch
Andrew,
In advance of meeting next week, please find enclosed some emerging plans on the revised application on the County Hospital site (via two emails). I have enclosed:
  1. Plans relating to the revised design of block B/C - this confirms the reduction in the height of the building as we agreed at recent meetings and the subject of your letter of 31 October 2014. The approach to the fenestration treatment of the buildings remains as the previous scheme as we understood that to be generally acceptable.
  2. Revised landscape layout plan.
  3. New hub as replacement to scout hut.
You will see from the site layout plan of this new build element and also the attached landscape layout plans that the proposal is now to remove the ‘hub’ building which was previously in the courtyard area behind blocks A/B – between those blocks and the County Hospital building itself. It has been decided to put the student hub facilities – common room areas and a potential gym/music room in a re-built scout hut on the northern boundary of the site. The replacement for the scout hut will be the same size as the existing building with its principal façade (curtain wall) facing inwards into the site rather than outwards onto Back Western Hill. The combination of the removal of the hub and its uses relocated to the re-built scout hut allows a different strategy to the hard and soft landscaping within the site. The area between blocks A/B and the County Hospital building can be less formal and the landscape graded upwards from the new build elements to the County Hospital. There will need to be a retaining wall but it will appear more natural which was one point that English Heritage made about the previous scheme.
It is also possible to have an internal courtyard between the scout hut and the County Hospital building (northern part of the site) which will, we think, provide a higher quality environment within the site.
Let me know if you have any queries and we will see you on Tuesday at 2pm. It will be myself, John Freeman and Caroline Hardie who will be attending. If your landscape officer can attend we will bring Phil Baker from Glen Kemp.
Kind regards
Simon
Simon Chadwick
Managing Director
21-Nov-2014 11:42:37 Simon Chadwick to Andrew Inch
Andrew,
Second email.
Kind regards
Simon
Simon Chadwick
Managing Director
25 November 2014: meeting
Attended by Andrew Inch, Peter Herbert, David Sparkes and Ged Lawson from DCC, Simon Chadwick (Signet Planning), John Freeman (Church Lukas), Caroline Hardie (Archaeo-Environmental) and Philip Barker (Glen Kemp).

Return to home page