The City of Durham Trust

Elvet Waterside: Opposition grows

Opposition is growing to plans by Banks Development Ltd to build 26 town houses, 101 apartments and 2 maisonettes, plus a riverside café/restaurant and offices, on a site betwen Old Elvet and the river. Most objectors have highlighted the expansion into the green space of the bowling green, and the height and impact of the buildings, which will spoil views of the Castle and Cathedral.

The Trust's own letter of objection accepts, as do most objectors, that the site should be redeveloped, but states that only that part which is “manifestly a brownfield site” should be built on. We have serious reservations about the scheme which, in broad terms, are as follows:

1. Views of the World Heritage Site will be impoverished, while the computer-generated images of all the views are poor productions and misleading.
2. The foundation for this new quarter of the City is to be a ‘raft’, raised two metres above the present flood plain. Apart from the logistics of importing a vast quantity of earth/rubble, repercussions on the appearance of both the bounding edge, especially that facing the Race Course, and townscape require close examination. The bulk of the development is to be housing, which will rise 3-4 storeys on the raised platform. (This compares with the present units which are almost all single storey.) Raising of the site level will also mean that many of the existing trees will be lost.
3. The development, on an area of high flood risk, is to balanced by a “compensatory flood storage site” upstream. The efficacy of flood amelioration, as well as downstream consequences, is not clear.
4. Durham City Council is joint owner of the site. There is thus a coincidence of interest, with the Local Authority being both judge and jury. This has already brought controversy, when the Council persuaded the University to revoke its covenant on the former bowling green, thus permitting it to be added to the area for housing. (In the Local Plan the bowling green area is shown within the Area of High Landscape Value.)

Trustees have therefore asked Government Office for the North East to issue an Article 14 with a view to calling it in for independent adjudication. It is a large and complex application, of more than local or regional significance, on a site partly owned by the Local Authority in a sensitive location within the City’s Central Conservation Area and with implications for the World Heritage Site.

There are now approaching 500 objections listed on the City Council's website, and clearly there is a backlog waiting to be uploaded.

In a detailed seven-page letter, English Heritage have recommended the application be refused. They consider that the proposed scheme would have a detrimental effect upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, and upon the character of views towards the Durham Castle and Cathedral World Heritage Site and the important listed buildings within it.

A key issue is that the development is on the flood plain, in an area determined by the Environment Agency as being at the highest risk of flooding. Many objectors have highlighted this factor. The developer's solution is to raise the land at Elvet above the 100-year flood level (i.e. by up to six feet) and to provide a flood compensation area at the University's Maiden Castle sports grounds to hold the water that would have otherwise have flooded Elvet. The Environment Agency itself is not persuaded that it will work, and has asked for more information. They also say that they would not accept a flood defence scheme proposal which would result in an increase in flooding to residents on the opposite banks at Shincliffe. There are, they say, a number of complex issues which must be resolved. They followed up with a further letter on 17 March, lodging a formal objection which they said would be maintained until the above issues are resolved.

Sport England have objected because the flood defences at Maiden Castle will lead to a permanent loss of part of the playing field. They have also served a Section 14 notice on the Council, which means the council cannot now approve the application outright, they can at most say they are minded to approve it, and refer their decision to the Government Office for the North East.

Natural England has criticised the lack of information in the planning application. The point out that there has been no landscape and visual impact assessment of the proposed flood alleviation scheme, they are critical of the 'model views' which are inaccurate in scale and angle of view. They object to the hard edge the development will present to the riverside, which is not in character with that part of the town. They are unable to comment on the impact on protected specie as there is insufficient information. For these and other reasons they ask the Council to defer determining the application until sufficient information is forthcoming.

Other bodies that have objected include CPRE who object in the strongest possible terms; the Ramblers Association object to the effect on views from the footpaths, pointing out that the photographs in the Environmental Statement are misleading because they are wide-angle and avoid the most attractive views; and Claypath and District Residents Association, who conclude The development proposals are seriously flawed and an alternative should be developed which looks at the car park and swimming pool sites only. The existing green brownfield sites could then be improved and provide a natural buffer between Geenbelt and Cityscape.

Sir Harold Evans, former editor of the Northern Echo and the Sunday Times, says the plans are objectionable and should be rejected, adding There are always profit arguments for this kind of luxury project, but this typically impoverishes the city for it removes a lung and does it in a way that is inimical to the variegated character of the city. I have visited many cities of the world and they would envy the amenities this application would destroy — and for what? Yet another undistinguished piece of real estate. I urge the city to take a longer view: a great city is more than a collection of bricks and mortar.

There is still time to object to these proposals. The objections from the Environment Agency, Natural England and others ask the Council to defer considering this application until further information is available. It is now unlikely to be heard until May or June at the earliest. If you haven't made your thoughts known, please do so now. Further information on how to do this may be found on the For City Sake web site.

(In the text above, links flagged with this icon are to PDFs. Most browsers can already read these; if you need it a reader may be downloaded free of charge from the Adobe website.)

Last update: 28 March 2008.