Development Control Committee
11 March 2005
Reference:
2004/2104/01/DET
Proposal:
Erection of 10 storey office building and 2 storey
entrance block, following demolition of existing 10
storey office building and 2 storey entrance building;
erection of 6 storey car park and alterations to
landscaping and surface parking
Location:
Northern Rock PLC, Northern Rock House, Regent
Farm Road, Gosforth, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE3 4PL
Applicant:
Northern Rock PLC
Report by:
Head of Planning & Transportation
Ward Implications:
West Gosforth
Planning Control Area 3
For Information
1.
Summary
1.1
This report details proposals set out by Planning & Transportation in respect of
report received at Development Control Committee on 11 March 2005 regarding
development proposals received from Northern Rock PLC.
2.
Recommendation
2.1
Ward Sub-Committee to receive for information.
3.
Introduction/Background
3.1
This planning application is for the redevelopment of part of the office
headquarters of Northern Rock at the Regent Centre, Gosforth. The proposal is
to replace the existing 10 storey block at the eastern end of the site with a larger
10 storey block, which would provide an increase of 8000 square metres of
floorspace. In addition a new 6 storey car park would be built at the western
end of the site providing 650 new spaces.
3.2
The existing Northern Rock Tower was erected in 1968 and the applicants
consider that it is not feasible to bring it up to modern office standards because
the structure, cladding and services are at the end of their useful life, the floor to
ceiling heights restrict the installation of modern services and the floor plate
sizes are too small for efficient planning and Northern Rock’s preferred method
of operation.
3.3
The proposed replacement would have a D-shaped footprint and curved
building form designed to reflect the existing curved and glazed building at the
western end of the site. This shape has also been chosen to minimise impact
on the residential properties to the south. A 2 storey glazed entrance pavilion is
also proposed to link the new building with the existing complex.
3.4
The proposed multi-storey car park would occupy the site of the former Hartside
Clinic at the west of the site and would be designed to match the design and
scale of the existing multi-storey car park and would be linked to it at several
levels.
4.
Publicity and Consultation
4.1
Approximately 1400 properties in the area around the application site were
consulted by letter. Twenty-one responses were received. Of these 17
respondents objected to the proposal. The objections were from the Red House
Farm estate, Jubilee Road area and Regent Road, Hedley Terrace area. The
grounds of objection were predominantly concerned about extra traffic and
parking in the area, visual impact and noise and disturbance from construction
and demolition.
4.2
The St Oswald’s Hospice who occupy two sites immediately to the south of the
application site also expressed concern about possible disturbance from noise,
vibration and dust from the construction process.
4.3
A public exhibition was also held in the area to display this proposal and also
details of a separate application for the erection of an office block and
supermarket at Regent Road within the Regent Centre. This was well attended
and issues of concern about traffic/parking were again raised by a majority of
residents who attended.
5.
Policy
5.1
The following policies of the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) are considered to
be relevant.
ED3.2 IN THE FOLLOWING AREAS ALLOCATED FOR BUSINESS USE,
DEVELOPMENT WILL BE RESTRICTED TO CLASS B1 (LIGHT INDUSTRY,
OFFICES AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT) OF THE USE CLASS
ORDER. THIS RESTRICTION DOES NOT APPLY TO DEVELOPMENT OF
AN EXISTING USE WHICH IS NOT B1, B2 OR B8 WHICH DOES NOT
INVOLVE A CHANGE OF USE.
9.
11.
Regent Centre
St Nicholas Hospital
EN1.1 ALL DEVELOPMENT WILL BE REQUIRED TO MEET HIGH
STANDARDS OF DESIGN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING
PRINCIPLES:
A.
RETAINING THE BEST BUILDINGS;
B.
TAKING FULL ADVANTAGE OF LANDFORM, LANDSCAPE AND
OTHER SITE FEATURES;
C.
INTEGRATING DEVELOPMENT INTO ITS SETTING WITH REGARD
TO THE SCALE AND PATTERN OF SURROUNDING BUILDINGS AND
SPACES, AND LINKS IN THE PEDESTRIAN ROUTE NETWORK;
D.
RELATING TO THE MATERIALS AND DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS
OF SURROUNDING BUILT DEVELOPMENT;
E.
FACILITATING SAFE PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT;
F.
DESIGNING FOR EQUAL ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL USERS
REGARDLESS OF AGE OR DISABILITIES, AND MINIMISING
OPPORTUNITIES FOR CRIME;
G.
ENSURING NEW BUILDINGS ARE ADAPTABLE TO USE FOR OTHER
PURPOSES;
H.
A COMPREHENSIVE AND CO-ORDINATED APPROACH TO NEW
DEVELOPMENTS OF MORE THAN ONE BUILDING;
I.
INCORPORATING HARD AND SOFT LANDSCAPING AS AN
INTEGRAL PART OF DESIGN, MAXIMISING TREE PLANTING WHERE
APPROPRIATE, AND PROVIDING FOR ITS LONG TERM
MAINTENANCE;
J.
MINIMISING ADVERSE IMPACTS ON NEARBY LAND USES;
K.
MINIMISING IMPACTS ON ACTIVITIES ON NEIGHBOURING OPEN
LAND AND COUNTRYSIDE; AND
L.
MAXIMISING THE USE OF BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES AND LAND
FORMS TO SCREEN NOISE SENSITIVE DEVELOPMENT AND
SPACES.
H2
DEVELOPMENT WHICH WOULD HARM THE AMENITY OF ANY
DWELLING, OR GROUP OF DWELLINGS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED.
IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY WILL BE ASSESSED WITH
PARTICULAR REGARD TO:
A.
PROTECTING THE CHARACTER OF THE LOCALITY AND OF THE
EXISTING BUILDING IN THE CASE OF ALTERATIONS, EXTENSIONS
B.
OR CONVERSIONS;
PROTECTING TREES AND OTHER SOFT LANDSCAPING OF
AMENITY VALUE;
C.
ENSURING SATISFACTORY DAYLIGHT, SUNLIGHT, OUTLOOK
AND PRIVACY FOR ALL DWELLINGS, EXISTING AND PROPOSED,
PARTICULARLY IN RELATION TO GOOD EXISTING STANDARDS IN
THE LOCALITY;
D.
AVOIDING THE INTRODUCTION OF SUCH ADDITIONAL ACCESSES,
TRAFFIC OR PARKING AS WOULD INCREASE VISUAL INTRUSION,
NOISE OR DISTURBANCE, OR PREJUDICE ROAD SAFETY; AND
E.
ENSURING THAT NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND/OR
ASSOCIATED OPERATIONS WILL NOT HARM RESIDENTIAL
AMENITY THROUGH AN INCREASE IN NOISE, DISTURBANCE,
SMELLS, FUMES OR OTHER HARMFUL EFFECTS.
T4.5 DEVELOPMENT SHALL PROVIDE PARKING WHICH SATISFIES
OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS. PROVISION IN EXCESS OF THIS
REQUIREMENT WILL BE DETERMINED IN RELATION TO THE
IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. PARKING
PROVISION WILL BE MET BY:
a)
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PARKING STANDARDS ON SITE; OR
b)
THE PAYMENT, BY DEVELOPERS TO THE CITY COUNCIL, OF A
COMMUTED SUM SO THAT ALTERNATIVE PROVISION CAN BE
MADE ELSEWHERE; OR
c)
THE PROVISION OF CAR PARKING SPACES BY THE DEVELOPER
ON AN ACCEPTABLE SITE ELSEWHERE IN THE LOCALITY.
T7.1 WHERE A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD GENERATE
TRAFFIC CAUSING DEMONSTRABLE DANGER OR
INCONVENIENCE ON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY, OR OTHER SERIOUS
HARM TO THE LOCAL ENVIRONMENT, AND WHICH COULD NOT
BE SATISFACTORILY MITIGATED BY PLANNING CONDITIONS
AND/OR PLANNING OBLIGATIONS, PERMISSION WILL BE
REFUSED.
6.
Planning Assessment
6.1
In the light of the policy content and consultation responses I consider the main
planning issues in this case to be the principle of office development in this
location, the impact on traffic and parking in the area, the visual impact of the
proposal and the impact on residential amenity of the houses in Regent Road.
7.
Principles of Office Development
7.1
The application site lies within an area allocated for business use, Class B1,
and that is what is now proposed in the application. The site is part of a larger
area stretching from the Regent Centre office complex through to Jubilee Road
which is now occupied by Northern Rock and is being developed following
recent grants of planning permission. This latest phase now proposed (Phase
V) involves redevelopment of an existing building within the site but does not
enlarge the site. As the UDP policies place no limit on quantity of development
within the allocated area I am satisfied that the proposal is in accord with UDP
policies.
8.
Transport Issues
8.1
A Transport Assessment Report (TAR) has been submitted in support of the
planning application for Phase V of the development of the Northern Rock site.
Assessment of this TAR and the transportation impacts of this proposal are
difficult to quantify exactly, due to a number of related complex factors.
8.2
The current staff level on the site for the purpose of the TAR is 3100 (July 2004
figure). However, construction work on site is ongoing from the last permission
granted and staff levels are set to grow to a level of around 4500 people on site
in a fully complete Phase IV development. This element of building work is set
to be completed in March of this year when there will be 59,880 sq.m. of office
space on site. However it will not be fully occupied by staff at that time. They
have indicated that on average staff numbers are predicted to rise at about the
rate of 400 every year; consequently it would not be until around 2008 that it
was fully occupied. The submitted Phase V proposal would create a total
floorspace of 69,042 sq.m. and a total number of employees of around 5,500,
an increase of 1,000 staff. If granted they hope to complete the building work on
Phase V at the earliest 2008, but here again they expect that that staff numbers
would continue growing at a similar rate to present meaning that staff would not
be at the maximum level of 5500 until around 2010.
8.3
Alongside the as yet incomplete Phase IV development another additional factor
of uncertainty is the effects of the imminent introduction of the residents parking
zones in this area. This will change both parking and traffic patterns in the area,
but any predictions of likely alterations in these patterns are difficult to quantify
especially given the ever changing picture with respect to staff numbers on site.
The submitted TAR has endeavoured to show the impacts of the proposals on a
fairly local area and, in terms of highway impact, only assessing the immediate
access junctions. Given the many variables that would affect the development
impact they have not examined the wider highway network. It needs to be borne
in mind that this proposal will increase the staff numbers by 1000 and increase
the parking provision on site by 650. The TAR states that this level of car
parking will cater for the additional staff and absorb some of the parking
currently taking place on street.
8.4
In terms of assessing the transportation impact of this proposal notwithstanding
the limitation in scope of the TAR, I have endeavoured to examine a worst case
scenario in order to propose a robust package of measures to mitigate the likely
impacts. The main areas of impact relate to the parking in nearby streets and
also the likely highway infrastructure requirements to accommodate travel to the
site. Both of these are fundamentally linked to Northern Rock’s Travel Plan for
the site.
9.
Background Papers and Contact Officer Details
Northern Rock has provided two sources of information about current parking
numbers associated with their site. Firstly an on street parking survey was
undertaken on 31 March 2004 and concurrently they carried out a staff travel
survey. From the parking survey they have assessed that some 270 vehicles
associated with commuters to Northern Rock park all day. However from the
travel survey currently car drivers make up 50.4% of the workforce, this relates
to 1562 cars (July 2004 staff numbers of 3100). There are currently 956 spaces
on site so from the travel survey it can be estimated that there are 606 cars not
on site. Given the street survey identified 270 cars, some 336 cars are still
unaccounted for. It is likely that the discrepancy is due to parking outside of the
survey area and also potentially parking on street by part time staff (not parked
on street long enough to be identified by the survey as commuter cars). The
problems spreading beyond their survey zone is evidenced by the fact that the
Council has already included the Baronswood estate in the scheme about to be
implemented.
9.1
It is necessary to next examine the likely full impacts of the development as
currently approved for the ongoing Phase IV. In this case staff numbers will rise
by another 1400 to 4500 but there will be no more additional parking on site.
Therefore, using the current car driver mode share from the travel survey, cars
will rise by 706 resulting in a theoretical rise in on street parking to a level of
1312, the total level of parking associated with this number of staff being 2268.
This number is theoretical because, as stated above, staff numbers will only rise
over time not happen at the completion of Phase IV building in March. The
introduction of the current residents parking schemes will have an effect on car
use and also the applicants have expressed a desire, assuming approval of
Phase V, to implement the proposed 650 space car park in advance of work on
the new office building. This would have two potential advantages in as much it
will provide short term relief of on street parking pressures and also could be
used for parking for construction workers on the new office building.
9.2
If Phase V is approved then staff numbers rise to around 5500 and on site
parking is increased to 1606 with the new car park being constructed early as
mentioned. Again using the current mode share of car drivers to calculate the
number of cars associated with this number of staff, there will be a theoretical
total of 2772 cars, giving an off site total of 1166 cars. It can be seen that there
would be reduction in the amount of cars parking on street from the predicted
level at completion of Phase IV from 1312 to 1166, some 146 cars, largely due
to the increased level of on site parking.
9.3
The above parking effects are calculated using the existing mode share of the
current staff. They do not allow for any mode shift being created by either the
introduction of already committed residents parking zones nor the measures to
promote alternatives modes of travel in their Travel Plan. Given these will
clearly have some impact in the future the TAR has attempted to quantify these
issues and more accurately predict likely parking implications. The TAR has
used the expressed potential for mode shift from the travel survey of staff to
predict reduction in car usage. They predict that all of those who expressed a
conditional willingness to switch to alternatives modes of travel and leave their
car at home would amount to 679 less cars when looking at a fully developed
Phase IV of 4500 staff. This would reduce car usage for staff from a level of
50.4% to 35.3%, a reduction in real terms of some 15.1%, but representing a
mode switch of around 30% away from car use. They have then used the 35.3%
car drivers share to predict that the numbers of cars associated with a fully
developed Phase V would be 1942. There would be 1606 cars parking on site
so they predict that 336 cars would still be on street. This means that there
would still be a large number of cars parking off site in areas that would by then
be beyond the control of the currently proposed residents parking zone. They
are therefore proposing to extend the residents parking zone beyond those
about to be implemented to areas to the south and west of Jubilee Road to
further discourage car usage. It should be noted that walk times have been
analysed from the centre of the Northern Rock site and I would recommend that
the proposed areas of extension of residents parking identified in the TAR are
extended to better reflect the areas within a ten minute walk of the site.
9.4
It is considered that this represents a reasonable response to the predicted
problem but the TAR does not give any future assessment of the likely migration
or otherwise of on street car parking following the introduction of this new
scheme. Nor does it give any detailed analysis of what may happen if not all
those car drivers who expressed willingness to change mode in the survey did
actually change. This would also mean that on street parking was not reduced
as much and also that the problems were migrated to other areas as yet
unaffected. It is not possible to predict with accuracy this additional effect due to
a significant amount of unknowns relating to the introduction of some residents
parking zones, the potential for the Travel Plan to reduce car travel following
restrictions of on street parking and also the gradual increase in staff numbers
on the site over time.
9.5
As a consequence, if Committee are minded to approve this application, it
should be on the basis that not only should the applicant commit to fund the
additional residents parking zones as they propose and as slightly amended by
the above 10 minute walk analysis, but to assess the need for further residents
parking zones when Phase V is open. It would be important to initiate works on
the residents parking zone they propose as soon as any permission was
granted so that it would be in place at the opening of Phase V. This would allow
for undertaking a widespread parking survey at that time and then implementing
any additional parking areas as necessary. At such a time it will also need to
borne in mind that the areas which may be affected then will not only have
parking associated with Northern Rock. There will be an inevitable mixing of on
street parking influences with commercial activities elsewhere and it may be
more appropriate to secure a contribution towards future mitigation.
9.6
The applicant has expressed willingness to also pay towards the issue of the
residents permits for a period of 10 years on the new schemes being proposed
and has also offered as a gesture of good will to pay the residents permit costs
in the schemes being implemented at present. This gesture of goodwill with
respect to the current schemes should not form part or any planning permission
for Phase V as it is not reasonably related to this phase of the development.
10.
Travel Plan
10.1
Northern Rock has had a Transport Management Plan since 2000, which seeks
to encourage more sustainable staff travel. To date, however, it has not
previously been formally secured as part of any planning permission. Should
this application be granted the Travel Plan should form part of any subsequent
Section 106 agreement. This year’s travel survey of their staff has shown that
their Plan has had some success in reducing the car usage amongst their
current staff. In 1999 53.1% of staff drove to work and this figure has reduced to
50.4% a reduction of 2.7%. This reduction has largely been achieved by
encouraging the alternatives to car travel by measures such as interest free
public transport season ticket loans and car sharing collectively known as
“carrot” measures to change travel choices. To date none of the “stick”
measures to deter car travel have been implemented, such as the residents
parking schemes.
10.2
Whilst it is accepted that the introduction of the planned residents parking zones
in surrounding streets will most likely lead to a further reduction in car usage
amongst staff, it is not known as to what degree. The level and availability of
parking both on street and on site clearly has a direct relationship to the modal
choice of staff. Analysis shows that on street parking numbers are directly
affected by mode changes amongst the staff. Clearly the applicant has
endeavoured to show the effect on parking if all those who expressed a
willingness to change from car travel did change. Additionally I have shown the
effect if no additional mode shift takes place. The only robust way of assessing
the mode change and its consequent impact on parking on street that may
result with implementation of residents parking zones is to link further
introduction zones beyond that already recommended by the TAR to actual
travel and parking surveys at a later date.
10.3
In terms of Northern Rock’s Travel Plan their current Plan needs to include the
staff travel results in terms of modal choice, and also predict levels of future
mode choice as targets for future years. These targets will need to be very
challenging even to replicate the assumed changes in car use stated in the
TAR. By way of reminder, the TAR states that there will be need to be a drop in
car use of 15.1% to 35.3 % car drivers, by 2009. Should that occur, there would
still be around 336 cars on street, slightly more than they have surveyed. Given
this level of on street parking is already problematic in local areas, it may well
be necessary to further address on street parking beyond that already outlined
in the TAR. It would be sensible to link the need for additional travel and parking
surveys to the monitoring points in the Travel Plan. So that if the above targets
are not met then additional parking and traffic surveys are undertaken and
funding is made available for further mitigation.
10.4
If approval is given to this proposal it is recommended that the Travel Plan is
appended to the Section 106 that will be required. This Travel Plan needs to
include the measures and initiatives that Northern Rock has had some success
with to date and additionally the following commitments:
Appointment of a full time Travel Co-ordinator to oversee and develop new
and expanded initiatives as appropriate and to Act as a liaison with the
Council, Nexus and public transport operators in terms of staff travel issues.

An on site parking management regime. Clearly how Northern Rock
manage and allocate their on site parking survey can have a considerable
effect on the targets in their Travel Plan. They need to take account of how
they allocate permits to staff and also promote car sharing through the car
park management.

Targets for car use reduction that reflect the submissions in the TAR at
2009 that car use will be at a level of 35.3%, and also targets for further
reduction beyond that, need to reflect that additional parking zones may be
required to reduce the more remote on street parking problems and to
further encourage alternative modes of travel.

A monitoring arrangement in conjunction with the Council so that additional
measures can be implemented where appropriate and if car travel is not
reduced as far as the targets, then funding can be secured to both examine
problems and provide additional mitigation.
In conclusion it is recommended that any permission granted needs to be
subject to a robust Travel Plan whereby car reduction suggested as realistic by
the applicant can be monitored and comfort can be given that should on street
problems not reduce over time, additional funding can be made available linked
to the Travel Plan operation.
11.
Highway Impact
11.1
As stated above the applicant has assessed the access and junctions
immediately adjacent to their site and it needs to be borne in mind that following
approval of Phase IV, Northern Rock has already provided funding for
improvements to a number of junctions in the area. However there will also be
impacts on other junctions and based on my assessment of the TAR and
knowledge of existing traffic conditions I have concerns with respect to the
effect of additional traffic on the following junctions:-
11.2

Jubilee Road/Kenton Road – Amendments to better manage additional
traffic flows.

Great North Road/Hollywood Avenue – Amendments possibly including
signalisation of junction both to improve traffic flows and also ensure
accident problems are not exacerbated by additional traffic.

Jubilee Road/Salters Road – Amendments possibly including signalisation
of junction to better manage traffic flows and mitigate any adverse impact
on road safety.
The applicants have, as outlined above, looked at the direct access to their site
and are proposing the following measures in the TAR to improve access for
pedestrians and also to improve traffic access. These comprise of:
Regent Farm Road, outside Library – New signal controlled crossing.

Regent Road, just before Regent Farm Road – New zebra crossing.

Regent Farm Road, just east of site access – New signal controlled
crossing to replace road narrowing feature to better aid crossing to school
and still provide traffic calming in form of raised hump crossing point.

New mini roundabout at site access to better mange traffic flows at this
point.
11.3
It should be noted that all of the improvements listed will require detailed design
and further consultation that will determine the exact nature of improvement
provided, but it is important that the applicant commitment to improvements at
these locations is secured through the Section 106 agreement.
11.4
On the basis of this assessment I consider that there are no transportation
reasons why planning permission can not be granted provided that the
mitigation measures outlined above are secured through a Section 106
agreement.
11.5
Department of the Environment Circular 1/97 provides ministerial advice on the
issue of Section 106 Legal Agreements. An Agreement should only be sought
where it meets the following tests:

it is necessary to make the development acceptable

is relevant to planning

is directly related to the proposed development

is fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed
development

is reasonable in all other matters
11.6
The Circular goes onto state inter alia “Where a proposed development if
implemented create a need for particular facilities or would have a damaging
impact on the environment or local amenity or would adversely affect national or
local policies and these matters can be satisfactorily resolved through the use of
planning conditions it will usually be reasonable for planning obligations to be
sought or offered to overcome these difficulties”. I am satisfied that the
requirements for a Section 106 Agreement meet these tests.
12.
Terms of Section 106
12.1

Parking Zone
-
Funding for implementation of parking zones as outlined in
TAR and also payment of 10 years of permit issue for resident
permits.
-
Future survey, analysis, implementation and 10 year permit
funding of additional areas of residents parking linked to
monitoring of Travel Plan.

Travel Plan - Current Plan appended to Section 106 and secure the
appointment of Travel Plan Co-ordinator, parking management strategy for
site, targets of mode share, additional travel and parking surveys at
monitoring points, monitoring in conjunction with City Council and links to
additional funding for residents parking based on future car use targets.

Infrastructure Works - Funding for design and implementation of the
following works:-
1) Great North Road/Hollywood Avenue – Junction improvement including
possible signalisation.
2) Salters Road/Jubilee Road – Junction improvement including possible
signalisation.
3) Jubilee Road/Kenton Road – Junction improvement to improve traffic
flows.
4) Regent Farm Road – Junction improvement to site access including
possible mini roundabout.
5) Regent Farm Road – Alterations to traffic calming feature adjacent to site
access to remove road narrowing feature and replace with humped
signalised pedestrian crossing.
6) Regent Road North – Pedestrian crossing adjacent to roundabout on
Regent Farm Road.
7) Regent Farm Road – Signalised pedestrian crossing adjacent to library.
13.
Visual Impact of the Proposal
13.1
As far as visual impact is concerned the applicants have provided a series of
images of the proposed building showing it from various angles and in relation
to surrounding existing buildings. These images will be displayed at the
meeting. They show a building of the same height as the existing Tower but of
greater mass. The building would have a curved elevation designed to reflect
the curved form of the existing Northern Rock Building at the north west corner
of the site. The elevational treatment would be mostly glazed on its northern
half to maximise views from inside and predominantly masonry/ brickwork on its
southern half to minimise overlooking of residential properties in Regent Road.
13.2
The applicants have also provided diagrams showing shadows which would be
created by the proposed office building. These show that, despite the scale of
the building the location to the north of the nearest houses would prevent any
overshadowing of them.
13.3
The multi-storey car park building would be designed to match the existing car
park building in terms of design and height. It is proposed to be sited on the site
of the former Hartside clinic building between the Coxlodge Recreation ground,
the back of the Gosforth Fire Station, and existing Northern Rock buildings.
13.4
Overall the style and form of the proposed building would reflect the existing
family of Northern Rock buildings and would form an attractive feature at this
important location within the Regent Centre office complex. The scale, though
significantly longer than the existing building, would, in my view have no harmful
impact on the appearance of the surrounding area, nor on the overlook from
nearby houses because the form is carefully designed to minimise the bulk of
the building when viewed from the residential area. Therefore, subject to
careful control of materials, I consider that the proposal is in accordance with
UDP policies H2 and EN1.1.
14.
Recommendation
14.1
On the basis of the above assessment I recommend that Committee be
minded to grant planning permission subject to a Section 106 agreement to
secure the matters set out in paragraph 33 and subject to conditions dealing
with the following matters.
15.

Details of external materials

Details of cycle parking

Details of construction workers parking

Details of boundary treatment

Details of surface treatment

Details of landscaping

Details of tree protection

Restriction on construction and demolition times 0800 to 1800 Monday to
Friday 0800 to 1300 Monday to Saturday and no time on Sundays or Bank
Holidays

Details of refuse storage

Details of scheme of demolition and construction to include noise and dust
reduction, vehicle wheel washing and temporary car parking.

Multi storey car park to be completed and available for use before first use
of the office building.
Background Papers and Contact Officer Details
Held by Head of Planning and Transportation on file 2004/2104/01/DET 1.
Paul Hancock, Senior Planning Officer
Extension: 25635, Direct Line (0191) 211 5635
E-mail: paul.hancock@Newcastle.gov.uk
Doc: 0058601