REVISED plans for purpose-built student accommodation look set to be rejected, despite being significantly scaled back.

Developers are seeking planning permission to demolish the 1960s-built Fram Well House in Diamond Terrace, Durham and replace it with student digs.

Original plans revealed last year proposed building seven townhouse-style accommodation blocks, up to six storeys tall, and providing a total of 131 student beds.

The application has since been reduced in size and now proposes flat-roof blocks of either two or three storeys, housing a total of 69 students.

However, 75 letters of objection have been submitted against the revised plans, including representations from Durham MP Roberta Blackman-Woods, Sidegate and Elvet Residents’ Associations, Crossgate Community Partnership, Nevilles Cross Community Association, the World Heritage Site Co-ordinator, City of Durham Trust and the Campaign to Protect Rural England.

The application will be debated by Durham County Council’s area planning committee at County Hall on Tuesday, December 13 with officers recommending the plan be refused.

Although the building, currently occupied by the Durham Christian Partnership, is classed as brownfield, most of the application site lies within Durham’s Green Belt and partially within Durham City Conservation Area.

The proposal includes new access behind Diamond Terrace, leading to a parking area and turning space.

Durham County Council’s Highways Authority has recommended that the application be refused, while Durham University has also said that, while it expects student numbers in the city to rise over the coming decade “the University does not indicate that additional student accommodation would be best placed in this location ie some distance from university facilities and the city centre”.

Objectors fear the student digs would have an impact on the existing residents of Diamond Terrace, creating “unacceptable levels of student concentration in the area” while claiming the proposed access off Framwellgate Peth would be dangerous.

Developers argue that the original scheme has been “significantly amended” to resolve previous concerns.

A report to the committee by planning officers recommends that the application be refused, describing the proposed accommodation as “inappropriate development in the green belt”.