The Durham Plan: Summary Comments

Councillor Dr. Grenville Holland MA, MS, D.Phil

1. The population figures have been calculated using a flawed algorithm in the POPGROUP programme and, without the use of probability theory and an expression of confidence levels, there is a null hypothesis.  The population figures are invalid.

2. The housing figures are based on the population estimates calculated at 2.2 persons per household.  Because the population figures have not been substantiated the housing estimates are invalid.

3. In the absence of any reliable information concerning housing need, based on population growth figures, the case for significant new housing on protected Green Belt land around Durham City has not been made and should be set aside.

4. The proposed Western Relief Road, which relies for its funding on planning gain derived from building on the Green Belt, therefore fails.  Furthermore there is no need for this expensive relief road.  The A167 was constructed as the Western By-Pass and has operated successfully over many years and does not need replacing or by-passing itself at high environmental cost.  The proposed Western Relief Road in fact is a road from nowhere to nowhere and would merely act as the western boundary to the new and unnecessary estates.

5. The suggestion that Aykley Heads could sustain a new work force of 6,000 has no clear foundation.  Nissan at Sunderland employs a staff of 6,000 and needs significant infrastructure to achieve this.  Aykley Heads does not have the space available particularly because significant parts of this estate are designated AGLV and a wild life corridor.  Building on the southern flanks of Aykley Heads is also contrary to the Council’s own Policy 45 which protects the setting of the Durham Bowl.

6. Policies 21/22 potentially provide a vital contribution to the UK’s energy strategy and must therefore play an active and positive role in delivering significant targets in the future.  This can only be achieved if the policies are both clear and robust with the ability to inform and guide the various planning processes along mandatory lines.  Without that clear direction the policies will have only a minor impact and will be disregarded.

7. Policy 32, concerning HMOs and the University is totally inadequate and unsound.  It needs to be re-written and greatly strengthened.  It needs to be a well defined policy that can deliver a sustainable relationship with the University and the landlords and one that protects the long term welfare of the City.

8. Many of the policies involving Durham City lack the essential depth and detail provided originally by the 2004 Local Plan.  It is likely that a similar deficiency applies elsewhere in the County where the Local Plans are given insufficient weight.  Without adequate and precise policy guidance the daily determinations of, for example, planning applications becomes arbitrary and prone to poor decision taking.  For policies affecting local areas to be viable it is essential that the already existing Local Plans be integrated within the Durham Plan.  It is also essential that the Local Plans, the Durham Plan and the NPPF are consistent and provide planning protocols that are clear, without ambiguity and self-sustaining.