Mr Harold Stephens’ report on the “emerging” County Durham Plan and based on his Examination in Public held at the Riverside, Chester-le-Street throughout October and November 2014 was released at 10.50 am on Wednesday, 18^th February.  This report is highly critical of the County Council’s proposals for extensive building on the Durham City Greenbelt, the proposed Western and Northern “relief roads”, student housing and much more.  The Inspector writes that, in summary, his interim views are:

1. The Council has met the minimum legal requirement of the Duty to Co-operate;

2. The objective assessment of housing needs is too high because the Council’s vision for a successful local economy incorporates unrealistic assumptions about jobs growth and associated in-migration. There are also shortcomings in the housing requirement in terms of calculating the residual for allocation figure;

3. The proposed settlement hierarchy seems to be justified, effective and soundly based but the spatial distribution is not justified particularly in respect of Durham City. Further work is needed to justify the spatial distribution of development, including addressing the needs of settlements not constrained by the Green Belt in the Central, North, East and South Delivery Areas;

4. The process and evidence relating to the proposed amendments to the Green Belt boundary are flawed, particularly in relation to the release of sites to accommodate some 4,000 unnecessary dwellings in Durham’s Green Belt. A full review of non-Green Belt sources of supply should be undertaken. Policies 6, 7, 8 and 14 are not sound;

5. The proposed Western and Northern Relief Roads are not justified, deliverable or environmentally acceptable. They are incompatible with the Government’s soundness tests and directly threaten the achievement of sustainable development. The Relief Road proposals should be withdrawn as unsustainable and unnecessary. The CDP needs to protect and exploit opportunities for the use of sustainable travel modes and make the fullest possible use of public transport provision, cycling and walking. Policy 9 and Policy 10 should be deleted from the Plan;

6. Policies 12 and 13 in relation to Executive Housing would not accord with policies in the NPPF and would fail the Government’s soundness test;

7. There are concerns about the content and soundness of policies in relation to Houses in Multiple Occupation and Student Accommodation. The PMEHC[1] for Policy 32 is not sound, effective or sufficient to achieve more balanced communities;

8. Most of the concerns about the content and soundness of other strategic policies can probably be overcome by detailed amendments to the wording of the policies and accompanying text.”

Some More Detailed Comments from his Report

1. The Inspector commented on the setting of Durham City:

“Importantly, this ambition for growth on the scale desired does not respect the special character of the City. Durham City is already a city of regional, national and international importance based on its existing assets and development on the scale envisaged will do little to improve it and is more likely to harm it. The setting and special character of Durham City derive their importance not only from direct views of buildings on the peninsula or from the intrinsic architectural or landscape quality of the town and its setting, but from the relationship between the physical size and topography of the built-up area and the open areas around it. In essence the character of Durham does not derive solely from views of the Cathedral and Castle, which are at the centre of a World Heritage Site, but from the relationship between them and the actual size of the built-up area. Any increase in the physical size of the City, irrespective of any effects on views or countryside quality, would be likely to have a generally harmful effect on the character of the City. The fingers of open space which extend right into the built-up area are of particular importance in terms of the special character of Durham.”             

2. With regard to Aykley Heads, for whose future the County Council had great expectations as a centre of industry and commerce employing up to 6,000 workers – about the same number employed by Nissan at Sunderland – the Inspector concluded:

“Whilst I agree that Aykley Heads should be supported as a strategic employment location, on the evidence that is before me, there are no exceptional circumstances to justify removal of Area C from the Green Belt. Area C is an elevated location which is integral to the green setting of the City included in the 2004 Green Belt designation. It continues to fulfil several Green Belt purposes as set out in the NPPF.[2] Other parcels of land including Area A and the proposed development in the north around the former police headquarters can be considered at the Site Allocation stage.[3] As submitted therefore, Policy 7 seems to be unsound as it conflicts with requirements in the NPPF.”

3. The Inspector is equally forthright about the consumption of Green Belt land for house building north of Arnison, north and south of Sniperley, at Merryoaks, at Crook Hall and between Sherburn Village and Sherburn Road Estate:

“In my view all of these sites would contribute to urban sprawl and several have no natural boundary to limit further development. The sites to the north of the City in particular would spread out unacceptably towards the villages adjacent to the Green Belt and would contribute towards coalescence. The out of centre proposal for a new supermarket on the North of Arnison site is not justified in the light of all the policies in the NPPF.[4] All of these sites would assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and preserve the setting and special character of this historic City and World Heritage Site. Furthermore, the protection of all of these sites from development would assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. Overall there are no exceptional circumstances to justify release of these sites from the Green Belt. There would be serious conflict with the purposes of Green Belt and the environmental harm which would arise from these proposals would render Policy 8 of the plan unsound.  

In addition, I cannot support the release of the proposed housing sites at Merryoaks or the site at Durham Northern Quarter.  In my view both of these sites fulfil Green Belt purposes as set out in paragraph 80 of the NPPF. I consider there are no exceptional circumstances which would justify the removal of either of these sites from the Green Belt. Furthermore, in my view, substantial harm would be caused to the significance of designated heritage assets such as the Crook Hall collection of listed buildings, the setting of the Durham (City Centre) Conservation Area and the World Heritage Site if the Durham Northern Quarter site were to be developed.”

4. With regard to the proposed Western and Northern by-passes the Inspector is equally emphatic; they would do irreparable damage to the setting of Durham City:

“Finally, the costs of these relief roads which need to be included in the assessment are not just financial: they include environmental and other wider impacts and the effects of these impacts on the City and its setting are overwhelmingly adverse. These concerns are reflected in the coherent and persuasive evidence provided by the CDT, the FDGB, CPRE, NECTAR, Mr J Grant, Mr M Phillips, Dr D Hamilton, Dr G Holland and others both in the 2013 responses and also at the hearings. Their concerns range from the macro level, such as the diversion of traffic from the A1 north of the Belmont interchange on to local roads when the NRR is provided, to the significant increase in traffic on the local road network at Bearpark. I also note the serious concerns about the qualitative effects of both relief roads on the environment and purposes of the Green Belt that would be the inevitable consequences of forcing these routes through unspoilt countryside that forms the setting of the City and the World Heritage Site.[5] DCC has submitted various documents which seek to mitigate the effects of the two relief roads on historic assets[6] and to deal with noise and water impacts.  I conclude that on the evidence that is before me, both the WRR and the NRR proposals are not justified, deliverable or environmentally acceptable. Both proposals are incompatible with advice in the NPPF on promoting sustainable transport and supporting the move to a low carbon future. The CDP needs to protect and exploit opportunities for the use of sustainable transport modes and make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling. No lower growth alternative has been tested on a settlement pattern which favours the use of sustainable modes of travel. Policy 9 and Policy 10 seem to be unsound and should be deleted from the CDP and consequential amendments should be made to other policies and text.”

5. The Inspector is also critical of the Council’s approach to student accommodation, both HMOs and PBSAs:

In essence, I cannot support the Council’s position on Policy 32 for several reasons. First, the continued use of postcodes to determine areas of HMO restraint would be arbitrary, inconsistent and unmanageable. Proposals near a postcode boundary would receive different treatment to those in the middle of a post code area. Instead, using a 100m radius around a proposal would ensure equal treatment for all proposals. I do not accept the point about Data Protection issues as the same software and same Council Tax data base would be used on an anonymised basis. Secondly, the tipping point for constraining HMO applications is defined only by the proportion (10%) of HMO properties per postcode. To be effective in sustaining mixed, balanced and sustainable communities it is essential to take into account that a single property that is a Purpose-Built Student Accommodation block (PBSA) may contain hundreds of students. The tipping point should also refer to the proportion (20%) of the population resident in HMOs and PBSAs in the given area.”

6. At the end of his report the Inspector offered Durham County Council the following options:

“As far as the future progress of the examination is concerned, it seems to me there are limited options available to the Council:

• Continue the examination on the basis of the current evidence;
• Suspend the examination;
• Withdraw the plan;

If Option (a) is chosen, it is very likely that, on the basis of the evidence submitted so far, I would probably conclude that the submitted Plan is unsound due to the shortcomings in the proposed strategy and evidence base, including the economic and housing strategies, the relationship between them and the objective assessment of housing need, the spatial distribution of development, the approach to the Green Belt, the two relief roads and houses in multiple occupation. In my view, these shortcomings are so fundamental that proceeding immediately to the remaining parts of the examination would be unlikely to overcome these problems.

In relation to Option (b), suspension of the examination should normally be for no longer than 6 months. Given the fundamental issues that I have described it is very likely to be unrealistic to suggest that these could be rectified within 6 months. To overcome the identified shortcomings it would be necessary to carry out significant additional work on strategic matters, revising policies and content of the plan including the legal implications and consultations with participants. It may be that once this further work is completed the Council would have to consider alternative strategic site allocations which would amount to a significantly different plan. If that is the case then withdrawal would be the most appropriate course of action.

If Option (c) is chosen, the examination would not proceed and I would take no further action in the examination of the submitted plan.”

Conclusion

In effect the County Council now has no Plan, emerging or otherwise.  Much of the fault lies with them alone.  Prior to the development of this “Plan” there was a period of “consultation” which was anything but consultation.  Time and again residents told the council officers that they did not support their proposals; time and again the residents were ignored.  In fact all the officers did was tell the residents how the Council intended to exploit Durham’s natural beauty and assets without regard to the damage that this would cause.  The residents’ concerns fell on deaf ears.

Now the pieces have to be picked up.  For planning decisions the County Council will now have to rely on the NPPF and the 2004 City of Durham Plan.  Otherwise there will be a planning vacuum and decision making will become arbitrary and unpredictable.  In the absence of a satisfactory and effective Policy 32 the problems associated with student housing will not recede.

For the moment the County Council needs to examine what went so badly wrong and why, where culpability lies, and how the matter is to be resolved.  Whether they are up to this task remains to be seen; but, above all, the County Council must recognise that the fault is not in their stars but in themselves.