Agenda item

Report of the Corporate Director of Regeneration and Economic Development – presented by the Spatial Planning Team Leader, Regeneration and Economic Development.

The Chairman introduced two of the Council’s Senior Policy Officers, Regeneration and Economic Development (RED), Stuart Carter and David Randall who were in attendance to give an update presentation as regards the County Durham Plan (CDP) (for copy see file of minutes).

The Senior Policy Officer, S Carter explained that the CDP would set the context for the right type of development for County Durham and that at the moment without a strategic plan in place there was some difficulty in resisting some forms of development that Members may feel was inappropriate.  It was highlighted that it was embedded within the CDP to improve the economy of the County.  Councillors noted the CDP would: set out how much development there should be and direct where it should take place; provide a catalyst for investment and certainty to business, communities and developers; set out a consistent approach to development; support local communities and protect the environment; be the tool to resist inappropriate development; and maintain as its key priority to ensure that the economic prospects of the county were maximised.

The Committee noted a timetable in respect of the current CDP process, with Stage 1 being the Issues and Options Consultation taking place over June/July 2016.  Members added that Stage 2 would be a Preferred Options Consultation, in December/January 2016/17 with Stage 3 being Pre-Submission Draft Consultation in July/August 2017 with an aim for a final submission of the CDP for approval in December 2017.

The Senior Policy Officer, S Carter noted that 2 years on from the previous CDP submission new updated evidence was available in terms of population and a significant number of development sites, mostly identified within the withdrawn plan, had been approved, around 14,500 homes.  It was added that there were new opportunities coming forward, for example Bowburn Integra 61, with 2 million square feet of floor space and that the period since the initial submission had seen two years of an improving economy.  It was added that the plan period would be changed to be up to 2033, reflecting 15 years following adoption of the CDP.

It was explained that there were challenges, including meeting the demands of business in terms of good infrastructure suited to a range of international, national, regional and local markets.  The Senior Policy Officer, S Carter reiterated the comments made by the Chairman of the CDEP in terms of the need to attract higher paying jobs, and to retain key people and their skills in our County.  Members noted other issues included low land values that made viability difficult and an aging population with a decreasing number of working age people available.  Members were reminded that there were changing patterns in terms of shopping, with more online retail effecting town centres.

The Senior Policy Officer, S Carter noted that there were many opportunities and that those that could help drive a strong and competitive economy included the developments as mentioned by the Chairman of the CDEP, Forrest Park and Aykley Heads, as well as developments at Hawthorn, Durham University and the University Technical College at Newton Aycliffe.  It was added that the visitor economy was important in County Durham, with examples such as the Durham Dales, Beamish and Elven Arches in addition to the castle and cathedral in Durham City.

It was added that there was an opportunity to increase the vitality of town centres, supporting businesses and keeping vacancies low. It was noted that the rural areas within County Durham should also be supported to ensure a prosperous economy.  Members were aware of the need to deliver a wide range of housing, and a high quality of homes throughout the County and that sustainable transport should be promoted.  It was noted other issues and opportunities included: the roll out of superfast broadband; the world class University: and conveying the quality of life, access to the Countryside and the coast as selling points for County Durham.

In terms of jobs and employment, it was reiterated that there was a focus on improving the employment rate, address labour demand and to look at the supply of business land, including: Durham City; the A1 corridor; the A19 corridor; the Consett area; the Bishop Auckland area; and other sites in the County, including in rural areas.

In terms of housing, it was explained that there were a number of options, namely: a Main Town Focus; Sustainable Communities; Sustainable Communities with Central Durham Villages; and Wider Dispersal.  It was added that there was a need to ensure the right housing type in the right area, and to ensure the right number of houses.

It was explained that in terms of the first three options there would need to be a solution in terms of congestion on the A167, assessment of the impact upon the historic core in Durham City, and there would be an amount of greenbelt release required, however they offered positives in terms of accessibility of services and reduced traveling to main centres of work. 

It was added that the latter option would increase the amount of travelling required in terms of jobs and accessing services, and there were issues in terms of suitability of land and deliverability, however there would be no greenbelt release.

The Senior Policy Officer, S Carter explained that the current consultation period ran until 5 August and there would be a number of activities including: staffed events at towns and to ensure geographic coverage; static displays at libraries and leisure centres; discussions at Area Action Partnership (AAP) meetings and use of AAP newsletters and social media; Member Briefing; Town and Parish Councils; County Durham Partnership events; local press and radio; the Council’s website, Twitter and Facebook; use of executive summaries; and business events.

The Chairman thanked the Officer for his presentation and asked Members for their questions on the update report and presentation.

Councillor D Hall asked for further information in terms of low land values making viability difficult.  The Senior Policy Officer, S Carter explained that there were issues in terms of the margins for developers, and whether banks were willing to lend for investments noting previously there had been grants available in terms of supporting the development of former brownfield sites, this is no longer the case.

Councillor R Ormerod noted that within the options for housing there was mention of a solution for the A167 and asked if this was reference to a bypass, and added that he felt Option 1, with a focus on Durham City was not appropriate as Durham City was very small and felt a wider dispersal of housing would be preferable.  The Senior Policy Officer, D Randall noted that in the case of the A167, there would be modelling required and a relief road may be one of the possible solutions, with the Council’s Strategic Traffic Manager being involved in looking at this and other solutions, such as the SCOOT system, currently being added to the improvements being carried out in Durham City.  In terms of the housing options, the Senior Policy Officer, D Randall noted the options were not in any order of preference and that they were just a list at this point, with consultation ongoing and suggestions welcomed.  The Chairman asked if suggestions would need to be evidence based.  The Senior Policy Officer, D Randall explained that those evidence based suggestions were more likely to be taken forward, however, as each option and aspect could affect other issues there would be a need to evaluate the impacts accordingly.

Councillor H Nicholson noted his concerns in terms of the East and South West of the County being the most deprived areas within the County and felt that the plan should not be too focused on Durham City”.  Councillor H Nicholson added that he had concerns that some areas could be left behind if there was not a spread of development across the county and noted that it was very important to engage with the public all across the county.  The Chairman added that it was important to ensure that there was a very strong case for sustainable communities.

Councillor A Patterson noted that the former Inspector had listened to developers and within this report there was a focus on employment and travel areas.  Councillor A Patterson added that it had been noted at several meetings that the county had an aging population and the demand for bungalows was increasing and asked whether there was any control in terms of meeting this demand or was it an issue solely in the hands of the developers.

The Senior Policy Officer, S Carter explained that there had been some questions in terms of those issues and there was a need to have housing suitable for older people.  It was added that this would need to be evidence based in order to convince developers and therefore the challenge would be to show the need in terms of accessibility for older people and to ensure that this would be provided in the right places, linked to the relevant services being in place to support older people.  The Senior Policy Officer, D Randall added that any potential issues that came to light following the EU Referendum result would need to be addressed, although population projections should not be affected. 

Councillor O Temple noted he agreed with Councillor H Nicholson and added that he felt the last iteration of the CDP was too “Durham-Centric” and added he also felt that there had been too much focus on housing rather than on job creation and economic development.  Councillor O Temple also noted that the arguments in respect of the impact on greenbelt were mostly in terms of looking at Durham City, with less impact in areas in the East and South of the county. 

Councillor J Maitland noted that the East of the county needed jobs and that economic development would be welcomed, however, it was added that there was the additional attraction of the beautiful and historic coastline to consider.  Councillor J Maitland added that there was no decent road linking the East and West of the county and felt that some villages were being left behind.

Councillor J Clare noted that the questions posed at this stage of the consultation were not to gauge what Members thought of the CDP, rather a series of questions asking the general direction to inform a draft CDP.  Councillor J Clare noted that at this point it was the quality of the questions that was important, and there was a need to demonstrate evidence as regards any need identified, for example for more bungalows.  Councillor J Clare added he agreed with Councillor O Temple in terms of there being previously an imbalance between housing allocations and looking at job creation and economic development.  Councillor J Clare also noted that Paragraphs 3.28 and 3.29, and Question 11 within the Issues and Options document would be an important way of feeding into the issues of employment land.  Councillor J Clare noted the comments of Councillor J Maitland in respect of a route connecting the East and West of the county and asked where such comments would feed into the Issues and Options consultation, and whether the promotion of a North Darlington bypass as an aid to the economy was beyond the remit of the CDP.  Councillor J Clare concluded by noting the document had been very well set out, and that he hoped that “evidence based” did not mean that the views of people on the types of communities they wanted would not be heard should there be no hard evidence, as previously stated by Councillor H Nicholson it was important to engage with people across the county.

The Senior Policy Officer, D Randall explained that Question 31 within the Issues and Options document offered the opportunity to comment on potential new roads and added that should Members feel there was not a specific question on an issue they wished to comment on they could make an additional point comment accordingly.  Members were reminded of the freepost details for any responses.

Resolved:

(i)    That the report and presentation be noted.

(ii)   That the comments of the Members of the Economy and Enterprise Overview and Scrutiny Committee on the Issues and Options consultation be noted and fed into the ongoing consultation.