Planning inspector identifies 'fundamental issues' affecting soundness of emerging County Durham plan

Following public hearing sessions last year into the draft County Durham Plan, which is intended to guide development in the county until 2030, examining inspector Harold Stephens wrote to Durham County Council (29-page / 260 KB PDF) this week to provide his interim views on the legal compliance and soundness of the submitted plan.

Stephens said the Council's assessment that 1,651 new homes were required in the area in each year of the plan period was not reasonable and was based on unrealistically high forecasts of employment growth and inward migration. He noted that it was "imperative to take into account the fact that other authorities in the North East are similarly seeking growth" and that "competition from other regional business centres is currently a key challenge".

The inspector said the Council's estimated housing requirement was "too high and should be lowered" and that "a more cautious job growth target, reducing the reliance on in-migration" was more appropriate. He also criticised the Council's failure to make allowances in its housing figures for demolitions, for bringing empty homes back into use and for windfall sites providing space for new housing without the need for specific allocations within the plan.

Stephens said he could not support the "huge releases of green belt land" around the city of Durham proposed under the plan. The inspector said he identified "significant shortcomings" in the Council's assessment of the capacity of sites within Durham city for the delivery of housing and concluded that there was "no need to release three large sites from the green belt to meet the objectively assessed housing requirement".

The inspector was also critical of proposals for two relief roads, which he considered were "not justified, deliverable or environmentally acceptable".

Stephens concluded that the plan could not be found sound on the evidence that had been provided. While the Council could suspend the plan's examination rather than withdrawing it entirely, he said that "given the fundamental issues that I have described it is very likely to be unrealistic to suggest that these could be rectified" within the six months that would usually be allowable under a suspension.