It took Durham County Council over a decade to create its recently launched masterplan for future business and housing developments, listing potential sites across the county.
One site on the edge of Barnard Castle wasn’t earmarked for homes after officers said it was unsuitable. But last week planners agreed that up to 100 homes could be built on the field, prompting Teesdale county councillors to ask what was the point of it all.
A CONTROVERSIAL development for up to 100 houses has been given the go ahead by county planners, leaving councillors questioning the point of the recently passed County Durham Plan.
Banks Group’s proposals for an agricultural field off Darlington Road, Barnard Castle, adjacent to the Castle Vale estate, were approved by Durham County Council’s planning committee last week. The application divided opinion with 403 letters submitted, 252 opposing the scheme and 151 in support. Streatlam and Marwood parish councils both objected, stating it was an incursion into the countryside.
Opinion was no less mixed when the application was discussed by the planning committee last Tuesday.
Objecting to the scheme, county councillor Richard Bell raised concerns about the “misuse of policy” in allowing the application to be considered.
He pointed out Durham’s 2019 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) report had deemed the land unsuitable for development. He said: “The SHLAA in 2019, which is pretty recent really, said development on the site would be an incursion into open attractive countryside – an area of high landscape value.”
The County Durham Plan , which was adopted last autumn, lists potential sites for housing and business development but the field off Darlington Road was not one of them.
Cllr Bell said it was a “misuse of policy” to allow future flexibility for approval of smaller sites not already identified in the plan.
He said: “I do think it is a distortion of ‘policy six’ to the point of breaking it, to bring in a major application site of 100 plus units to come before the county planning committee, never mind the south west committee, using policy six to actually discount the SHLAA view.”
He added: “This is an overdevelopment of the town and is leading to pressure on the local health services.
“There is not the demand for the housing, there is not the necessity for this in the town and there are pressures on the town services.
“We have to ask what is the point of the County Durham Plan, or having the SHLAA process, if major sites are coming through like this.”
Cllr James Rowlandson, speaking on behalf of Stainton and Streatlam Parish Council, also objected to the development. He pointed out the development was only 100 metres from Stainton Grove and was an incursion into another community.
Cllr Mark Wilkes said: “What is the point of the County Durham Plan? It has just been passed. I’m thinking what we have is someone coming along trying it on and trying to build. I don’t think this development is fit for purpose.”
Barnard Castle resident Laura Hunter spoke in support of the application and said as a first-time buyer, more affordable homes were needed in the town to ensure the younger generation were able to continue living in the area.
Jill Lomax, from Banks Group, said the development would create employment and much needed housing. She added £190,000 council tax would also be gained
annually from the development.
Town resident Alan Coulthard told members the town had built a “strong brand image” as a market town, one that attracted many visitors, including Dominic Cummings, and that needed to be protected.
He said: “This proposed development doesn’t hide the urbanisation of that brand. The support letters, they were fraudulent. They were cut and paste from Banks employees and that certainly needs investigating.”
Barney resident Paula Shepherd was in support of the development and hoped her children would have the opportunity to live here. She told members it seemed “nonsensical” to turn away this kind of application
Cllr Fraser Tinsley said: “We have to accept Barnard Castle is a place where people want to live.”
Cllr Alan Shield said he had some “serious concerns” about the interpretation of policy six and asked where would the line be drawn if a 100-house development is considered a small site.
Members voted nine to five in favour of the application, subject to conditions, which include a £45,000 contribution to NHS services and £157,410 to improve open spaces and recreational facilities.
