A DEVELOPER has called for land on the edge of Barnard Castle to be included in the County Durham Plan as a site for an additional 100 homes.
Currently the county plan, which is open for consultation, only allows for 35 houses to be built at William Smith Grove Works site, in Queen Street, in the town.
The plan identifies areas in County Durham that can be developed for housing, retail and industry until 2035.
Banks Property, part of Durham-based Banks Group, wants land next to the new Castle Vale housing development, off Darlington Road, allocated for housing.
In its submission, the company said: “[The land] is
rectangular in shape, approximately 5.5 hectares in size and currently in agricultural use. The site would provide a highly desirable location for good quality housing.
“It would deliver housing growth during the plan period that is more commensurate with the role of Barnard Castle as a main town. This is vital to protect and enhance the vibrancy of the town and its services, and ensure it is able to retain its population, particularly young families.”
The company added that the development would be a mix of houses, including family homes and bungalows.
Banks properties is not the only submission to ask for a greater housing allocation for Teesdale.
Barnard Castle town councillor Judi Sutherland described the plan’s view that only 35 houses would be needed in the dale until 2035 as “fantastical” .
She added: “I am told by town councillors, however, that part of this site was originally designated for town centre parking. We do suffer from a great shortage of parking, especially at weekends, which is limiting to Barnard Castle as a ‘large town’ and regional hub for Teesdale.”
County councillor for the town Richard Bell said: “While accepting that there has been considerable development in Barnard Castle and Starforth in recent years, an allocation of 35 houses for Teesdale – all at the Smiths site in Queen Street – is inadequate.
“An allocation of at least 100 should be made.
“Further, the development permitted in the villages through ‘windfall’ sites is not clear. It is important to the continued viability of villages schools, shops and pubs that sensible development should be allowed and it is feared the plan does not currently accommodate this.”
