What’s Your Opinion?

A recent County Planning Committee criticised modern housing estates which, it said, cram people into too many, too tiny houses, do not provide enough parking places for family members, or sufficient off-road parking bays for visitors, and fail to set aside enough open, ‘green’ space. I am sure that residents could add other instances of bad design, including roads which are too narrow to park on, with obscure corners, lack of speed restraints … and many more.

By contrast, Policy 31 on pages 154-157 of the County Durham Plan Preferred Options (bit.ly/CDPPOF) will seek from housing developers “the highest standards in terms of architecture, design, sustainability and innovation”. New housing estates will be required to contribute to an area’s character, create buildings which can adapt to changing technologies, and be open, easily navigable and safe.

The CDP proposes a density of at least 30 dwellings per hectare in town centres and locations with good access to facilities and public transport. If you want the see what such a density looks like, the new Eden Fields development on Woodham Way is exactly 30dph. The Plan proposes that lower densities “may be acceptable” elsewhere.

This week, therefore, please consider the inadequacies of our existing housing estates, and suggest planning rules which will give Planners and Planning Committees the power to reject applications which continue making the old mistakes. Now also is the opportunity to ask for policies which will demand adequate developer contributions to improve the physical, social and environmental infrastructure (Policy 27), and to provide suitable broadband (Policy 29) and renewable technology (Policy 35).

THE CDP’S LIMITATIONS

There are requests which the Planners may not be able to add into the Plan because they are subject to government regulations:

• The CDP’s Supplementary Planning Document on good design (bit.ly/CDPBfL) reflects the industry standard ‘Building for Life 12’ guidance.

• The CDP’s Parking and Accessibility Standards (bit.ly/CDPPAS18) – which set the number and size of parking bays – are based on official ‘Residential Car Parking Research’.

• Minimum internal floor space rules are set down in the government’s ‘Nationally Described Space Standards’ (bit.ly/THSNDSS).

• And while the old Sedgefield Borough Plan required 600sqm of open space for every 10 dwellings, the current DCC Open Space Needs Assessment (OSNA) sets out much lower requirements on a population pro rata basis, and allows developers to make a financial contribution in lieu … because the OSNA is, similarly, based on government Planning Policy Guidance.

So we are constrained what we can demand from the CDP. And even if we were to be able to convince the Planning Inspectorate that we can justify tougher rules in County Durham, we have to be aware that house prices in the County are relatively low, and planning requirements which are too onerous will simply make housing developments unviable.

NEVERTHELESS

It is still worthwhile drawing the Planners’ attention to the inadequacies of modern housing estates, if only to give public support to the CDP’s attempts to demand the highest standards possible. Comment by post to FREEPOST Spatial Policy or by emailing: cdpconsultation@durham.gov.uk