Calls for the Planning Inspectorate to review its report into County Durham’s economic blue print for the future are mounting.
In addition to a series of business and organisation-led letters to the Planning Inspectorate and Government departments – a date for the council to outline its concerns to the Inspectorate is now set for next week.
In February planning inspector Harold Stephens published his interim report into the plan, following a public examination process in the autumn. This interim report said the County Durham Plan was flawed, unrealistic and over ambitious.
However, during a Westminster Hall debate on the subject – tabled by Phil Wilson MP – Parliamentary Undersecretary for State, Penny Mordaunt MP, confirmed the plan’s ambitions were correct.  In a letter to the MP the minister reiterates this view, stating “The inspector’s interim findings do not mean that County Durham should be less ambitious, but rather the council need to do more to evidence that their strategy is the most appropriate compared against reasonable alternatives. Equally the inspector’s interim findings are just that…”
These comments, along with consistent and mounting expressions of support for the plan from both businesses and regional organisations, underline the council’s view that the plan’s ambitions are sound – a stance reiterated by the North East Chamber of Commerce today. The organisation’s head of member relations is Jonathan Walker: “The County Durham Plan represents a clear statement of ambition and appetite for growth. This is why businesses across the county have supported it.
“Durham boasts a vibrant and successful business community, yet so much more can be achieved if an ambitious plan is adopted. We are urging the Government and Planning Inspectorate to recognise this and to work towards a positive outcome for the county.”
Philip Baker, planning director at County Durham-headquartered property and energy firm The Banks Group, said: “Along with the county council and many other local businesses, we were hugely surprised to read an interim report describing ambitious targets for economic growth in County Durham as being unrealistic and harmful to the City of Durham, and were especially concerned with the anti-growth philosophy which seems to have been applied therein.
“County Durham is the sixth biggest local planning authority in England by population and size, yet for a range of predominantly historic reasons, it lags behind other areas both in its present rate of growth and its prospects for growth in the future.
“A step change is required to give the people and businesses of County Durham the opportunities they deserve, but without a strategic, progressive, holistic approach of the type that the county council has been looking to progress for the benefit of the whole county, this simply won’t be achievable.
“Durham City is an historic place which requires new development to be sensitively designed and located, but there are clear precedents to follow in similar smaller cities such as Cambridge, where an appropriate scale and style of growth is being successfully planned and implemented to the benefit of the city itself and the whole surrounding area.
“We would strongly urge all national and regional bodies to work together in support of reaching the overarching objective of securing long-term, sustainable economic growth for County Durham and the wider North East region.”
The interim report’s criticism of the plan was unprecedented nationally, other council plans have been criticised due to their lack of ambitions. In response the council has sought expert legal advice.
Cllr Neil Foster, Cabinet member for economic regeneration at the county council, said: “We have been clear from the outset that we are committed to the ambitions of the plan and extremely disappointed that the inspector did not use a number of key opportunities ahead of the examination to raise the serious concerns referenced in the interim report.
“We are heartened however by the response of the business community, regional organisations and Government regarding finding a way ahead.
“This support is particularly welcome ahead of our meeting with the Planning Inspectorate early next week.        “The legal advice we have received further underpins our belief that there is every reason to believe we can find a resolution to this matter by working with the Planning Inspectorate and Government.
“We will explore every opportunity to do just that and look forward to a timely meeting with Mr Osborne to press our case.”
The plan was five years in the making and details proposals around the creation of 30,000 jobs and the building so over 31,400 new homes over the period it spans. It includes proposals for each of the county’s 12 main towns and for rural areas. These are business –led predictions. Their criticism has provoked a strong outcry from employers and investors in the county and beyond. Led by Sir John Hall, some 30 signed a letter to Government requesting a date for the meeting promised by the Chancellor for the Exchequer, George Osborne MP, during a visit to Stockton. The date for this meeting has yet to be set.    Amongst the details the council will discuss with the Planning Inspectorate and Chancellor are:
• The Inspector has suggested we reduce our ambition on bringing jobs to the area by over 5,000, this goes against recent announcements and opportunities announced by the Chancellor regarding creating a northern powerhouse;
• The interim report significantly restricts the job opportunities expected for Aykley Heads in Durham which would assist in bringing much needed higher paid jobs to the area, as demonstrated by Atom Bank’s recent decision to locate there;
• The Inspector’s role was to advise on changes which would make the plan sound. The interim report has gone way beyond this by identifying sites and issues which were not discussed neither was evidence put forward. We believe they are therefore not relevant regarding whether the plan is sound or not;
• The Inspector has failed to consider relevant evidence in reaching his decisions and also dismisses nationally recognised data in his decision making.