Dear Editor I write regarding the recent decision of the Durham County Council (DCC) Planning Committee to refuse permission for the proposed development at Woodham. We are all aware that this site has a long planning history & while I can understand that some local residents might welcome the Council’s decision I believe that the reasons given for refusal are questionable. Many years ago when development of the site was proposed a major issue was access off the A167.
Now, it is clear that the Highway Authority has no problem with a signalised junction being installed on the A167. Since presumably traffic Mixed Messages on Woodham Development growth has increased in the intervening period it would suggest that the original objections were unfounded. Furthermore, the report makes clear that Rushyford roundabout is already over capacity regardless of this and other proposed developments. This is not news to those who use it regularly. The developer would have contributed to the cost of upgrading this busy junction so what plans do DCC have to upgrade Rushyford roundabout? With the A167 access issue dead in the water the planners have had to think up an alternative reason to refuse permission.
The notice published on the DCC website says that there would be “significant adverse landscape harm” if the development were to go ahead. Is this a convincing argument? According to the applicant’s statement in the planning report: “ … 8 weeks into the determination period a response was received in October 2016 advising that officers had changed their position and considered the site to represent a “valued landscape”. The applicant was advised that the planning application was no longer supported by officers.” This appears to be because the: “parcel of land that provides a strategic separation between the wider development of Newton Aycliffe and Woodham” It must come as a surprise to anyone travelling along Woodham Way that there is considered to be a separation between Woodham and Newton Aycliffe. There isn’t even a road sign! Perhaps someone should have thought of that when Woodham was first developed.
It seems that DCC are giving mixed messages to developers. They are relying on the 1996 Sedgefield Local Plan which is out of date, having been due to expire in 2006 but failing to come up with coherent plans to address government requirements on housing supply. In all of this the landowner, Mr Porter, has been dignified in what must be a frustrating process. He has received countless knock-backs while the authorities rely on outdated plans. DCC say that they “sought to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner”. I don’t think it’s helpful for them to change their position during a consultation. I think it is now incumbent on DCC to work with the developer to work out precisely what would be acceptable. This issue needs resolving, assuming the Planning Inspectors don’t simply impose a solution as has happened elsewhere.
R.Tarling, Biscop Crescent
