The meeting last night in St Nicholas’ Church to discuss the market place was packed with residents. Barely a seat free in fact. Almost unanimous in their concerns about the mess we have been left with. From the critical road safety issues to the appalling drainage, metal bins, loss of traffic lights, a whole raft of issues raised, but the overriding view seemed to be that the shared use of road and pavement was unacceptable, and the overall scheme had been managed disgracefully.

I raised the issue of why the vennels had not had work done on them and have put in a freedom of information requesdt to find out if this work should have been included. It is one thing for the Labour Cabinet member to say that the project finished on budget, but clearly anything can finish on budgtet if you just do half the work.

I think this debate is going to rumble on. Once again Labour have made a mess of something which could have been great.

I would add that there are other bodies as well who may have to answer questions about this and about the way in which taxpayers money has been misspent.

Councillors have been invited to attend a meeting to discuss the community buildings review on 2nd August. We have yet to see the report.

This review is looking at all community centres and communal halls controlled by the county council, as well as the wider issues surrounding provision of community services.

Some of the centres which are being looked at in the Framwellgate moor Division are:

Framwellgate Moor Community Centre, Bearpark Community Centre, Beaurepaire Communal Hall, Woodbine Road Communal Hall

Fyndoune House, Flambard Road Communal Hall

I understand that in total there are around 180 buildings which the council currently owns and are designated as communal halls or community centres. I am also aware that some of these WILL BE BULLDOZED but the council is yet to say which ones. Of the ones in the Fram Division, I understand that Flambard Road is to continue to be used by a charity. In relation to all the others, I do not currently know what is going to happen but am aware that options include bulldozing and rebuilding, renovation, leaving the same or getting rid completely.

What is a disgrace in this process is that the council had originally intended for this report to be released in November last year and yet again has fallen behind. Also we have as councillors been given little if any indication of what is to happen to specific buildings despite repeated requests. In some cases community associations have been trying to invest to improve buildings for months and cannot until this report is completed and cleared by Cabinet.

It is unquestionable that the lack of information provided to councillors and communities is shameful on the Labour Cabinet.

It is also clear however that officers have been working hard to make sure that the right information is collated and they deserve praise for this difficult process.

Hopefully we will see that provision is protected, and though in some cases there will be investment requirements we cannot allow the council to try and inflate costings to justify closure or demolition.

If information is provided at the upcoming meeting I will report back

Held a constructive meeting today with officers at County Hall over the way forward for Abbey Leisure centre. Will report back shortly.

The introduction of a new power management system at County Hall has been postponed. The system, which it has been shown can save upto 30% on energy used by computers has been tested at Hopper House and Priory House in County Durham and was due to be rolled out by the Council on July 20th.

The system was recommended to the council in early 2009 by County Councillor Mark Wilkes, Framwellgate Moor Division.
Councillor Wilkes commented “In January 2009 I emailed all members and the Chief Executive recommending that we introduce this type of system. Whilst I am happy that the Council decided belatedly to do this, we are clearly moving at a snails pace.”

“For it to take over 2 and half years to implement this proposal is shocking. The Council could have already saved tens if not hundreds of thousands pounds across the County if it had got its act together earlier.”

These type of systems can be normally introduced within a matter of weeks by large organisations and work by automatically placing computers on standby or closing them down completely after a period of inactivity.

Councillor Wilkes added “The lost savings from years of delay would have helped protect frontline services and the blame must lie at Labour’s door – once again wasting money and failing to save taxpayers money.”

“I look forward to the system being fully implemented at the earliest opportunity.”

The system has now been delayed as a large number of computer users have asked for their systems to be exempted from pat or all of the program.

Last week I commented that a few Labour councillors wanted to be able to claim travel expenses for attending Charter Trust meetings. Today we unanimously ditched the idea, including the Labour councillors who were present.  Strangely, those who had called for this were absent- perhaps on holiday, perhaps not.

Anyway another victory for common sense.

At next weeks Full Coucil meeting I will be proposing a motionb that the council continues to have a dedicated Tourist Information Centre in Durham City.

At the same meeting a petition of over 7000 names will be put to the council by a resident, completely non-political.

It is clear to me that to scrap the TIC is one of the most short sighted things the Labour Council has ever decided to do.

At last nights Area Action Partnership,  even Labour members voiced concerns over this and called on the council to retain a dedicated TIC.

The proposal I will be putting forward with Cllr Stoker next week will offer a solution which is that the TIC should be moved to the Town Hall Foyer, where until some years ago it was anyway. A staffed facility here will cost very little to the council and is absolutely affordable.

The ludicrous position we will face in a few months is that a World Heritage Site City, Capital of the County will not have a Tourist Information Centre. I honestly believe that the decision by Labour to do this was done in haste, without proper consideration, and that there is still time to pull back from this and support a proposal which will ensure that visitors, businesses and residents will still have a world class service instead of not one member of the 21 Tourism staff being face to face with the public on a daily basis.

Come on Durham County Council and Labour councillors, recognise that scrapping the TIC is a mistake and that we can still afford to offer a facility for our great City.

Following my repeated requests, Norburn Park in Witton Gilbert has now had its road resurfaced. Another success. Newton Drive, Ashleigh Av and Aykley Road were also completed a few weeks ago – all from requests I have put in in the last year or so.

TODAY’S MEETING

Following a meeting  today with Ian Thompson, Corporate Director for Regeneration and Economic Development, and conversations with senior planning officers, I can provide the following update on the County Durham Plan, specifically in relation to Durham City Greenbelt issues.

I still personally believe that it is fundamentally wrong to build on the existing greenbelt around Durham City.

In relation to land North of the Arnison Centre which, according to various sources has been acquired or rights acquired by Ainscough Strategic Land (ASL), I have been told that no meetings have taken place in relation to this piece of land between ASL and the Council – though the Council has discussed land in Bishop Auckland with this company.

 However, there have been meetings with land owners of sites currently being considered under the County Durham Plan, including this land prior to the current apparent change in ownership.

COUNCIL PREFERENCE TO BUILD ON GREENBELT

I am also told that the revised Plan when released for consultation in coming months, will state that the preference of the Council is to build on the Green Belt. This to me implies that the Consultation on whether to build on greenbelt has become a tick box exercise in the eyes of the Council.

With this in mind, whilst I still fundamentally disagree with building on the Green Belt, and think we should do all we can to stop this, I feel it is also necessary for all possible options to be looked at to mitigate such development should it happen.

Any proposals which can be put forward to reduce impact on the greenbelt must be considered.

The Council has not considered all potential development sites both inside and outside of Durham City which could be built on BUT ARE NOT GREENBELT.

The Council strategy is that they want to build as many houses as close to Durham City as their plan allows for. I believe that surrounding villages, and land within the City have not been considered in their calculations.

LARGE PIECES OF LAND NOT CONSIDERED

I firmly believe that up to 2000 houses could be built on land which is not greenbelt within a few miles of the City, thus protecting around half of the greenbelt which would be lost, and further that if greenbelt is to be built on, the way in which this land is developed could be done in such a way as to considerably reduce the impact on these areas.

By way of example, looking at Bearpark, the provision of additional housing in the village would make the existing businesses more sustainable and reduce impact on the wider greenbelt. This could also include a new primary school building and community centre hub. The Strategic Land Assessment appears to suggest 150 additional properties here but more could be accommodated with improvements to local roads and facilities. To date, no housing provision has been mentioned for Bearpark.

In other areas, similar housing provision is possible. There is the potential for some additional housing in Witton Gilbert for example.

Both villages need to be fully consulted as part of the Council Plan as whatever happens it will effect the residents in these areas.

Any discussion on this is of course dependent upon the Council’s  belief that we need this number of houses being correct. I have not been convinced that we need this number of additional houses.

FACILTIES

As the Council is going to press ahead with this consultation, a discussion now also needs to start as to what additional facilities will be forthcoming for the affected areas, and also what the improvements to the existing areas which are going to be impacted will be.

Having looked at the initial Council Plan, it is clear that the impact on Framwellgate Moor and Pity Me will be huge.

Some of the examples of things which will have to be provided and which if the plan goes ahead I will be pushing for include:

Increased parkland and recreational areas

Additional allotments

Additional primary school places and improved existing comprehensive school facilities – potentially a new school

More healthcare facilities such as doctors, dentists, Sure Start, improvements to local shops and potentially more shops.

Improvements to the existing housing estates and streets including for example the upgrading of unadopted roads in Framwellgate Moor and Pity Me such as the terraces to the rear of Framwellgate Moor Front Street and the back lanes at rear of Front St, Pity Me .

Improvements and guarantees for the existing Community Centre in Framwellgate Moor and potential provision of further community buildings. [The community buildings review has still not been released and will be 10 months overdue if released in September].

Improved indoor leisure facilities – including the guarantee that Abbey Leisure Centre returns to full opening hours. [Note that I am meeting with officers on Thursday to discuss the way forward for protecting as much as possible at Abbey. Seems crazy to cut back hours at a centre if you are planning to build 4000 houses on the doorstep!]

A clear plan to mitigate the potential increase in traffic levels – which is where debate on the proposed bypasses will come in.

TYPE OF HOUSING AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Any consideration for new housing must take into account the existing problems in the area in relation to provision of affordable housing.

This must not just be about the cost to buy or rent, but also the cost to live in. So proper bus routes, zero carbon homes with very low energy requirements, proper use of and dispersal of rainwater to avoid flooding.

There also needs to be a much more in depth consideration of the impacts on wildlife given the number of at risk species which can be found on much of these areas.

CONCLUSION

I am not convinced that we need 5000 new homes in Durham City and do not believe we should be building on the greenbelt.

I do believe that if houses are to be built, there are large areas of land which are not greenbelt which could accommodate housing and have not been considered due to the Council’s strategy of wanting the new housing to be within Durham and not in the surrounding villages.

It is clear that existing residents must see guarantees of improvements to the existing area including regeneration, provision of recreational land, allotments and improved community and leisure facilities.

Issues relating to traffic are a critical point and additional houses must be accompanied by road infrastructure improvements and measures to reduce car usage.

At every stage going forward the Council must be honest with residents about how many houses are being proposed to be built and exactly where.

A wide variety of housing must be provided and must be affordable to live in and carbon neutral.

The Council must prove that it has consulted with all residents about its plans and this should be more than just meetings. Every household in the most affected areas should be written to with a dedicated survey to complete and return.

I have arranged a meeting this week between the Director of Neighbourhoods, myself and Newton Hall councillors and the head of the Steering group which bid for Abbey, to discuss what we see as the requirements for Abbey Leisure Centre. Going forward we want to see if the changes to opening hours can be kept to a minimum. I also want to see the council promote the centre more, help us install a youth gym facility, upgrade the conference facilities, install solar panels to cut costs and Co2 emissions and help address a number of other problems at the centre.

To find out what you can do at the centre in the coming months visit: www.durham.gov.uk/sports

The repairs tothe road at Pity Me Front St are for electric mains work (reason for the traffic lights). It is scheduled to be complete no later than the 17th.

Electric works are also to take place on Norburn Lane in Witton Gilbert on the 27th July, and part of Brookside in Witton Gilbert will be closed for the carriageway rebuilding I pushed for, on the 28th July.