RESULTS OF LIB DEM SURVEY ON PLAN

Several thousand surveys were delivered by the Lib Dems to the West of Durham City in Newton Hall, , , and to get views on Durham County Council’s proposals for new housing, the development of Aykley Heads, and proposals for two relief roads. In addition the survey was advertised in the local press and residents from other parts of the area also made contributions.

A full survey of has yet to be carried out, as we are waiting for a consultation meeting in the village, currently penciled in for April 17 th 3.30pm to 7.30pm, mainly centred around the Western relief Road issues.

Separate information about responses to housing in Witton Gilbert are being provided to the Council in a separate document.

Over 300 people responded and hundreds of comments related to the County Durham Plan and Consultation are detailed in this report.

In addition a separate survey was conducted by the Lib Dems in Neville’s Cross relating to the Western Relief Road and other local issues which had over 200 responses but is not included in this report.

The comments in this report are entirely from residents and should not be taken as representing the views of the County Council or any political group.

Mark Wilkes – County Councillor, Framwellgate Moor Division Amanda Hopgood – County Councillor, Newton Hall Division Mamie Simmons – County Councillor, Newton Hall Division

BRIEF OVERVIEW OF RESPONSES

• Over 80% against proposals for housing on greenbelt.

• Over 80% feel Durham County Council hasn’t consulted properly on the plans

• Over 60% in favour of Western Relief Road

• Nearly 70% in favour of Northern Relief Road

• Residents split nearly 50-50 on proposals for Aykley Heads

• New housing should be family homes and first-time buyer homes with strong view that this housing should be eco-friendly.

Answer Options Response Percent

Bearpark 4.2% Belmont 0.7% Brasside / Finchale Abbey Village 6.9% Durham City 3.1% Framwellgate Moor 17.7% Newton Hall 34.7% Neville's Cross 0.7% Pity Me 11.5% Witton Gilbert 15.3% Other (please specify) 5.2%

Comments from respondents: • Build houses and develop ONLY if houses are needed...... In favour Against • In favour if more industry recruited. • Only if roads are upgraded to cope. • It would lead to Chester-le-Street etc • Jobs, council tax income becoming suburbs of Durham City. Open • Some but not as many as that. Great need space between settlements is important. for affordable / social housing. • It will spoil the area. • Preferable site to others • Because it's greenbelt land. • Against unless new bypass to Belmont. • Road network is not able to cope with the • It's to tie in with a western relief road, which increased traffic. Greenbelt would be affected. of the two is a higher priority. It would destroy Witton Gilbert as a village - • Understand requirement for some making it a suburb. development, but planned number of houses • In greenbelt. No existing housing nearby. seems extremely excessive. Lots of housing stock already available • Provide jobs and housing. I am only in favour, • No new housing should be built on greenbelt if the roads and additional infrastructure is in land place first. • Too many houses already • Marginal. Depends over what period of the • Same as above greenbelt should mean 20 years this is envisaged. If it is spread over greenbelt the 20 years then could be persuaded that • Infrastructure of hospitals, decent roads and this is sustainable. schools lacking - we have log jam on school • more footpaths and cycle routes (off road) run every day now. for those trying to leave car at home. • We must be expecting mass migration into • Too much local congestion and pollution. No this area / Any shortfall in current water resources from the ever-declining requirements can't be this great. water table to support the houses. Against • Houses are not selling ( Demand Low). Extra building on greenbelt/open country side 4000 to 6000 cars = major traffic problems. • The roads are already congested with extra Schools and hospital will not cope. buildings plus their cars. • More houses. More traffic. Total gridlock. • Durham is one of the most congested cities • Building on open spaces! Pressure on local in the UK in terms of vehicles per person services and infrastructure. circa 5000 cars would cause chaos. • I am against taking any greenland and • Shortly we will become part of and walkways away from this area. Chester-le-Street • I cannot understand why greenbelt land is • New buildings should be put on brownfield now being built upon. Do we really need sites Don't want to see greenbelt land built these houses or does the council just want on Put a block on student lets and bring to increase its revenues. 2000 houses! How more housing in the city back into family have the council decided we need this many? occupation • No exceptional circumstances have been • I understand that this is a green field site. justified for incursion into the greenbelt There must be other land that is more • Visually unappealing. traffic disruption whilst environmentally acceptable for housing. working. no need for new homes - especially • There is too much congestion in this area as min current climate it is. • Just look at the area now. And who will buy • Bring back villages with community spirit and these homes anyway. local work rather than a concrete and tarmac • Negating one of the reasons Durham has its jungle with no high quality green space within good name. ie Its green veins running into walking distance of my house like villages in the city centre. the south of . This is just to keep • No doubt these will be executive type which builders in work while developers become are not available to "ordinary people" millionaires. • plenty of housing available in Fram Newton • Unless they are going to build reasonably Hall Pity Me. also would put more strain on priced starter homes, there is no point. the volume of traffic on bypass. rest of the market can't move cos the 1st • how much farm land is to be sold off and time buyers can't afford to buy anything where will the flood plain go when the land is decent. covered. • Far too many houses in the area • Many of the new houses in the area have not • A167 congestion would increase been sold. There is not enough work in the • Greenbelt area for existing residents who commute out of the region. Why do we need more houses? • Why use greenbelt land Why not build them close to the areas of • The area is already well served with houses. employment on brown field sites eg in The additional traffic would also be Newcastle. unwelcome. We need to preserve green • Nurseries, primary and secondary schools fields are not planned at all. Children are more • No doubt this will end up as executive important than cement! homes that can't be filled ( as appears • That is far too many houses in such a currently in Durham) or sold as buy to let. naturally beautiful part of Durham City. I feel also why does everything have to be built on this estate will take away from the beauty of greenbelt. Who would actually benefit. the area and stop Durham from being such Services are being cut for the current an appealing place to live. There are also residents - how would the council manage limited school places to start with how on with more people living here? earth will the schools cope with these many • Too much green land has been lost already. new houses in the area?! • Far too many. Keep greenbelt • The current infrastructure of schools, • Loss of even more countryside doctors, dentist roads, police, fire and • Can we keep some greenery in Durham. ambulance services as well as bus routes can • Is there demand for this quantity not cope with the amount of proposed building. As there are no jobs this could of Sacriston & Langley Park as well as Pity Me prove to be a white elephant plus the & Framwellgate Moor. I do not believe the destruction of the green belt land. local infrastructures of schools, G.P.s' etc are • Why do we need any more housing in the developed or able to cope with such an middle of a housing slump? increase in population. The emphasis should • No plan for schools described. Links into be on supporting local/outlying villages & town will be divided by main road making towns. people believe they need to drive. • Totally opposed for the reasons given above. • This seems like an awful lot of houses and I'm Part of what makes Durham precious are the not sure the local infrastructure would green areas in and around the city environs - support such an increase. I am also against this plan will just contribute to making building on green belt land - I'm sure there Durham an urban sprawl. The city has not are brown site areas which have not yet all learned its lessons of the struggle to sell been developed. newly constructed properties around the Pity • This is a area that has a very diverse wildlife Me area in the last 5 years. It will lead to + The football field is the only place in the significant environmental impact and may well area for all sorts of recreation ie model plane actually pull people away from living in other flying dog training golf practice(Durham villages and smaller towns in County Durham. should have a green belt) "What is This smacks of classic County Council development to allow structure planting to thinking - they focus on what a few specific develop "? officers want in their particular bunker, • Current road is dangerous. Greenbelt land. consultants are hired with a brief to make a Porterhouse Lane & A167 cannot cope with case that supports the plan, councillors are extra traffic. Would be a detriment to the provided with the convincing consultants landscape. Roads (Porterhouse Lane & report and the plan gets the go-ahead. Sacriston to Durham) are already too busy & However, there is no joined up thinking queuing at peak times. across the Council - the classic example here • There are too many empty properties has been the Council's desire to close local around this area. sports facilities. Surely, if so many houses are • I drive from Trouts Lane into Durham every constructed, one facility that would be in morning. It is 1 mile to the entrance to the particular demand by young families is and Park and ride and can take 10 minutes at other groups in society would be sport peak times. The addition of 2800 houses and centres? assuming 1.5 cars per household the plan • Also this is a massive development which seems to be gearing up for gridlock with would further clog the city ie. Pity Me and 4200 extra vehicles using the same roads In Sniperley roundabouts which are already my experience most of this traffic is driving massively overburdened. The county suggests across Durham to Sunderland and the A1. that these houses are needed for the The relief roads will do little to improve this development of the business hub, I suggest journey time. they would in fact be dormitory • Much of the attraction of Durham is that is a accommodation for Tyneside/wearside. This SMALL city, (see Bill Bryson's comments, would not solve the housing problem for which have been prominently quoted). people who cannot get on to the housing Publicity etc. for Durham should focus on the ladder, as is usually the case Durham housing lack of urban sprawl, that it is still a living city carries a premium on its prices. Also not in a way which York, for example, is not. The enough provision is allowed in the plans for idea of a massive development stretching half social/ affordable housing. A planning rep at way to Sacriston is appalling. the consultation said these houses would be expensive leaving the social housing to be • Building in these areas would lead to the developed in the outlying villages. The breakdown and 'ghetto-isation' of outlying following Sherburn Rd development, I am villages and increase localized congestion broadly in favour of as it has clearer while reducing the feeling of community boundaries, though I am worried about which exists in the current smaller possible future development south along the settlements of Pity Me & Framwellgate Moor. motorway or east across the motorway. Property prices will be negatively affected for current property owners in the local villages • that is potentially 4000 people into an area, roundabouts. These are a nightmare on a where school places are limited and NHS morning. Also the underpass would be used could not cope. I would like to see how you for access to fram and this is already an derived this number of houses needed. undesirable area with young men and women Would the council be prepared to fund more often accumulating there and causing a schools. health care provision nuisance. • The A167 should be upgraded to completely • This is Green Belt, a permanent designation. dueled north of the city, and the ridiculous The Green Belt is quite narrow and the set up bypassing Chester-le-Street needs houses could be built outside it as the addressing before any more traffic can be put Inspector at the Durham Local Plan Enquiry through this system. in 2004 recognised. • Additional local facilities and the need for • why build on green belt when there is an further vehicular transport would have a abundance of surrounding villages or brown major impact on the surrounding field sites which would be far more suitable developments and retail areas, apart from for redevelopment road networks, medical centres, schools, etc. • 2800 houses means over 6,000 people. That Very little would be available within walking is ridiculous and would swamp the local area. distance, hence the impact on the area with • This proposal is even more frustrating than more cars, in an area where, especially at the first. This land is open land which gives weekends, the area is grid-locked. the only relief from hundreds of houses • I do not consider that the road network can already and will eventually join up local areas sustain the number of houses to be built. I with each other. As the comments above would also question as to who is going to relating to the infrastructure the argument buy these houses - where are the jobs against this proposal is the same. However in coming from to enable this to happen. The terms of the amount of houses is just beyond only jobs I can foresee are within the building belief. The A167 is now at capacity with industry. traffic, all traffic islands are at a standstill • local services and infrastructure cannot most of the day but especially bad at peak sustain this proposal. I can't imagine that times will long queues. Not only is there there are funds to improve the roads and congestion, but fumes, noise, lights etc and it services and even the income from Council is totally polluting to the people that already Tax would not support the required live here. One does not need to me a improvements. mathematician to work out how much more • Again this is on the edge of town better to traffic this proposal will generate. Quality of use brown field sites closer to Durham. This life will only get worse. There appears to be would be environmentally more sound as less no understanding of the situation by this mileage on the roads. council and it obviously never listens to the • I would like to see more living space per people who already live here. Ever since this house than is the current "norm" for new plans were proposed every meeting held the housing majority of residents have been against it. • all this additional traffic would use Rotary The reasons for voting against this proposal Way and the A167 which is also congested at are very obvious. Please listen to the people peak times heading towards the motorway. that live here. There are enough houses in • we just need to keep our green belt Durham to accommodate all people without • no evidence that this enormous number is building new. If we can find them so can the required in and around the city. All brown council. field sites should be used first. These house • Too many houses on Green Belt land. should be spread across the county eg Creates urban sprawl Chester B/Auckland etc • Pity me roundabout is mentioned as 'possibly' • This is a beautiful part of Durham - it is rural needing works to cope with the traffic. The - lets leave it that way. Where is the demand? congestion now is a serious issue. More Where are the signatures asking for this housing would compromise road safety in the development? extreme. • Ruin greenbelt • as per reply above plus roads not sufficient • Far too many houses the schools and roads to support amount of increased vehicles in this area could not cope. In particular the • As above, plus the disturbance caused to the • The proposed number is far too great an wildlife with the pollution caused by extra encroachment into the green belt roads, sewers, street lighting and the added danger of thousands of extra cars, lorries and buses.

• If council housing, would agree. Keep Comments from respondents: greenbelt • It's to tie in with the Northern Relief Road In favour • Providing that the infrastructure is in place first, e.g. Northern relief road,doctors, • In favour if more industry recruited. schools etc. Over demand on services makes • Already close to existing infrastructure. It the standard of life for existing residences will support existing local businesses worse. • Jobs, extra council tax income. • Good for jobs Good for the community • Provide jobs and housing. I am only in favour, More people More ideas and business if the roads and additional infrastructure is in • We are constantly told that we need more place first. homes, especially for first time buyers. This is • This seems an appropriate site for affordable not an area of SSSI or used by residents for / social housing other purposes as far as I can see. What are • Only if a bridge crossing the Wear goes the arguments against it? ahead (Brasside to Belmont) • Feel strongly that no building should occur • Labour never built any council houses. Some North of the Arnison Centre though some council houses should be built. building next to the Newton Grange pub down toward Brasside may be acceptable but plans would need to be viewed and consulted a Green Belt which was established recently. upon. The idea of increasing the size of the city will • If I understand the remit behind the whole be detrimental to tourism rather than the plan, it is based around trying to attract opposite. international employers to Durham to stop • This will increase congestion leading to the the city being squeezed economically by Arnison Centre which is already congested at Tyneside and Teesside. I feel the overall heavy shopping times presumption is wrong in that the Council is • Concerned about inevitable further traffic trying to make Durham something it is not. congestion this would cause, particularly The city is clearly a different entity to the during commuter times, and at weekends other more industrial conurbations and this when Arnison Centre traffic already causes significant development is likely to harm our major delays from late morning onwards. major attraction, that of being a green city • Ruining greenbelt land and narrowing the gap and tourism centre. However, I can see there between Durham and Chester-le-Street. may be scope for some housing in this area if Durham will become in danger of becoming it replaces brownfield development at the part of 'Greater Tyneside' likes of Police HQ. • Once lost green belt land will not be • 500 to 800 is a large number but are recovered as green in future. required an extension of Newton Hall seems • More than enough traffic in area already. appropriate Already built enough houses on greenbelt • Subject to the supporting infrastructure being land ie Arnison Centre and surroundings. included - access, northern by-pass, Please leave a little bit of countryside. Also community services appropriate for an we put up with enough noise and dust every extensive development day when Arnison was built. • if more houses are required this is a perfect • Already a large estate. Want some green land spot to remain. • there is pressure already on the local road along with school and doctors Against • Services, junctions, shopping centres etc already at limit creating congestion and 7 • There is sufficient housing in this part of the days-a-week noise. Additional roads planned City. No more reduction of the green belt is will just be swamped by additional demand. necessary. The local infrastructure cannot • Road infrastructure already taxed beyond sustain further housing reasonable limit. • This is Green Belt, a permanent designation. • This is beautiful green belt land. The small The Green Belt is quite narrow and the size of Durham and its surrounding houses could be built outside it as the countryside are integral to its identity and Inspector at the Durham Local Plan Enquiry touristic appeal. Durham should protect its in 2004 recognised. uniqueness. Sprawling suburbia will make it • I have witnessed the Great Park development like anywhere else. at Newcastle. It has been ongoing for 20 • There are a number of unoccupied houses years and has failed to deliver. The economic around Durham. Newton hall is a very big climate is not right. They are building to estate order now - there are areas and townships • why build on green belt when there is an left unbuilt because no one is buying. We abundance of surrounding villages or brown don’t want Pity Me to become a ghost town. field sites which would be far more suitable It is currently sustainable - we do not want for redevelopment to take risks with something that is working. • Roads are too congested • this is larger than many villages, the increased • Do not want housing to be built on greenbelt pressure on the Arnison centre would be or farmland! huge, possibly leading to further extension of • One should not develop Green Belt/Farm that. Infrastructure wont cope effectively. Land • Against any development that endangers the • no building should take place in designated Green Belt green belt. Plenty of brownfield sites available • I feel that Durham City is large enough in areas of county Durham already. This is attractive countryside, part of • The traffic congestion in and around the • Newton hall is quite large enough and there Arnison Centre is already an issue for those are severe traffic problems at busy times. living in the area. Any further development • New buildings should be put on brownfield prior to relief roads being completed would sites Don't want to see greenbelt land built simply overload the road system completely. on Put a block on student lets and bring • We need to protect our Greenbelt and more housing in the city back into family other areas of relaxation and leisure occupation • The council had not provided any justification • Rotary Way is seriously overused and the for the building of any more houses in this facilities of Arnison Centre are too. Both are area. Looking at the figures there a sufficient already badly congested increasing residential large numbers of houses in the Durham area housing would make ordinary life impossible. which are for sale, to let, council or social • Make the universities keep their students on housing available. This council needs to campus leaving properties in the city free for repair and get back into usage houses they local residents. Too many houses let to have themselves let go into disrepair. students. Durham does not have the infrastructure to • The road around the Arnison Centre is accommodate this proposal. Traffic is at a already congested. the area also effectively standstill as it is. marks the end of Durham and housing would • This area is full to capacity. the infrastructure be better nearer the centre of town can not sustain thousands of extra houses, I • This building is proposed on beautiful Green can't see why we need to house so many Belt and it appears there are many Brown extra people in Durham city, Cramming Belt sites available to build on which would more and more people in will lead to misery be much less controversial. for the people who already enjoy living in • WHY are they going to build on Green fields these areas. yet again. I thought it was illegal or are this • keep building houses at this rate and we will labour dominated council above the law have no country side, try building on brown unlike the rest of us? sites there must be plenty of them. • Damaging local area with more houses, • Local roads especially around Arnison congestion with more vehicles on roads. Centre are already very busy. is there • we do not feel more housing is required in demand as local housing is quite cheap on this area, especially not greenbelt land. Newton Hall • The B6532 road from Sacriston to Durham is • Too much local congestion and pollution. No gridlocked now morning, lunchtime and water resources from the ever-declining evening. There are 14,000 students at New water table to support the houses. Against College, many with cars. building on greenbelt/open country side • There are quite enough houses here already • Too many houses. Traffic issue. School entry • Area too congested already. Too many would be difficult people / cars Not enough facilities • Newton Hall estate is large enough. The • Newton Hall is too big anyway plus the traffic generated by the Arnison Centre is proposed site is greenbelt land. already unacceptable for residents and the • Too many houses already proposed housing will only exacerbate the • We already have sufficient housing in this problem. Also, this is a green field site and area. Hospital and medical services are we should be protecting every single one. already overcrowded. • Roads in that area already congested at peak • Miller Homes have been trying to sell houses times especially in Framwellgate Moor for nearly 2 years. We • lots of empty houses across the city we don’t are saturated with houses. need anymore • Do we need this number of houses. • Because it's greenbelt land. • If we keep using green space for more • There aren't enough green areas. It should be housing it will destroy more and more left alone. wildlife habitat and increase traffic and • I believe that the already congested roads pollution. around Durham will be filled to such a level • 1. Houses in Durham are not selling 2. Traffic that gridlock is inevitable. problems in and around Durham • We need roads to handle present traffic not not cope with the amount of proposed more houses to make the problem. The building. As there are no jobs this could same with new roads. prove to be a white elephant plus the • Building on open spaces! Pressure on local destruction of the green belt land. services and infrastructure. • Newton Hall area is already a huge housing • There are hundreds of houses for sale in the area. Loss of more green belt land would be Newton Hall and Framwellgate Moor area so unacceptable. why build more. • Houses that are currently for sale are slow • Will lower prices of older houses on to sell. Why are more houses needed. There Newton hall are lots of empty houses waiting to be sold in • Green belt. Lack of facilities like schools the County. hospitals doctors overcrowded roads at peak • This area is already overcrowded with times. Council can guarantee homes but not houses being built on all available land. the number of jobs-of which a serious • Roads are not properly planned. The shortfall even if only 1 person working per proposed blue road crosses Wear and household. Decimation of wildlife. finishes in the Sands, no link to A1. Nurseries, • Location would be ok of new development of primary and secondary schools are not executive houses and if did not affect current planned at all. house and would not increase traffic • Visually unappealing. traffic disruption whilst • Its already over populated round there. working. no need for new homes - especially • currently already a very large residential area. min current climate. In case of Newton Arnison centre facilities overcrowded. grange has flooding in Brasside been Insufficient amenities. considered? • There are enough houses here as it is. • Don't like the idea of using more green land. • this is on green field the road cannot take the The Newton Hall estate is big enough. It Arnison centre traffic at weekends. how will would lead to more congested roads. it service these • We already have two large estates in the • Housing should be sustainable with a good vicinity. We need some open space. amount of affordable housing. I don't agree • There are hundreds of houses for sale / rent with this being on green belt land but I already. Also there has been new houses acknowledge that more housing is required built in the area and have struggled to sell. in the area. • Why do we need more houses when there is • Many of the existing houses in the area have not enough local work for current residents. been for sale for more than a year. There is More houses mean more commuters and not enough work in the area for existing more congestion. Also the larger houses on residents who commute out of the region. Newton Hall have been for sale for over 1yr. Why do we need more houses? Why not • until there is an answer to the road structure build them close to the areas of employment and a way out of this Newton Hall area by on brown field sites eg in Newcastle. another way an impossible congestion • It depends on the sensitivity of the build situation remains. environmentally and whether the full impact • Far too many houses in the area of all these extra people on the local services • Greenbelt land is taken into account. • The area is already well served with houses. • I cannot understand why greenbelt land is The additional traffic would also be now being built upon. Do we really need unwelcome. We need to preserve green these houses or does the council just want fields to increase its revenues • Keep greenbelt • no exceptional circumstances have been • Narrow greenbelt would be eroded Durham justified for incursion into the greenbelt City centre traffic and parking problems • I can't see relief roads supporting this as would worsen! Disagree with the basic tenet traffic will still be ploughing through of Durham County Plan - it is the villages that Plawsworth and Pity Me need development. • The current infrastructure of schools, • Loss of even more countryside doctors, dentist roads, police, fire and • Northern bypass should go through first. ambulance services as well as bus routes can • Plenty of housing in this area already with the the urban sprawl does not create desirable exception of bungalows. places to live. • there at least 2000 houses for sale in and around Durham City through estate agents, why would anyone want to build more. • green belt land should not be built on under any circumstances • The general need for more housing seems fuelled by the University's change in policy of making more students live out and therefore increased the number of student Lets in the City itself. That has totally skewed the results of the housing survey for this area. • There are already over 5,200 empty houses in the area already, many for sale but unsold, and many more potentially to be put up for sale 'when the market improves' people are saying. • The Durham green belt is narrow. It is possible to build new housing outside it that would still be only short bus ride from the centre, helping regenerate outlying villages in the process . The alleged need to build on the green belt is whitewash for what is really a money-raising scam, i.e use a recently introduced Infrastructure Levy which allows revenue to be raised from developers on the jump in land values that arises when planning permission is granted. In the case of green belt land this would be a jump in value of some 1000%

• I want to see the centre of Durham used

once again for families - The university must

find alternative housing for students so that

permanent communities in the city can be

regenerated. This should happen and all

brown field sites utilised before new housing

is created that will further damage the surrounding environment. Merely adding to

brick and tarmak jungle with no green space. Comments from respondents: Everybody should have access to high quality green space which does not include species • Generally prefer brownfield poor amenity grassland with a few scattered • It's greenbelt trees. What happened to the Great North Community Forest? • I don't feel we need it and if done it should

be on brown sites. • If top executives (and most other people) go by train, they will not go to the station by • Why not build on brownfield sites foot. The proximity of the railways station is • What about developing brownfield sites. If irrelevant. Good roads are much more any houses, a few hundred but not 3000? important. • There must be brownfield sites to limit need • No building on green belt land at all. once it for greenbelt loss is gone it will never come back • Loads of empty houses for sale. • We need more housing for our growing • Arnison Centre built on greenbelt land, population. started with Sainsbury’s and look at it now. • In an ideal world, green belt land would • Green belt is designed to stop urban sprawl remain protected, but limited use of it might and villages coalescing. We should have well be necessary to provide some additional quality green space between villages not a housing. brick jungle. • There is plenty of poor quality land, aged and • Greenbelt land is to keep our sanity take this unattractive areas (ancient pit terracing etc) from us we lose our reason to live. which could be replaced • Many of these houses executive type. Why • Durham is home to tourism there isn’t much not fill up those standing empty first. See green in and around Durham. Most cities’s report of City of Durham Trust like Cambridge and York would not build on • The green belt is designed to stop developed green areas near the city. areas merging into one massive concrete, • We have already lost too much greenbelt • Opposed - as outlined above, modern land, and should be looking at brownfield society is supposed to be about protecting sites instead. the shrinking environment. The Council's • Already heavily developed. Green belt is in scheme seems totally at odds with that keeping with the historic city. Large amount concept. of space in villages such as Brandon, • Durham is unique in that it is a small Browney, in need of compact city, which has a lot to offer refurbishment and better able to take the culturally, historically and educationally. It housing increase. has already suffered at the hands of • New housing should not be built on developers, planners and councillors, and is greenbelt land. It is greenbelt land for a now potentially going to be swallowed up in reason. an urban sprawl of housing, roads and • Please see comments above. business parks.

• Build in the villages around Durham like the • There are plenty of homes up for sale at old plan said you would present. Even if the council thought we needed more, why develop on green belt,

surely the council made green belt exactly • We should hold onto our land I feel for that reason, there are other areas where privileged to live surrounded by beautiful development could happen if the need was fields. If I wanted to live in a built up area I there. would move to the town. • why not build the houses on sir john halls • Greenbelt is there for a reason. To maintain land natural boundaries and inhibit urban sprawl. • Anyway I'm against housing near Sherburn This is "lazy" development, developers love Road because the junction with Dragonville greenfield sites because they are easy to road & the retail park there is already too build on but they build services that detract congested (there is no space to expand the from city and town centres and encourage junction since the large housing/flats were car usage due to lack of public transport constructed on the old garage site). There is hubs also often congestion down Gilesgate bank & • Technically I would be against building on upper claypath. At key retail times we have Greenbelt land. However each case must be to leave Sherburn Village by other routes to viewed on its own merits and it depends on avoid this and more housing will exacerbate the density of the proposed estates and the the problem. Additionally it is annoying that amenities that are in the area. the council justify facilities citing Sherburn • There must be brown field sites available Leisure Centre which they have recently • with strict limitations and planning closed (and allowing the parish council to • In the present climate this should not go run it with only volunteers and no gym is ahead as we have already a lot of NOT a replacement). accommodation in and around Durham • Greenbelt is there for a reason! We DON'T which is not being lived in. Social housing is want to create the types of urban sprawl required but these is no point in building that exists in Gateshead/NCL and in many more houses when no has money as wages area in the south. are reducing not increasing. • We must strive to protect our greenfield • The green belt is there for a purpose, which sites to ensure that the city of Durham has not changed since it was designated. offers quality in the environment. The nature There are lots of brownfield sites within the of new housing is cause for concern given county. the overall design and layout of estates that • The green belts should be protected to appear to disregard the need to incorporate ensure Durham City remains identifiable and green spaces in order to cram as many does not become a conurbation of houses as possible onto small plots of land. Gateshead/Birtley/Chester-le-Street etc. The • Greenbelt is thee for a reason. lack of green belt will impact the potential • I believe it is important to conserve existing for development of the tourist industry as green areas and re-develop deprived areas. the area becomes a concrete jungle. • Green belt is a heritage from our parents • only if brownfield sites are used first. that we have a responsibility to pass on to • All these houses are making our City far to our children and grandchildren. Once it is big lost it is lost forever. And there are sound • Would prefer any brownbelt land used first environmental reasons for preserving as much green space as possible. • GREEN BELT HAS A PURPOSE WHICH IS NOT FOR BUILDING ON. PRESUMPTION

• Generally in favour as we do need to build MUST BE NO DEVELOPMENT cf DALE somewhere! So long as environmental FARM IN BASILDON SHOWS THE impact considerations are dealt with fairly LENGHTHS COUNCILS WILL GO TO and good quality design & landscaping STOP GREEN BELT DEVELPOMENT implemented. Developments should have character and not be "identi-kit" packages so • As previously stated, all other avenues must that when looking at them you could be be thoroughly investigated before final anywhere in the NE! decisions are made. It may appear I am stating the obvious...... !!! • Because it is planned for greenbelt land - and once the environment is ruined there's no • Encroachment upon the green belt will spoil going back for wildlife, no matter what the Durham's unique ability to contain itself planners say. within a small environment • Greenbelt should remain greenbelt. • county durham has plenty of brownfield sites • Labour council making quick bucks ,whilst • I thought 'Greenbelt' was supposed to be lessing the quality of our lives just that - GREENBELT! • Only to the extent that full consideration to • Totally against developing Green Belt/Farm brown sites be given before taking green Land space. • The council needs to realise closing leisure centres is not good for health and anti social behaviour its ok cramming houses in but if there is nothing for people to do it becomes a no no for me

• The area around Framwellgate are too

congested anyway. More houses would made

the road system intolerable

• The Green Belt is a permanent designation. The Durham Local Plan Enquiry in 2004 went into this at length and the Inspector's report bears re-reading. • What is the point of identifying land as "green belt" if it is accessible to plans which will have a massive effect on it? • why build on green belt when there is an abundance of surrounding villages or brown field sites which would be far more suitable for redevelopment • The green belt is there for a purpose and should not be overridden.

• The answer is in the question This is Greenbelt land. Same figures for housing applies here as above. • We should be preserving the greenbelt, not destroying it. Part of the appeal of living in Durham is its countryside and green spaces. • Do they want the whole bloody area to be under cement? Yes 28.2% No 71.8%

In favour of the plans 52.8% In favour but don't agree with route 9.5% Against 37.6%

Main reasons for being in favour in order of preference:

1. To reduce congestion / traffic problems through Neville’s Cross 2. To reduce congestion / traffic problems in Durham City 3. To improve access to villages to west of City 4. To help bring jobs to area

Main reasons for being against in order of preference:

1. Will cause damage to local environment 4. Cost / wildlife 5. Unnecessary, congestion not bad 2. Will result in more / over development 6. Don’t agree with route 3. Would rather see investment in public transport

Comments in favour of Western Relief Road: • Congestion along the A167 is not just a rush • Better alternative to N relief road!! hour problem. • Durham is choked up with traffic as it is at • Possibly in favour, depending on what would present. This should have been done years be involved. Diverting traffic away from City ago. Centre would be a good thing though • Help ease congestion in and around Nev's • Should improve access to the A167 from Cross villages west of the 167 • I believe great consideration must be taken • The A167 can not cope with the large of the existing cycle routes and public spaces amount of traffic during certain times of the • It's not in our immediate locality and the day. residents of Neville's Cross may not want • The traffic past Durham Johnson is ridiculous this. in rush hour. • Lived for 25 years in Nev's Cross bank and • This again has had many airings and opposed still have friends there. Traffic is excessive in by residents in expensive housing. the area. • To handle present traffic volume • Long overdue • To relieve Nev's Cross junction • Long overdue to remove peak time • Too many accidents at Neville's Cross even if congestion across the City only minor. • Neville’s Cross has long suffered from traffic • Traffic calming congestion

Concerns about the route of the Western relief road:

• just needs a slight re adjustment County Hall whilst looking at plans for the • greenbelt land new PHQ. I was interested how this road • I would have thought that the route would would alleviate traffic at Neville’s Cross. He have gone from Sniperley to either the Cock stated it was only for traffic coming from o' the North or even Croxdale. Crook and that North Bound traffic travelling • It needs to join the A167 further south along the A167 would still carry straight • Should go from cock of the north ahead. I was astonished. I then asked how a roundabout to reduce congestion around road could then go through the Park and Neville’s cross traffic lights. Ride and go to a small island on the A167 • Sniperley round about is already congested - which is congested now. He replied by partly due to congestion from Neville's Cross stating that the Park and Ride would be re- and School Traffic (great plan to build a designed. I don’t see this anywhere in a plan, school on the main road by the way!). Will so how can that be. This proposal does not this just move the congested junction to even fulfill its name of ' relief road.' The Sniperley? The Southern End of the Road is original plan of 15 years ago was ideal. When not well connected to the A167 - it should asked, he replied “that will never happen.” I be linking directly onto the A167 or onto am appalled. Let’s get the job done right and roads that don't have congestion that are proper bypass installed round this city. linked to the A167 or it won’t ease Nottingham, York, Manchester, Chesterfield congestion... Leeds have all done why cant we. • Taking up all our green belt (REDEVELOP • the exit point at Broompark effectively THE A167) means the road leads to nowhere • The current proposal appears to start • To severe a direct link to Bearpark is un nowhere and finishes in a park and ride to acceptable , the financial impact on the village take the traffic back onto the A167 at a small will be huge and personal impact on residents island that is already congested. We have unacceptable studied this plan carefully and have even spoken to [removed] who we located at

Comments against Western Relief Road: • A park and ride scheme at Stonebridge • If Northern Road goes ahead should relieve would reduce pressure on A690 for local traffic at Neville's Cross needs. • any new roads built will encourage housing • Generally not needed but some days traffic development nearby coming into Durham from the Crook road is • By finishing on the A 690 the road will be very bad approaching bank at Nev's Cross. useless in reducing congestion around • I believe it was Einstein who said that it was a Neville’s Cross. Should be a full bypass (join sign of insanity to continue doing the same A 167 further south) or not at all! thing but to expect a different result. If • Can see no benefit in this scheme adding an building new roads did indeed reduce additional twenty minutes on my journey. congestion, we wouldn't have any congestion One of the reasons we moved to this area now because new roads are constantly being was to be able to commute three easily miles built for this purpose. The money needs to into Durham - good bus route, excellent be invested differently, probably in improving cycle paths and good reliable road as a key and reducing the cost of bus services. In worker these are essential for us. We are Yorkshire I can take a half hour (on a good also are in easy access of schools allowing day) each way return bus ride for £5.50. A children the opportunity to be able to walk 15-20 minute bus ride in County Durham and cycle this will not be suitable with this costs at least as much if not more and the proposal. busses are less frequent. Consequently I • Congestion is limited to rush hour. I regularly drive into town because it is cheaper to park use the A167 at all times of the day and than to get the bus. This needs to change. never have trouble getting through. If better • I do not believe that this idea has been and cheaper public transport was available thought through by the so called experts at more people would use it. County Hall. It will cause more chaos than • Don't think new roads only answer-or even leaving the situation as it is. the best-need to reduce traffic at peak times. • I do not see how this will relieve the bad Ken Livingstone did it in S.E.London and in traffic congestion. city centre. • I regularly travel from Newton Hall through • Firstly congestion on Toll House Road, Neville's Cross at all times of the day and Broom Lane, Neville’s Cross Bank & have no significant delay to my journey. Crossgate Peth are only an issue during • If the "development" of 1, 2 and 6 does not school term time. The road will not reduce take place then such a road is not worth the congestion on the A167, except at the Pot & destruction and disruption it would entail. Glass junction and will worsen congestion at • If they build another road it will create a new Neville’s Cross Bank & Sniperley roundabout perimeter that developers will want to build as all points west of Bearpark are diverted up to. The current plan I believe goes from those ways. Term time congestion on Toll nowhere to nowhere in terms of congestion House Road & Broom Lane could be eased relief. If they go ahead with plans to create by road widening to provide a City bound more business in the centre of the city, this bus lane for the last half mile to the junction. road will not help with the congestion as Congestion on Neville’s Cross Bank could be more cars will be entering onto the already eased by removing on street parking and overburdened roads in the centre. providing a City Bound bus lane. Congestion • It doesn't apply to Witton Gilbert on Crossgate Peth could be eased by • It will spoil the area removing the on street parking (only used by • more roads = more cars people dropping their children at school) and • Most traffic on the A167 is people driving providing a City bound bus lane. Currently kids to school, very little traffic after 9am there is no point taking public transport from • New roads not shown to reduce traffic in the Bearpark, Ushaw Moor etc as you end up in long term - council should spend money the same traffic jam as before. The £20m improving public transport properly, ie cost of this by-pass could be spent on cycle ensuring adequate bus routes, buses that run path provision and improvements and would to time, at times that people need them, provide the entire City of Durham with a subsidising routes if necessary. Also safe convenient network practically from encouraging car sharing schemes. Building door to door, not a 'road to nowhere'. cycle routes too. • For A69 access that location would increase • Officially, according tot he Dept of Transport, congestion in city centre unless the road there is no congestion in Durham City. The skirted south too relief roads cause unnecessary damage to valuable green belt land (the northern route to the bridge over the railway line. passes through a nature reserve, an SSSI and (Incidentally, people get so fed up at morning ancient woodland. I am not that old but have rush hour they overtake the line of traffic on seen in my lifetime hundreds of square miles the wrong side of the road, crossing the of the country reduced to places with the double white lines; a serious accident waiting landscape quality of gigantic toilet. The to happen). With an increase in traffic this council should be showing some leadership in will be gridlocked. doing a lot more to discourage the car • The sheer cost & environmental impact culture, instead of pandering to its blinkered cannot be justified, when swimming pool & destructiveness. Congestion could be leisure centres have been closed the council reduced by using public revenue to subsidise should stop providing free parking at county bus fares. hall & the university should do likewise • Old plans never go away - the Council was • There is very little sign of investment in never happy at having it’s originally plan for a public transport, pedestrian or cycle routes, Western Road overturned several years ago! and bus services are often being withdrawn. Yes, congestion exists at certain times, but These should be addressed with a public it’s not the worst congestion in the region by strategy before considering to build more any stretch of the imagination. However, roads, which, in time, will also become more time and time again on a national basis, it has congested, useless, and carry pollution to a been shown that relief roads just generate wider area (with consequences for public more traffic and it will only be a short space health as well as Durham's natural heritage). of time before the relief road clogs up. This • This is a beautiful natural area and should not road will blight more lives with the upheaval be given a road across it. This will inevitably of its development and its location as well as lead to 'filling in spaces' with more housing wiping out more green areas. The Council • Totally against the road, will cross beautiful pays relatively token investment to public countryside. Traffic in Bearpark and transport and that area was one of the first Broompark is already very dangerous and the sectors highlighted for cuts in the recent villages will be spoilt. reduction. It seems ironic that at the same • Travel after or before the rush hours around time we are considering spending millions on Durham, one will see all the car parks and a road scheme (a very 20th century solution) roads are empty...... the Council is cutting public transport • Unwarranted and unacceptable level of options. environmental impact combined with • Particularly concerned with the proposal to increase in additional vehicular trips, not cut the existing Toll House Road link with alleviation of congestion. the A167. This is unnecessary. • Won't ease traffic in City. • Probably high proportion of those people • Would create extra traffic on other roads creating the daily traffic jam don't even need surrounding Witton Gilbert eg Sniperley to to be driving to work. Let them sit in traffic Consett. jam until it twigs that they should try and get • You only had to witness the chaos of the to work by another means. Building a bypass snow earlier this year when a 5 minute will only facilitate more traffic growth. journey from Broom Park into the City took • Such congestion as there is happens for a 90mins (the WORST JOURNEY TIME of short time each day. anyone I asked about), whereas people living • The plan is unclear: put more reference 20miles outside of the city could get in on points on the map. Organise a proper time, but without having to negotiate the consultation on the plans: an on-line forum MASSIVE tailbacks caused by forcing all the with the opportunity to comment and rate extra cars through Ushaw Moor and Broom suggestions is a minimum requirement. Park to the totally unbalanced roundabout at • The road will be detrimental to Bearpark and Stonebridge! The relief road will only make it's already suffering with just 2 shops and 2 this worse! In bad weather the Bearpark and takeaways. The proposed route onto the New options are blocked Broompark road near Stonebridge is ALREADY, so we would be talking about untenable as the traffic cannot cope now at ridiculous traffic congestion ALL YEAR that roundabout; single lane with double ROUND instead of just in snow. Also cars white lines means traffic is already backed up turning RIGHT at Neville's Cross when Lodes Barn Bank was closed last Xmas more! Broom Park is part of the City of proved that the Road which DOES need Durham, yet its resident Voters are improving is BROWNEY LANE down to The constantly being treated as if it doesn't exist Honest Lawyer - that junction should be and/or matter. Perhaps if more Council traffic lights, since the flow isn't balanced. Members lived here, it would be different! That would filter off some of the traffic This is Phase 1 of the by-pass you couldn't towards the South - no plans mentioned for force through before - if you looked at that! The over-development of Willington, encouraging jobs in Crook/ Willington/ Tow Langley Moor etc WITHOUT proper Law etc, then you wouldn't need these relief infrastructure planning has lead to this mess. roads at all - the population would be happy Traffic Lights at the Stonebridge would ease to stay in their local area - no one enjoys a some of the pressure - sadly you can't rely daily commute! on drivers being polite to each other any

In favour of the plans 61.5% In favour but don't agree with route 7.9% Against 30.6%

Main reasons for being in favour in order of preference:

1. To reduce congestion / traffic problems 3. To reduce congestion / traffic problems in Durham City elsewhere 2. To improve access to between Arnison 4. To improve road links between Centre and Belmont Belmont and West of City 5. To help bring jobs to area

Main reasons for being against in order of preference:

1. Will cause damage to local environment 4. Prefer public transport investment and wildlife 5. Will impact directly on my life 2. Unnecessary, congestion not bad 6. Cost 3. Will result in more/over development 7. Do not agree with route

Comments in favour of Northern Relief Road:

• If Northern Road goes ahead should relieve providing a City Bound bus lane. Congestion traffic at Neville's Cross on Crossgate Peth could be eased by • A park and ride scheme at Stonebridge removing the on street parking (only used by would reduce pressure on A690 for local people dropping their children at school) and needs. providing a City bound bus lane. Currently • any new roads built will encourage housing there is no point taking public transport from development nearby Bearpark, Ushaw Moor etc as you end up in • By finishing on the A 690 the road will be the same traffic jam as before. The £20m useless in reducing congestion around cost of this by-pass could be spent on cycle Neville’s Cross. Should be a full bypass(join A path provision and improvements and would 167 further south) or not at all! provide the entire City of Durham with a • Can see no benefit in this scheme adding an safe convenient network practically from additional twenty minutes on my journey. door to door, not a 'road to nowhere'. One of the reasons we moved to this area • For A69 access that location would increase was to be able to commute three easily miles congestion in city centre unless the road into Durham - good bus route, excellent skirted south too cycle paths and good reliable road as a key • Generally not needed but some days traffic worker these are essential for us. We are coming into Durham from the Crook road is also are in easy access of schools allowing very bad approaching bank at Nev's Cross. children the opportunity to be able to walk • I believe it was Einstein who said that it was a and cycle this will not be suitable with this sign of insanity to continue doing the same proposal. thing but to expect a different result. If • Congestion is limited to rush hour. I regularly building new roads did indeed reduce use the A167 at all times of the day and congestion, we wouldn't have any congestion never have trouble getting through. If better now because new roads are constantly being and cheaper public transport was available built for this purpose. The money needs to more people would use it. be invested differently, probably in improving • Don't think new roads only answer-or even and reducing the cost of bus services. In the best-need to reduce traffic at peak times. Yorkshire I can take a half hour (on a good Ken Livingstone did it in S.E.London and in day) each way return bus ride for £5.50. A city centre. 15-20 minute bus ride in County Durham • Firstly congestion on Toll House Road, costs at least as much if not more and the Broom Lane, Neville’s Cross Bank & busses are less frequent. Consequently I Crossgate Peth are only an issue during drive into town because it is cheaper to park school term time. The road will not reduce than to get the bus. This needs to change. congestion on the A167, except at the Pot & • I do not believe that this idea has been Glass junction and will worsen congestion at thought through by the so called experts at Neville’s Cross Bank & Sniperley roundabout County Hall. It will cause more chaos than as all points west of Bearpark are diverted leaving the situation as it is. those ways. Term time congestion on Toll • I do not see how this will relieve the bad House Road & Broom Lane could be eased traffic congestion. by road widening to provide a City bound • I regularly travel from Newton Hall through bus lane for the last half mile to the junction. Neville's Cross at all times of the day and Congestion on Neville’s Cross Bank could be have no significant delay to my journey. eased by removing on street parking and • If the "development" of 1,2 and 6 does not reduction. It seems ironic that at the same take place then such a road is not worth the time we are considering spending millions on destruction and disruption it would entail. a road scheme (a very 20th century solution) • If they build another road it will create a new the Council is cutting public transport perimeter that developers will want to build options. up to. The current plan I believe goes from • Particularly concerned with the proposal to nowhere to nowhere in terms of congestion cut the existing Toll House Road link with relief. If they go ahead with plans to create the A167. This is unnecessary. more business in the centre of the city, this • Probably high proportion of those people road will not help with the congestion as creating the daily traffic jam don't even need more cars will be entering onto the already to be driving to work. Let them sit in traffic overburdened roads in the centre. jam until it twigs that they should try and get • It doesn't apply to Witton Gilbert to work by another means. Building a bypass • It will spoil the area will only facilitate more traffic growth. • more roads = more cars • Such congestion as there is happens for a • Most traffic on the A167 is people driving short time each day. kids to school, very little traffic after 9am • The plan is unclear: put more reference • New roads not shown to reduce traffic in the points on the map. Organise a proper long term - council should spend money consultation on the plans: an on-line forum improving public transport properly, ie with the opportunity to comment and rate ensuring adequate bus routes, buses that run suggestions is a minimum requirement. to time, at times that people need them, • The road will be detrimental to Bearpark and subsidising routes if necessary. Also it's already suffering with just 2 shops and 2 encouraging car sharing schemes. Building takeaways. The proposed route onto the cycle routes too. Broompark road near Stonebridge is • Officially, according tot he Dept of Transport, untenable as the traffic cannot cope now at there is no congestion in Durham City. The that roundabout; single lane with double relief roads cause unnecessary damage to white lines means traffic is already backed up valuable green belt land (the northern route to the bridge over the railway line. passes through a nature reserve, an SSSI and (Incidentally, people get so fed up at morning ancient woodland. I am not that old but have rush hour they overtake the line of traffic on seen in my lifetime hundreds of square miles the wrong side of the road, crossing the of the country reduced to places with the double white lines; a serious accident waiting landscape quality of gigantic toilet. The to happen). With an increase in traffic this council should be showing some leadership in will be gridlocked. doing a lot more to discourage the car • The sheer cost & environmental impact culture, instead of pandering to its blinkered cannot be justified, when swimming pool & destructiveness. Congestion could be leisure centres have been closed the council reduced by using public revenue to subsidise should stop providing free parking at county bus fares. hall & the university should do likewise • Old plans never go away - the Council was • There is very little sign of investment in never happy at having it’s originally plan for a public transport, pedestrian or cycle routes, Western Road overturned several years ago! and bus services are often being withdrawn. Yes, congestion exists at certain times, but These should be addressed with a public it’s not the worst congestion in the region by strategy before considering to build more any stretch of the imagination. However, roads, which, in time, will also become more time and time again on a national basis, it has congested, useless, and carry pollution to a been shown that relief roads just generate wider area (with consequences for public more traffic and it will only be a short space health as well as Durham's natural heritage). of time before the relief road clogs up. This • This is a beautiful natural area and should not road will blight more lives with the upheaval be given a road across it. This will inevitably of its development and its location as well as lead to 'filling in spaces' with more housing wiping out more green areas. The Council • Totally against the road, will cross beautiful pays relatively token investment to public countryside. Traffic in Bearpark and transport and that area was one of the first Broompark is already very dangerous and the sectors highlighted for cuts in the recent villages will be spoilt. • Travel after or before the rush hours around turning RIGHT at Neville's Cross when Durham, one will see all the car parks and Lodes Barn Bank was closed last Xmas roads are empty...... proved that the Road which DOES need • Unwarranted and unacceptable level of improving is BROWNEY LANE down to The environmental impact combined with Honest Lawyer - that junction should be increase in additional vehicular trips, not traffic lights, since the flow isn't balanced. alleviation of congestion. That would filter off some of the traffic • Won't ease traffic in City. towards the South - no plans mentioned for • Would create extra traffic on other roads that! The over-development of Willington, surrounding Witton Gilbert eg Sniperley to Langley Moor etc WITHOUT proper Consett. infrastructure planning has lead to this mess. Traffic Lights at the Stonebridge would ease You only had to witness the chaos of the • some of the pressure - sadly you can't rely snow earlier this year when a 5 minute on drivers being polite to each other any journey from Broom Park into the City took more! Broom Park is part of the City of 90mins (the WORST JOURNEY TIME of Durham, yet its resident Voters are anyone I asked about), whereas people living constantly being treated as if it doesn't exist 20miles outside of the city could get in on and/or matter. Perhaps if more Council time, but without having to negotiate the Members lived here, it would be different! MASSIVE tailbacks caused by forcing all the This is Phase 1 of the by-pass you couldn't extra cars through Ushaw Moor and Broom force through before - if you looked at Park to the totally unbalanced roundabout at encouraging jobs in Crook/ Willington/ Tow Stonebridge! The relief road will only make Law etc, then you wouldn't need these relief this worse! In bad weather the Bearpark and roads at all - the population would be happy New Brancepeth options are blocked to stay in their local area - no one enjoys a ALREADY, so we would be talking about daily commute. ridiculous traffic congestion ALL YEAR ROUND instead of just in snow. Also cars

Concerns about the route of Northern Relief Road:

• I agree it is probably needed but it must be traffic into the Arnison Centre from a wider with the least impact on the countryside and catchment and result in an unwanted volume those living at or near the start and finish of traffic. points. No point in taking the traffic away • The route should actually link with the A691, from one area just to have another area otherwise the congestion on the A167 will disadvantaged with increased traffic. not be relieved, and how are they going to Close to my home, moved to home for quiet get traffic the west of Durham to the area and lack of traffic on a road which sees motorway? people speeding daily. Don't want traffic to • this bypass should follow a more direct route increase and don't want to have to move to the A690 home due to the council deciding to destroy • this is an area not well served by road links area. but is an area a natural beauty • It needs to go from Mill Lane with an • Too many roundabouts to be crossed from improvement of Cocken lane to Rainton A167.Extra traffic will restrict access to and • MUST BE DONE IN CONJUNCTION from existing locations WITH AND LINKING TO A DUALLED • Will increase congestion around Arnison ROTARY WAY AND western relief road Centre / Pity Me. Would be better to route • Should feed onto A1M roundabout directly. directly past the existing roads onto the • The end point in Belmont seems to be near A167 towards Plawsworth. the A1 junction and this could be a bottle • With new houses and high congestion at neck. Could be more congestion around the Arnison all ready, could route lead directly to Arnison Centre with the existing access road a167 with junction leading off to Arnison? as it is. • The route runs too close to an already congested area. It would ease the flow of forum with the opportunity to comment and rate suggestions is a minimum requirement. Comments against Western Relief Road: • Newton Hall will become a through road for traffic at peak hours especially, and we, the locals will be virtually queuing to use our roads. • It will totally ruin the whole countryside!! • Prison access already increases traffic also • Not needed unless housing proposals go safety issue ahead. 2. Loss of greenbelt. • Ruining a rural fringe of Durham; completely • Against but more in favour than road to spoiling what is at the moment a perfect walk. Broompark. Cycle route into town from Brasside; • Building roads only eases congestion damaging irrevocably a nature reserve. temporally. It just encourages people into • See previous comments their cars from public transport, encourages • The new road will cut across my jogging people to alter their route to the 'faster route reducing the off road running still more convenient' route, encourages more further. I will have to breathe in more car people to leave later, eventually the exhaust which will negate the health benefits congestion is as bad as before. Congestion of running. After the road is opened won't be eased by building roads when the Frankland farm will disappear and houses will average user will be 1 person in 1 car. be built in the green wedge between Durham Congestion is eased by getting people and the new road. This is currently a wildlife walking, cycling & onto public transport. haven for bats, great crested newts, foxes, • Enough traffic in the area as it is now. Why farmland birds and deer. put more pollution in the air. • Why build on green areas. • Gross vandalism of heritage countryside • Will cause an impact on other sites i.e • History shows that new roads to not always prisons and communities and how they reduce traffic in other areas, and it won’t be commute to and from their homes. needed if houses aren't built. Improve • Will dump more traffic at the Arnison existing roads Centre, already heavily congested. • I am a Brasside resident and I feel there's no • Yet more greenbelt land will be carved up need for the road at all. I travel through and not convinced a new road is necessary Durham on a daily basis and the traffic isn’t actually that bad even in rush hours whatever direction traffic is coming from ie Chester-le- Street, Sacriston, Consett • I regularly go from Newton Hall to the motorway through Durham at all times of the day and have never been overly delayed. The majority of the hold ups arise from people going into the car parks and driving towards Neville's Cross, not Newton Hall. The green wedge from the sewage treatment works in Durham City to Brasside is an important wildlife area used by walkers, joggers and dog walkers. It is important for our health to avoid running in roads and Frankland Lane is the last remaining area for me to run off road. The River Wear at this point is also a dark corridor important for wildlife. The road will be for people pass through not for residents. If the road is built development in the green wedge will follow. • It is not clear where exactly the new road will finish after crossing Wear. Organise a proper consultation on the plans: an on-line

What would you want to see money from a Community Infrastructure levy spent on?

Improve existing road condition

New parks / open spaces

Improve existing pavements

Conservation

Improved bus services 1 New cycle and footpaths

Health/social care facilities

Youth Services

Local regeneration schemes

Better indoor leisure facilities

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Yes 47.1% No 52.9%

89% for improving access to train station 87% against reducing green areas of site 81% for improving access to Wharton Park 64% against housing on Aykley Heads site 56% for replacing police headquarters 55% against building a business park 48% for replacing County Hall 52% against replacing County Hall

Some additional comments on overall proposals and consultation:

• Don’t build on the green belt 2. Develop • Considering the impact of the proposals the further Belmont Industrial Park with perhaps publicity surrounding them has been minimal. a second under consideration (the owners of • COUNCIL SEEMS OBLIVIOUS TO THE St Oswald’s golf course will eventually sell REALITIES THE SOCIAL COSTS OF SUCH the land to a developer - they have been A HUGE INCREASE IN HOUSING. SELF trying for many years) 3. Scrap northern SERVING TO WANT TO REBUILD relief road - not required 4. Consider a COUNTY HALL/POLICE HQ WHEN WE western relief road to ease the A167 NEED AFFORDABLE HOUSING NOW congestion. 5. Encourage more university on • Despite the consultation events that have campus accommodation 6. Re-claim the city been held locally there is no indication that centre housing for more families and local any concerns or suggestions by local residents 7. Consider the eventual residents will be considered or that the plan replacement of the Police HQ but not under is likely to be modified based on discussions this current climate held. • A bridge spanning the Wear is in my opinion • Disagree with proposals on greenbelt and a necessity now, and if building expansion roads and houses. Enough housing available goes ahead it would be a must for developers do not need new. Ask estate agents. to contribute towards. • Do not cut off Bearpark • Although the survey has been advertised and • Dryburn Hospital is already pretty bad and consultations accessible, I feel the majority of more houses means more people and it residents have been able to access these in would get worse. Let's face it the idiots sold the given time-scale. the piece of land that was supposed to be • Build more industrial sites on the sides of the kept in case the hospital had to be extended. A690 • Durham County Council continues to ride and I'm furious that I haven't been consulted. roughshot over the electorate- I personally I've only heard about the developments will never forgive them for their refusal to through word of mouth which is shocking! ignore the decision of the referendum they Durham is a historic city, not a faceless held re the One council/ Local council issues. business park, the whole thing is ridiculous • Durham's character needs to be protected. and if you want my faith restored in your The market place has been a waste of money party, you'll make your voice heard on this and an eyesore. issue and really make a difference. • Greenbelt is important to the city and county. • I would like to know why this present these proposals are ill conceived, especially Council are so 'people unfriendly'. People do Aykley Heads where: a) The roads will not attend their meetings because those in struggle with the increased traffic b)stuck power do not listen to views expressed by between Durham and the Arnison Centre it those in attendance. It seems that this will have a negative impact on both. present council have the opposite of the • Have the economic benefits been costed Midas touch and this has been shown in so properly? Do they include health benefits of many ways. Certainly two words spring to green space? mind with this authority. One is lunatics and • I am quite shocked and disappointed with the the other is asylum. They seem to be in a way I found out about this - it is quite constant state of muddle over so many issues. concerning that a project of twenty nine I wonder which escapee dreamed up the idea million pounds which will have a major to take away the traffic lights at the bottom impact on my lifestyle - I was advised of this of Saddler street and the Market Place? issue from my neighbour in an over the Although they have now been replaced on a garden chat - come on this is not the way to temporary basis, is this an example of the treat people when you are making sweeping kind of person who we are trusting to make changes around them lets get this out in the important decisions concerning our open and stop trying to bring it by the back environment? This is only one example of the door wasn’t this scheme around twenty muddle headed thinking which seems to be years ago? systemic throughout our local Council. Let • I can only hope that enough people visit the us all pray!! site and make their views known. • I would like to see an alternative assessment • i don't think the County Council are using an ecosystem services approach. interested in local people's views. This has • Improve pavement at Elvet Bridge. been shown with previous issues. If there • It is the smaller communties of County really is a need to build more houses and Durham that need encouragement, a new create economic hubs then this should be heart, small industries, often new housing and concentrated in the villages round Durham infrastructure, thoughtful planning and money which have become desperate places with spent on them. very little reason to exist apart from • It seems to me that Durham City is to take dormitory villages. They could do with all the pressure off the rest of the county. It something in their hearts to regenerate them. should be the other way round. Concentrating this in Durham City will alter • Its a fair survey - I agree that the Council has its character and the reason many tourists played its consultation exercise very low key visit - forever. so that they can steamroll their plans through. • I have made many enquiries about future Unfortunately, I believe that public opinion is employment in County Durham to warrant largely ignored. The Council professes to the building of so many houses on Green Belt. consult, but the reality is they remain a very I Have made several requests for the traditional, almost dictatorial organisation feasibility study report on future employment and once a plan like this is hatched it will be but have yet received nothing. passed. • I strongly disagree with proposals to develop • Lack of publicity for the proposals. Nobody Aykley Fields in this way. These fields must we have spoken to has heard of the surely be declared a safe green area for the proposed housing estates or the link roads. citizens of Durham to enjoy open spaces and • Leave the area around Durham green. magnificent views both now and well into the • Leave well alone, conservation of greenbelt is future. paramount • I would like to have had the opportunity to • At the recent local presentations there was say exactly what I think of the Aykley Heads plenty of hypothetical detail but not much development - it will impact on me directly fact. Any disagreement with the plans will always come across as nimbyism. I just can't region. all big business will go to Newcastle. agree we need 3000+ properties on local To build is to destroy. greenbelt land. Whatever is promised would • No new housing and no new roads be see appropriate investment in roads, • On consultation - The only knowledge I have schools, etc. this is an ill advised long term is via the Lib Dems plan for simple short term financial advantage. • On the whole I find Witton Gilbert is well in 20 years saying "I told you so will be too catered for. I have no particular wants late". • Other cities in the country have been spoilt • Look to develop brown sites as a priority. by overdevelopment DO NOT let this Keep informed about used housing stock happen to Durham. which is for sale in the proposed area. • People's views totally ignored by council. Encourage food production by local farmers • Planning permission was granted in between and set up community farm shops. Do not new road and Front St after inquiry in 1996. contact. It needs squaring up anyway, plus would tidy • Money from building houses/roads is blood it up. Some of those houses being built near money. Hartside should be built in Witton Gilbert. • more needs to be done to get people to • Please leave Witton Gilbert as a separate leave cars at home. Better for health and village environment. • Put a block on student lets and bring more • more publicity for the World Heritage Site, housing in the City back into family Durham's greatest asset. Not enough is done occupation. to attract tourists. • Railway hopper station at Brasside with free • Brown field sites should be considered more parking? to regenerate those areas. • Re business parks. Why is more not done • Develop the neglected and run down former about the shops and businesses near the pit areas in wider County Durham rather Arnison Centre. there are quite a few empty than destroy the small city fee of Durham. plots there. i'm sure there are others in the People chose Durham over conurbations at County. Get over to area present because of this. there are lots of houses empty there. • Do these surveys actually affect the outcome? • Reduce the population Reduce manufacture Historically it would seem if the planners of rubbish want it, it happens, but they say "We have • Stop this council abusing their system of had consultation"! There are too many empty empire building to justify their roles and properties and unsold houses in the Village. excessive pay. They have lost the concept Why do we require more. that they are there to serve us. There are • I have seen no cost benefit study. who will lots of business premises for sale and rent. receive money for land on which housing is We should be using brownfield sites. Our built. is funding for roads local or national? is green belt is priceless! Vote them out. they any of this really necessary other than Aykley are a greedy self serving council. Heads. • Style of housing to make it look like it • Use existing housing stock until no empty belongs is important. The new build near the properties . Then only allow new build on train station is a GOOD example of this. demand at Arnison Centre site. Also include There are a number of new built empty a proportion of self build. houses. These need to be filled before we • Better facilities at local hospital. have to build more! Nothing here describes plans for travel to Sunderland, Bishop, Newcastle to leisure across the city / county in the future... see consultants etc. where's the Ice Rink? The public transport • Hope this time residents will be listened to. plans, etc. • No explanation at all has been offered for • Suspend all housing in city centre. Focus on this large scale house building in an area. Still surrounding villages undergoing population depletion. What • Thank you for giving us the chance to make possible demographic justification can be our voices heard. I attended a council lead offered for such large scale provision of meeting on this and we were clearly not housing for upwards of 10,000 people? being listened to when we raised objections Durham will never attract large scale to the scheme. commerce. Prosperity will depend on • Thank you for the opportunity to take part in keeping Durham special as an island of the survey. We hope that voices will be comparative attractiveness in a despoiled heard as at the moment Durham County Council do not seem to understand the meaning of the word consultation. I have transport schemes would allow people to use asked a number of times at meetings but get their cars less so going to work in no answer. Their meaning of the word Sunderland for example doesn't take over an consultation is THIS IS WHAT WE ARE hour by public transport. Buses that meet GOING TO DO. trains and direct routes so changing in • The Bus Lanes in Millburngate are totally Durham is not essential. Also the very good ignored - they should be either be removed park and ride scheme is expensive if there is or enforced. Whoever has the statutory more than one occupant in the car. Its responsibility is completely failing in their cheaper to park in Durham for a shortish duty. period than to use the park and ride. • The Council in these austere times should Charging by the car would rectify this and concentrate on maintaining existing services. make it a more attractive option thus they should concentrate on their statutory reducing the traffic in Durham. All the compliance obligations. schemes seem to have taken a lot into • the council strategy seems to be as little consideration and look as though they could information and consultation as possible and be attractive developments but they will to make it a fait accomplis. lip service is paid change things for a lot of people. That is true to residents - see the Meadows housing. of all the houses we live in. I would hope that • The council's online survey was not available all other alternatives are looked into before for long enough. they go ahead and that quality things like • The minimum requirement of a proper trees, wildlife corridors, play ares and consultation is an on-line forum where all environmentally sound construction methods people can make suggestions, comment and using such things as solar panels and rate all potential alternatives. Few public geothermal energy would be considered meetings can not be considered as a rather than putting them up as small and consultation. The job of the council is not to cheaply as possible inform residents about plans, but to • these plans have been arising for 10 years. implement the best solutions that are When they built the Arnison Centre a relief suggested by all people. road to belmont was in the plan so the new • The so-called consultation and the remarks plans are hot air or fact. of the planning officer are those of • This will directly affect my family as we live patronising ideologues. where plans are. We only found out by word • The survey is ok, just wish it wasn't of mouth. It would have been nice to be necessary in the first place. But the council is informed as this will have a huge impact on always looking for an excuse to mess up my family. We chose this home for its quiet, Durham ie north road, millburngate, prince secluded location which won't be like that bishops, the turning of Durham into a much longer. Disgusted by the plans and by student village, the market place. the incompetent communication to home • The survey is ok. The way the planning owners which are affected by this department action, put forward proposals • Plans on view at Cooper Hall are indistinct, and change the goal posts monthly...... is the not highlighting existing roads, railways, river problem. My opinion is, solve the access into etc. Aykley Heads ie Bridges over the rail line, • Councils should spend money on maintaining and this will solve the problems areas around Durham already established • These are difficult questions as more housing plus creating employment for local people. is going to be needed and transport in Roads, pavements, general repairs durham city needs to be improved to reduce • If development really necessary suggest sites the traffic and help support business. of the old Durham Baths and former ice rink However we need to keep the character of area - now derelict and unsightly. Durham and the surrounding villages to • On consultation- they've done what they are maintain it as a lovely place to live. Open legally obliged to do but the publicity hasn't spaces contribute to that so of houses are to been huge for such an important plan. I have be built someone loses out. Before they are spoken to Durham Wildlife trust and they considered the council should be sure that all say that some of the land the council wants property that is presently there and not used to build on is of no particular wildlife value, is renovated and available before covering whilst some of it provides a vital link green belt areas. I can appreciate that some between two environmentally rich areas. So may be lost but this should be a last resort. it is important to urge the council to consult As far as transport, really efficient public with conservation groups as to where to • Why cant we have visible community policing built and where to leave untouched. Police that like, yes like and enjoy being on • With all the new houses people will be their beat. rushing into Durham to visit the numerous • Why change all greenbelt areas to urban charity clothing shops. 'sprawl' and alter the unique atmosphere of • University policy directly affecting the City Durham City plus the extra housing causes housing balance - ie the Outsourcing of traffic congestion and will impact on green student Digs forcing the working population issues, further reducing Durham's traditional to outlying settlements and causing this mess semi-rural ambience. in the first place. The balance needs to be • Will decide nearer time on voting. A bus between residents (here 100% of time), shelter would be a great advantage at tourists (fleeting visits bringing hopefully lots Finchale school for protection against the of cash) and students (here 2/3 time, very wind and rain. No contact. different life-style requirements to "adult" • Witton Gilbert must stay as it is. resident population) • North Road is a disgrace. It needs a revamp • Free 2 hr parking in City Centre • Yes, you say these are the plans of the • If extra housing is needed spread it out more County Durham Plan, sounds like a done deal thinly around Durham and nearby villages. to me.. Consultation should not tick a box, Park and ride at stone bridge would help but ask the residents of Durham then decide congestion at that end. on a plan and not the other way around. This • we have not been convinced that such a large consultation should be on view in every area scale building is necessary in this area. for months at a time for everyone to have an Greenbelt conservation around the River opportunity to give an opinion, not just an Wear and surrounding area is paramount to evening when no one has heard of it. stress free living and therefore a healthy life. • We should not be losing any more greenbelt. • We would not have know about these plans if it had not been for the local newsletter. Residents should be consulted more when plans like these effect them. • What concerns me is that so little notice is being taken of comments made in the early stages of the repeated consultation exercises. There has been no explanation of why widespread comments opposing some proposals have been disregarded. My fear is that when the version of the Plan that will go to the inspector comes out, it will draw fewer comments because people will have been worn down. I also feel the approach to the Green Belt has been disgraceful. The Council is basically offering to tear up the green belt designation in exchange for cash for its pet projects. • What evidence is there that these proposals will have a beneficial effect on other parts of County Durham? Who will pay for the schools, surgeries and hospital places needed? Would they be provided before the houses are built? At present the Sniperley and Arnison areas link nicely with Brasside Pond and Pity Me Carrs Nature Reserve for wildlife and it seems a pity to undermine this. • Who will own all of these developments and what will happen to the millions of pounds generated. Will we ALL share in it, will we ALL benefit for generations to come or are we just been 'ripped off ' again?