The Plan

County Durham Settlement Study

September 2012

Contents

1. CONTEXT 2

2. METHODOLOGY 3

3. SCORING MATRIX 5

4. SETTLEMENT GROUPINGS 9

APPENDICES

1. SETTLEMENTS BY DELIVERY 17 AREA

County Durham Settlement Study Sept 2012 Planning the future of County Durham 1 Context

1 Context

Over the past few decades the concept of 'sustainable development', which balances social, economic and environmental goals, has become increasingly important in planning. The 2012 National Planning Policy Framework contains a "presumption in favour of sustainable development", which is defined, in the words of UN Resolution 42/187, as "meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".

A related policy aspiration, translated into law via the Sustainable Communities Act 2007, is the desire to achieve 'sustainable communities'. The Sustainable Communities Plan (ODPM, 2003) lists some of the key requirements of a sustainable community. They should have a flourishing local economy; strong leadership, effective engagement and participation by local people; a safe and healthy local environment; good public transport; good quality public services; and a diverse, vibrant and creative local culture. The built environment should be of 'the right layout to support basic amenities' and should include 'decent homes of different types and tenures'.

This study is designed to look at elements of this list of requirements: it looks at the amenities possessed by the settlements across CountyDurham, including public transport, public and private services, and access to jobs. The “social cohesion” elements of leadership, engagement and participation, and local culture fall outside the remit of this study; however, it could be claimed that social cohesion is supported by the presence of local jobs and amenities. This Study provides an important part of the evidence needed to inform a settlement hierarchy to be included in the County Durham Plan which will establish a framework to help inform where new development such as housing, employment and community facilities should be located.

This study seeks to understand the existing role of settlements within CountyDurham. The range and number of services within a settlement is usually, but not always, proportionate to the size of its population. The services within a settlement will generally determine a settlement's role and sphere of influence. Determining the sustainability of settlements is useful in two respects: firstly, because it helps to identify those settlements which are lacking in amenities, and where, therefore, a policy aim might be to protect existing facilities and to support the development of new ones; secondly, because it helps to identify those settlements which have the services and infrastructure necessary to accommodate growth and cater for new residents.

The main reason for establishing a settlement hierarchy is to promote sustainable communities by locating new development in proximity to services and facilities. It makes sense for most of our new housing to be built in larger settlements which have a better range of facilities and services, because then more people have easy access to shops, schools and public transport. However, the Council recognises that smaller villages need some new housing too; to provide homes for new households which might form as young people leave home, older people move to smaller houses and people move to the area, and to ensure that there are enough people in a village to keep facilities and services going.

2 Planning the future of County Durham County Durham Settlement Study Sept 2012 Methodology 2

2 Methodology

Data was collected by a visit to each settlement with a pro-forma designed to capture the range of available facilities. This information was supplemented by data from different sources, depending upon the type of facility, as discussed below.

The types of facilities assessed under our final methodology were:

health facilities schools shopping facilities post offices pubs built sports facilities community centres industrial estates proximity to nearest larger town public transport services

We appreciate that many other facilities and services are important to the residents of the County: libraries, cafes, churches, and broadband access, among others, were all mentioned in consultation. We made the decision to select a subset of the most important facilities and services on the basis that these are likely to correlate heavily with others.

Health Facilities

The NHS Choices web-based database was used to establish the size, type and location of health facilities in the District. A distinction was made between larger health centres (those with 5 or more GPs and a range of clinics) and smaller GP surgeries. Where a larger practice also operated a branch operation in a different location, the secondary branch was counted as a GP surgery only, rather than a health centre.

Schools

The County Council are the education authority for the County and therefore hold information on all schools and other educational facilities within the County. This study makes a distinction between those settlements with primary schools only and those which also possess secondary schools.

Shops

This study follows the lead of the GVA Grimley (2009) "County Durham Retail and Town Centre Uses Study". This study identifies the following types of retail centre: Sub-Regional Centre (Durham City); Main Towns (Stanley, , , , , , , Chester-le-Street and ) and Small Towns (, Crook and ). It acknowledges Local Centres, which are listed in the Local Plans for the relevant former districts.

In this study, we class Middleton-in-Teesdale and Stanhope as Rural Service Centres - following the lead of the Regional Spatial Strategy, and acknowledging their importance for a large rural hinterland. These have the same status as Small Towns.

This study also makes a distinction between settlements with three or more shops, those with one or two, and those with none.

Employment

County Durham Settlement Study Sept 2012 Planning the future of County Durham 3 2 Methodology

The adopted local plans for the former districts were used to establish the type, size and location of the industrial estates in the County. A distinction is made in this study, as in most Local Plans, between district and local industrial estates.

The County Durham Plan makes significant new allocations of industrial land across the County, including strategic sites at Aykley Heads, Durham; NETpark, ; Heighington Lane, Newton Aycliffe; and Tursdale. A number of industrial sites are to lose their designation and will therefore be available for alternative uses. This may affect scores awarded to settlements, according to this indicator, in the future.

Community Centres

The Council hold data on the type and location of all village halls and community centres within the County. A distinction is made in this study between simple community centres (those with a hall, kitchen and toilets only) and larger community centres (those with more extensive facilities, such as meeting rooms, extra halls or cafes).

A review of provision has recently been carried out, which recommended that some of the council-owned community centres should be permanently shut and that funding for others should cease. However, it is not proposed that any centres should be shut which are currently in use, and all of those which are to be closed are in settlements where there is alternative provision.

Sports

The only category of facility considered in this indicator is built sports facilities, managed by the County Council for the public benefit. It does not include, private gyms, sports halls attached to schools, football pitches or other recreation grounds.

Because built sports facilities are less common than other facilities and therefore might be expected to attract people from a wider area, an additional 3km outer catchment area has been applied to them.

A recent review of sports centre provision led to the closure of Ferryhill Leisure Centre and Glenholme Leisure Centre, Crook. This has affected the scores given to Ferryhill and to some settlements within 3km of the leisure centre. However, efforts are being made to secure new leisure facilities in Crook as part of a new town centre development. Therefore, the scores given to this town have not been adjusted as it is hoped that the absence of sports facilities here will be temporary.

Proximity to nearest main town

Scores are awarded to settlements depending upon their proximity to MainTowns and the Sub-Regional Centre, as defined above. A distinction is made between those within 3km of a MainTown, those within 6km, and those outside 6km.

Bus Services

The County Council is the passenger transport authority for the County and, as such, is responsible for co-ordinating bus services. (Details of all services are displayed on the Council’s Interactive Public Transport map, a web-based application which depicts all the bus routes in the County, with links to their timetables).

A distinction is made between settlements with a train station and frequent bus services (more than 1 bus on the most frequent route per 30 minutes) ; those with frequent bus services only; those with less frequent buses (one bus every 30-59 minutes); those with infrequent buses (one bus every 60+ minutes) and those with no public transport provision at all.

4 Planning the future of County Durham County Durham Settlement Study Sept 2012 Scoring Matrix 3

3 Scoring Matrix

Since it was felt that different categories of facility had different levels of importance, weightings were applied. Scores were multiplied by the following:

Health facilities: 4 Schools: 5 Shopping facilities: 5 Post offices: 2 Pubs: 3 Built sports facilities: 1 Community centres: 2 Employment: 3 Distance to the nearest larger town: 4 Public transport services: 5

The scoring matrix eventually determined was as follows:

Table 1 Scoring Matrix

Type of facility Score Weighted score

Health

Hospital 3 12

Health centre or larger GP surgery 2 8

GP surgery 1 4

No health facilities 0 0

Education

Primary and secondary school 3 15

Primary school only 2 10

No schools 0 0

Shopping

Sub-regional centre or Main Town 5 25

Small Town 4 20

Defined local centre (as in district Local Plans) 3 15

Three or more shops 2 10

One/two shops 1 5

No shops 0 0

Post offices

Post office 3 6

No post office 0 0

Public Houses

County Durham Settlement Study Sept 2012 Planning the future of County Durham 5 3 Scoring Matrix

Public house 3 9

No public house 0 0

Sports/Leisure provision

Built public sports provision (leisure centre, swimming baths) 3 3

Built sports provision within 800m - 3 km of settlement centre 2 2

No built sports provision within 3 km of settlement centre 0 0

Community facilities

Village hall or community centre with good facilities 3 6

Simple village hall (i.e. hall, kitchen and toilets) 2 4

No village hall or community centre 0 0

Employment

Larger or district industrial estate 3 9

Local industrial estate 2 6

No employment 0 0

Distance to nearest district or town centre*

Main Town/Sub-regional Centre within 3km from settlement centre 2 8

Main Town/Sub-regional Centre 3km - 6km from settlement centre 1 4

Main Town/Sub-regional Centre over 6km from settlement centre 0 0

Access by public transport

Train station and frequent buses (more than every 30 minutes on most frequent 4 20 route)

Frequent buses (more than every 30 minutes) 3 15

Less frequent buses (30-59 minutes) 2 10

Infrequent buses (60+ minutes) 1 5

No public transport 0 0

In all cases, a facility was counted as being within the settlement if it is within the built-up area or within 800m of the settlement centre. (the pedestrians’ association, Living Streets, defines an 'easily reached' facility as one 'within 10 minutes walk or 800m'). The 800m limit permits a facility in villages close to one another to serve them all (e.g. the Close House/ Eldon Lane cluster close to Bishop Auckland).

In the example below, the centre of Leeholme is less than 800m away from the local centre and industrial estate in Coundon. Similarly, Middlestone Village and North Close are less than 800m away from the centre of Kirk Merrington. The other villages in this example, although they have catchment areas that overlap, are too far away from each other to share facilities.

6 Planning the future of County Durham County Durham Settlement Study Sept 2012 Scoring Matrix 3

800m catchment areas around villages near Bishop Auckland.

Clustering

Taking into account distance, settlement morphology and severance factors such as roads, rivers and railways, we have identified a number of groups of settlements, each of which functions effectively as a single entity. In the example above, Leeholme is theoretically a discrete settlement but in practice functions as a suburb of Coundon. The 800m limit is not the sole criterion, firstly because the suburbs of larger settlements may be over 800m from the centre, and secondly because two settlements within 800m of one another may be separated by a road, railway or open countryside.

This will have implications for development management decisions and service provision. We would normally resist applications for large-scale development in smaller settlements where it would lead to a disproportionate increase in the size of the settlement and lead to unacceptable pressure on local infrastructure and facilities. However, where a smaller settlement functions as a suburb of a larger one, a greater amount of development may be permissible.

The clusters in each delivery area are as follows:

North Durham

Dipton and Flint Hill

Stanley and Tanfield Lea, East Stanley, Kip Hill, Oxhill, Quaking Houses, Shield Row, South Moor, and South Stanley

Consett and Blackfyne, Blackhill, Bridgehill, Castleside, Crookhall, Delves Lane, Leadgate, Moorside, Shotley Bridge, Templeton, The Grove, and Villa Real

Annfield Plain and Catchgate, , New Kyo and West Kyo

County Durham Settlement Study Sept 2012 Planning the future of County Durham 7 3 Scoring Matrix

Bloemfontein and The Middles

Pickering Nook and Hobson

Newfield and Pelton

Ouston and

Central Durham

Brandon, Meadowfield and Langley Moor

Low and High

Coxhoe and Parkhill

South Durham

Bishop Auckland, and St Helen Auckland

Low and High , and Toft Hill

Ferryhill, Ferryhill Station and Chilton Lane

Coundon and Leeholme

Dene Valley (Eldon Lane, Coronation, Coundon Grange, Eldon, and Close House)

East Durham

Easington Colliery and Village

Peterlee and Horden

Blackhall Collery and Rocks

Wingate and Station Town

The Trimdons ( Colliery, Station and Grange, and Deaf Hill)

West Durham

Barnard Castle, and Stainton Grove

Ramshaw and Evenwood

Bowes and

8 Planning the future of County Durham County Durham Settlement Study Sept 2012 Settlement Groupings 4

4 Settlement Groupings

The weighted scores were calculated for each settlement and the settlement list arranged according to the weighted scores. The original draft study then grouped the settlements into five settlement types according to their relative scores; we have since increased this to six groups, to reflect the great diversity of settlement types which exist in the County. The groupings are shown below:

Main Towns: 90 points plus. Smaller Towns and Larger Villages: 70 – 89 points Local Service Centres: 55 – 69 points Medium-sized Villages: 40 - 54 points Small Villages: 25 - 39 points Hamlets: under 25 points

The dispersed settlement pattern throughout the County has created a natural order of villages and towns that serve surrounding hinterlands and smaller settlements. It was considered the above groupings reflect the relative scale and level of service/facilities provision which currently exists within the settlements.

The larger towns in the County are the main service centres within their locality. These larger Main Towns will have primary and secondary schools, several GPs and health centres, community facilities, and industrial estates. They act as a public transport hub for a wider hinterland. In the recent Retail and Town Centre study, they are all classed as Main Towns or Small Towns, apart from Durham City, which is recognised to have a greater, sub-regional, significance.

Below the main towns there is a tier of Smaller Towns and Larger Villages that act as smaller, more localised centres and contain a reasonable array of services due to their location, which tends to be far enough away from the main towns to ensure these settlements are self-sustaining, but to a lesser degree.

The next grouping of settlements, Local Service Centres, tend to have fewer facilities than those in the top tiers, although many of them have enough shops, facilities and services to constitute a local centre. They are likely to have key facilities such as primary schools and post offices and serve a function to a wider area. They are less self-contained than larger villages and small towns, but the facilities they do have reduce a significant amount of trip-generation between settlements.

Medium-sized Villages tend to have a shop or two, a pub, community centre and primary school - a fairly minimal set of facilities; some do not have the full set. They generally have at least some bus services. Small Villages have some facilities, whereas Hamlets have very few. Residents in these types of settlement commonly need to travel to workplaces, schools and other frequently-used facilities.

Maps of all settlements by the Core Strategy's four delivery areas can be found in Appendix 1.

4.1 Settlement scores

Main Towns

Table 2

Settlement Population Weighted Area Dwellings Score Barnard Castle (including Startforth and 7041 99 West 3222 Stainton Grove) Bishop Auckland 24392 113 South 13011 Chester le Street 23946 109 North 13417

County Durham Settlement Study Sept 2012 Planning the future of County Durham 9 4 Settlement Groupings

Consett (including suburbs as listed) 27394 104 North 16608 Crook 8212 90 South 5121 Durham City 42123 113 Central 20518 Newton Aycliffe 25504 109 South 12771 Peterlee 30093 104 East 13075 Seaham 21714 109 East 10470 Shildon 10079 108 South 5097 Spennymoor 17241 104 South 8841 Stanley and Tanfield Lea 18395 104 North 9621

Smaller Towns and Larger Villages

Table 3

Settlement Population Weighted Area Dwellings Score Annfield Plain 7542 87 North 4065 Blackhall 5245 76 East 2565 Bowburn 3514 75 Central 2079 Brandon, Langley Moor and Meadowfield 8056 75 Central 5333 Chilton 3908 72 South 1953 and Parkhill 4077 74 Central 2113 Ferryhill (including Ferryhill Station and Chilton10586 89 South 5404 Lane) Langley Park 4229 80 Central 2111 Middleton in Teesdale 941 70 West 622 Murton 6919 74 East 3710 Pelton and Newfield 3611 73 North 1915 5077 87 Central 2770 Sedgefield 4214 79 South 2253 Sherburn 2956 86 Central 1577 Shotton Colliery 4254 77 East 2207 Stanhope 1633 76 West 971 Ushaw Moor 3671 84 Central 2150 Willington 4534 82 South 2769 Wingate and Station Town 3678 75 East 2232 2061 70 West 1205

Local Service Centres

Table 4

Settlement Population Weighted Area Dwellings Score 1633 66 Central 1011 Bloemfontein 566 63 North 275 Burnopfield 2791 68 North 2104 Cockfield 1382 59 West 766 Coundon (including Leeholme) 3124 69 South 1743 Dipton and Flinthill 2622 63 North 1534 Easington 6301 68 East 3728 Esh Winning 2887 67 Central 2102

10 Planning the future of County Durham County Durham Settlement Study Sept 2012 Settlement Groupings 4

Fencehouses 1492 64 733 2133 67 South 1184 Gainford 1008 66 West 623 3549 68 North 1709 Lanchester 3742 67 Central 1810 Meadowfield 2120 65 Central 958 Ouston and Urpeth 2977 69 North 2325 Pelton Fell 1561 56 North 121 Rainton Gate 53 57 North 61 Ramshaw and Evenwood 1769 66 West 937 2578 61 East 1438 1210 65 West 707 1958 61 West 1164 Trimdon Village 3019 57 South 1406 The Trimdons 3158 57 East 1526 West 2422 67 South 1361 2045 57 North 1198 3115 68 East 1622

Medium-sized Villages

Table 5

Settlement Population Weighted Area Dwellings Score 1234 41 South 543 2010 50 North 906 1182 47 Central 730 Butterknowle 434 43 West 191 543 43 West 238 Craghead 932 44 North 477 Dene Valley 1537 47 South 963 Ebchester 878 53 North 439 472 44 North 225 Escomb 358 46 South 178 Frosterley 705 46 West 435 Hamsterley Colliery 415 54 North 369 Haswell 967 49 East 652 Hesleden 573 49 East 280 High Handenhold 379 48 North 157 High 1181 42 Central 505 Howden le Wear 1234 47 South 77 Hunwick 952 47 South 584 1468 44 Central 795 Kimblesworth 323 41 North 169 Kirk Merrington 739 53 South 414 Low and High Etherley, and Toft Hill 2026 47 South 922 Low Westwood 214 50 North 115 Medomsley 1517 40 North 664 New 1106 46 Central 631 Roddymoor 500 40 South 209

County Durham Settlement Study Sept 2012 Planning the future of County Durham 11 4 Settlement Groupings

St Johns Chapel 307 54 West 213 Sunnybrow 1296 42 South 642 Tantobie 1274 43 North 651 Thornley 2513 50 East 1300 Wellfield 446 43 East 226 West Pelton 744 48 North 396 1960 48 Central 1272

Small Villages

Table 6

Settlement Population Weighted Area Dwellings Score Beamish 286 31 North 159 Billy Row 824 32 South 384 Blackhouse 79 28 North 34 and Gilmonby 269 26 West 137 Brasside 403 34 Central 328 Broompark 278 30 Central 148 Byers Green 672 36 South 379 Cassop 441 39 Central 275 Chester Moor 240 34 North 144 Clough Dene 70 37 North 30 Cold Hesledon 16 35 East 12 Croxdale 496 37 Central 388 Esh 465 35 Central 175 Flinthill 1152 37 North 752 Grange Villa 874 34 North 484 Hamsterley Forest 378 28 West 168 Haswell Plough 435 28 East 254 Hawthorn 355 27 East 220 Helmington Row 228 26 South 82 High and Low Pittington 1407 35 Central 686 490 28 East 175 Ingleton 422 28 West 200 Leamside 112 28 North 53 Low Pittington 183 25 Central 109 Ludworth 551 29 East 305 Middlestone Village 67 39 South 29 Nettlesworth 203 38 North 406 No Place 469 39 North 227 North Close 313 34 South 92 Pickering Nook and Hobson 551 32 North 258 Plawsworth 234 39 North 75 Quaking Houses 749 26 North 324 Quarrington Hill 680 38 Central 387 Rookhope 267 32 West 116 Seaton 0 38 East 158 346 30 Central 215 Sherburn Hill 998 37 Central 509

12 Planning the future of County Durham County Durham Settlement Study Sept 2012 Settlement Groupings 4

Shincliffe 506 38 Central 195 Stainton 237 25 West 6 Stanley Crook 405 32 Central 389 Sunderland Bridge 97 33 Central 78 Tanfield 277 37 North 119 Toronto 399 26 South 237 Westgate 298 31 West 115 Witton le Wear 529 34 West 242

Hamlets

Table 7

Settlement Population Weighted Area Dwellings Score Barningham 204 18 West 77 Binchester 271 15 South 205 Bolam 63 9 West 37 83 13 West 42 Bradbury 95 19 South 31 Brancepeth 360 20 Central 154 25 4 West 8 Burnt Houses 43 14 West 17 385 20 East 263 113 15 West 28 Copley 190 18 West 127 Copley Lane 65 5 West 42 42 0 Central 21 Cornsay Colliery 226 19 Central 81 Cowshill 156 9 West 63 Crawley Side 170 17 West 56 Crimdon 114 14 East 50 Daddry Shield 177 11 West 47 East Hedley Hope 162 9 Central 59 East Law 190 19 North 0 Eastgate 163 20 West 28 118 20 West 69 363 18 West 118 Esperley 79 0 West 35 Etherley Grange 81 11 South 38 Evenwood Gate 95 20 West 44 Fir Tree 226 20 South 149 Grants Houses 223 20 East 0 Greta Bridge 28 9 West 20 Hamsterley Mill 395 15 North 173 34 0 West 21 Hett 224 22 Central 105 High Grange 274 9 South 63 High Hesleden 182 23 East 0 High Lands 159 9 West 60 High Urpeth 29 4 North 12

County Durham Settlement Study Sept 2012 Planning the future of County Durham 13 4 Settlement Groupings

High Westwood 53 10 North 22 Hilton 31 0 West 17 Holmside 126 13 Central 41 Hummerbeck 79 18 South 24 94 4 West 15 68 9 West 13 137 18 West 47 Ireshopeburn 112 18 West 64 Iveston 170 11 North 83 Lambton Park 89 10 North 75 Lanehead 40 5 West 21 111 9 West 47 Leasingthorne 41 4 South 22 Lintz Green 27 14 North 16 Lintzford 27 15 North 18 Little Newsham 26 5 West 9 Little Thorpe 56 19 East 26 Littletown 150 6 Central 64 Maiden Law 280 23 Central 96 Mainsforth 98 19 South 37 Medomsley Edge 319 10 North 107 Mickleton 389 18 West 185 340 24 South 138 213 8 South 59 Morley 63 5 West 38 20 0 West 5 130 0 West 11 New Coundon 41 23 South 21 Newbiggin 144 9 West 36 Newfield (Bishop Auckland) 368 20 South 169 North Bitchburn 135 24 South 0 Oakenshaw 470 7 South 181 Old Cassop 31 4 Central 17 Old Quarrington 44 2 Central 31 Ovington 180 18 West 61 Phoenix Row 64 15 South 29 Quebec 176 0 Central 82 Rokeby 68 4 West 11 177 18 West 83 Ruffside 30 10 West 10 Rushyford 152 23 South 55 188 19 Central 82 Scargill 29 0 West 16 Sheraton 91 4 East 32 Sherburn House 56 15 Central 56 South Cleatlam 120 0 West 50 South Side 101 0 West 46 Spring Gardens 151 4 South 43 Sunniside 347 23 Central 204 Thornley Village 184 9 West 33 Tursdale 54 20 Central 42

14 Planning the future of County Durham County Durham Settlement Study Sept 2012 Settlement Groupings 4

Wackerfield 36 9 West 20 Waldridge 215 24 North 140 Waterhouses 417 14 Central 266 Wear Valley Junction 101 4 South 29 Wearhead 210 22 West 81 West Blackdene 37 0 West 0 Westerton 44 8 South 38 Whorlton 259 22 West 69 Wilks Hill 44 14 Central 21 Winston 282 23 West 129 Witton Park 384 23 South 223 Woodland 414 18 West 146 Woodside 153 23 South 91 Wycliffe 22 0 West 8

County Durham Settlement Study Sept 2012 Planning the future of County Durham 15 4 Settlement Groupings

4.2 Policy implications

This Study has helped us determine the distribution of housing, retail and employment land across the County. Based on this Study, on the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, and taking into consideration population projections and infrastructure constraints, we have allocated housing land in each of the Main Towns, most of the Smaller Towns and Larger Villages, and some of the Local Service Centres, depending upon the availability of suitable land and their future role and function.

During the Plan period it is expected that applications will be received for development on unallocated sites across the County. Policy 16 of the County Durham Plan, Development on Unallocated Sites, states that new development (a) on sites that are not allocated in the County Durham Plan or in a Neighbourhood Plan, will be permitted provided the development, among other things, is appropriate in scale, design, location to the character and function of the settlement.

In order to give some guidance on what is an appropriate scale of development for a particular settlement, it is necessary to consider the overall predicted level of growth in the County. The County Durham Plan identifies a need for an additional 30,000 dwellings in the County over the Plan period to 2030 - an increase of some 14% over the existing 213,000 dwellings.

The majority of the predicted growth and, in particular, the additional growth attributable to in-migration, will be accommodated in Main Towns and, in particular, the Sub-Regional Centre of Durham City, as set out in Policy 2 of the County Durham Plan. This spatial approach uses the evidence in the Settlement Study to support and consolidate the economies of these settlements and to encourage the development of sustainable communities in which a larger number of people have easy access to facilities and services, without the need to travel.

While all settlements should be permitted to expand within flexible limits, the proportion of development permitted in smaller settlements should support the County Durham Plan's spatial approach and conform with Policy 16 above. The Settlement Study should be used to help assess what is an acceptable scale of growth in each settlement. Environmental conditions and market forces will dictate that some settlements can take a larger amount of development, whereas no suitable development sites can be found in others.

The provision of new community facilities will generally be supported in all tiers of settlement, subject to the appropriate policies of the County Durham Plan aimed at limiting the environmental impact of development and promoting sustainability.

a Including retail, office and industrial uses with floorspace of less than 1,000sqm

16 Planning the future of County Durham County Durham Settlement Study Sept 2012 Appendix Settlements by Delivery Area 1

Appendix 1 Settlements by Delivery Area

Northern Delivery Area

County Durham Settlement Study Sept 2012 Planning the future of County Durham 17 Appendix Settlements by Delivery Area 1

Central Delivery Area

Southern Delivery Area

18 Planning the future of County Durham County Durham Settlement Study Sept 2012 Appendix Settlements by Delivery Area 1

Western Delivery Area

County Durham Settlement Study Sept 2012 Planning the future of County Durham 19 Appendix Settlements by Delivery Area 1

Eastern Delivery Area

20 Planning the future of County Durham County Durham Settlement Study Sept 2012

To find out more about the new County Durham Plan :

Write to: Spatial Policy Team, Durham County Council, County Hall Durham DH1 5UQ

Telephone: 0300 026 0000 Email: [email protected] Visit: www.durham.gov.uk/cdp Interactive Website: http://durhamcc-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/

[email protected] 0300 026 0000