County Durham Plan

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2015 Westminster Hall

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to debate this important issue under your chairmanship, Mrs Main.

At the outset, I want to inform the Minister of the two main questions I want to ask this afternoon so she has plenty of time to think about her response. First, the planning inspector’s interim report into the County Durham plan states that one of the council’s options is to suspend further deliberation of the plan for up to six months so the fundamental issues in the report can be resolved in a positive and constructive manner. Will the Minister work with Durham county council to find a solution? It is in the Government’s interest to do so, because if a resolution cannot be found, the Treasury’s plans for economic growth in the region and in County Durham will be undermined.

Secondly, last Friday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he wants 50,000 jobs to be created in the north-east of England by 2020. The North East local enterprise partnership envisages the creation of 100,000 jobs in the north-east by 2024-25. The County Durham plan lays down a firm foundation for the creation of 30,000 jobs in the county by 2030, so if the plan were followed 10,000 additional jobs could be created by 2020, which is 20% of the Chancellor’s target. The planning inspector said that the figure of 30,000 is unachievable, but where does that leave the job growth plans of the Government and the LEP, which are based on the same formula? Durham county council’s plans—wrongly, in my view—have been called into question.

The interim report supports the plan’s population and job growth projections, about which I will say a few things. The inspector endorses the council’s population projections, but questions the assumptions of the forecast. There is a difference between a projection and a forecast. A population projection establishes a baseline position for population growth and assumes that past trends will be carried forward into the future. A population forecast points to an alternative future based on a series of policy changes. The County Durham plan offers a series of policy changes. Durham county council’s population forecast was based on achieving economic success through two measures: first, increasing participation within the economy and achieving an employment rate of 73% in County Durham; and, secondly, increasing the size of the economy by 30,000 jobs in County Durham, 23,000 of which will be located in the county and 7,000 of which will be held by people who live in the county but cross the border to work elsewhere in the region.

The inspector endorsed the county council’s approach to the population projection in his interim report. He accepted the council’s methodology for developing population projections in paragraphs 29 and 30, and he accepted the council’s projection in paragraph 31, noting the trend-based outcome. Here, the inspector accepted the council’s projection and methodology as a basis for developing objectively assessed need for housing. He supported only the population modelling undertaken by Durham county council and rejected other approaches. In paragraph 43, he states:

“I have considered the alternative models and approaches to calculating OAN”—

objectively assessed need—

“put forward by other parties. These produce either significantly lower or higher estimates which I consider to be less robust than the work undertaken by the Council. For example, the FDGB’s”—

the Friends of Durham Green Belt—

“proposals do not use a recognised methodology whilst the house builders use unrealistic data inputs and assumptions.”

The inspector questioned the plan’s economic aspirations and concluded that there will be a low population in the county. He ultimately disagreed with Durham county council’s economic aspirations, which is why he proposed a lower number of houses.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is talking about the growth of the economy in County Durham, which is very important. On a point related to the lack of extra housing, the existing population is getting older and less economically active, so it will not only have less economic impact on Durham but will require more services from the health service and local government.

[Phil Wilson]

I agree. My hon. Friend anticipates my next point, which is about job growth in the area. It is about not only attaining a 73% activity rate among people of working age, because if that continues and there is no jobs growth, the local economy will ultimately stagnate.

The inspector accepts the council’s methodology for developing population projections. The council wants to increase the participation rate in the economy, achieve an employment rate of 73% in County Durham by 2030 and create an additional 30,000 jobs. However, the inspector has come out against that. He predicted a lower rate of economic growth and the creation of only 18,000 jobs by 2030. However, Experian, which has done a lot of work on this issue for the county council, predicted the creation of something like 22,900 jobs, so the county council’s figure of 23,000 additional jobs is in line with that prediction. There is independent evidence to suggest that the county council is going in the right direction.

The one thing that the report misses out completely is Newton Aycliffe business park, which is now the biggest business park in the north-east of England and employs 8,000 or 9,000 people. There is no mention of it in the interim report. Hitachi is going to build a factory there, which will create 730 additional jobs. The county council has allocated something like 130 acres there for the anticipated job growth. The developers expect thousands of jobs to come to the business park, because Hitachi is acting as a catalyst and attracting manufacturers in other industries to the area. However, Newton Aycliffe was completely missed out of the interim report, which I find bizarre in the extreme.

What is Durham county council’s ambition? The County Durham plan is ambitious, inspirational and optimistic. It is full of confidence not only in the county council but in the people of County Durham. The history of Durham shows that the network of settlements in County Durham exists today because of the industrial revolution and the coal industry. We now need to diversify industry to sustain those local communities. That is why the county council wants an additional 31,000 houses to be built by 2030. It wants to set aside 399 acres of employment land and a further 41.5 acres of specific-use employment land. It wants a spatial strategy that seeks to fulfil the ambition of a thriving Durham city. Economic success will be delivered through the creation of jobs.

Let me give some background about why this issue is so fundamental to the people of County Durham and to industry in the area. Following the local government review several years ago, Durham county council made improving the economy its top priority. The local government review was a once-in-a-generation opportunity to bring together all partners to adopt an economic strategy to reverse Durham’s economic decline. The county has suffered from a decline in traditional industries, and the resulting increase in unemployment and lower skilled jobs has caused our brightest and best to move away to find economic prosperity elsewhere. To address that problem, the unitary council and its partners made the economy their top priority from day one. The council’s overarching priority is to improve the economic performance of County Durham. Through the County Durham partnership and the sustainable community strategy, it has recognised that better opportunities for employment mean better health and more choice in housing. To achieve that, it has recognised that a significant step change will be required. In the absence of economic investment, the size of the county’s working-age population will decline over the next 20 years, which is not in line with either the County Durham plan or the north-east’s aspirations. The focus on a thriving economy is not at the expense of other matters; indeed, developing a thriving economy will address many of the social issues present in the county.

County Durham’s pre-recession employment rate had been rising and was very close to the national average. Since the recession, the rate has been below the regional and national averages, although it has recovered significantly in recent months. To continue to close the employment rate gap and improve the county’s economic performance, the plan takes an approach that seeks to deal with the shrinking working-age population while trying to balance the needs of the economy and businesses in the county and wider region.

The targets are for 30,000 jobs and a 73% employment rate among people of working age. We also need to identify how many houses we need and how many acres of land need to be set aside for industry. Creating more and better jobs within the north-east economy is at the heart of the agenda for the North East combined authority and the North East local enterprise partnership, as well as for wider partners and investors, and—we believe—in line with the Government’s aspirations as laid out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Friday last week.

The inspector rejects the challenge presented by an ageing population and the associated implications for the prosperity of the county and the north-east. Addressing the job creation target is fundamental in the light of the projected reduction in the working-age population. The inspector’s report acknowledges that County Durham’s growth aspirations accord with regional economic aspirations. However, the inspector suggests that we are not working collaboratively to deliver these targets, which conflicts with the stated aim of the strategic plans in the area and the North East LEP, and the duty to co-operate, which is the Government’s recognised tool for cross-boundary discussions.

The inspector suggests, although without evidence, that the majority of the neighbouring authorities in the north-east are seeking similar aspirations to meet their objectively assessed needs, rather than seeking economic growth as suggested. We can draw out the inspector’s view of the county’s future from the assumptions outlined and observations made. Although none of those elements was articulated during the examination, the inspector’s vision becomes clear from a detailed reading of his report.

First, the inspector casts doubts on the shared economic ambitions of the local authorities within the North East LEP area, as agreed by the Government and outlined in the strategic economic plan. That is why it is fundamental for the Government to address this issue.

Secondly, the inspector’s vision for County Durham seeks to limit the county’s role within the wider regional economy. As someone from County Durham, I find that very hard to accept. He seeks to underplay Durham city’s established role and status within the wider region, in my view, and the council is clear that Durham residents will contribute towards the economic prosperity in the region. Durham residents will bring skills to our neighbours, working as part of a successful regional economy.

I turn to the economic impact of the alternative vision. In the absence of economic investment, the size of the county’s working-age population will decline over the next 20 years. The council’s approach seeks to deal with a shrinking working-age population, while trying to balance the needs of the economy and businesses in the county. The two measures of employment rate and labour force target work in tandem to support economic prosperity in Durham. In the context of an ageing population, an increase to a 73% participation rate would not in itself support economic growth in the economy. A participation rate of 73% as a single measure of success could be achieved in a stagnating or declining economy, as the size of the working-age population declines.

Although the inspector rejects the council’s approach, in his report, he goes some way towards setting out his own alternative economic vision. The inspector acknowledges that a 73% employment rate is within the realms of possibility but takes issue with the labour force target of 30,000 jobs. The preferred scenario that the inspector has come up with implies that only 18,500 jobs would be created over the plan period in County Durham. That is clearly not in line with the ambitions of either County Durham or the north-east and is contrary to most recent trends. The independent Experian forecast identifies that 22,900 jobs could be created in the county.

The inspector’s vision runs contrary to the region’s ambitions for growth. The labour force target is an established target for County Durham and addresses growth not only in the county, but in the wider region, recognising County Durham’s role in the wider economy, which is complementary to the role of other regional centres. For example, 40% of people who work at Nissan in Sunderland live in County Durham. The scenario suggested by the inspector implies only that some 18,000 jobs will be created, but the independent Experian forecast showed that 23,000 jobs can be created.

The report has implications for my constituency. For example, there would be a reduction in housing allocation in the village of Sedgefield. I know that there are issues there. There have been applications to increase the number of houses by 2,000. There is talk at the moment of housing developments of between 300 and 470 dwellings. Although at the moment, the County Durham plan seems to have been rejected by the planning inspector, it just leaves the door open for speculators to come along and start talking about developments in Sedgefield village that are not suitable. We could go back to a position in which developers who have thought of applications to increase the size of the village by 2,000 houses over a given time could come back in the absence of a strategic housing policy for the whole of the county.

The other issue is employment. The report neglects to mention the region’s biggest business park, which has been the generator and motivator for jobs. It also does not say very much about NETpark—the North East Technology Park—which is a science and innovation park that has recently received grants from the Government and the local growth fund. It has great potential, and I have seen the science park develop over the past 10 years. It now employs between 300 and 400 people and is based on a model in Durham-Raleigh, North Carolina. The business park there was set up in the 1950s and now employs tens of thousands of people. I am not suggesting that NETPark will get as big as that, but the model proves that that acts as a catalyst to attract high-value jobs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

I thank my colleagues for coming together to get this debate, which is so important to County Durham and my constituency. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main.

The speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) was incredibly good and detailed. I do not intend to give a speech anything like his; I will speak briefly about the impact on my constituency. I am really disappointed by the inspector’s interim report, given that, as we have heard in great detail, the County Durham plan has the support of businesses and many communities in the north-east. The concerns that I would like the Minister to address are twofold.

First, the inspector appears to have listened and acted on the concerns of those opposed to the plan, but paid little or no cognisance to those living in the county who were content with it. Therefore, he has made recommendations that appear to address the concerns of the objectors, to some extent at the expense of others in the county. Those people now affected have no further voice in the process.

Secondly, the inspector has failed to work closely with the county at all stages to improve the plan, as I was assured he would. I met the Minister with responsibility for planning, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), and his team last year to discuss the County Durham plan, and in particular those areas of it that will impact on my constituency. I was accompanied by a planner from County Durham, and I was particularly keen to understand what weighting would be given to the plan at what stages. The meeting was helpful in that regard.

At that meeting, the Minister and his team agreed that the plan was one of the biggest plans that the Department for Communities and Local Government would have to consider, that Durham is one of the biggest unitary authorities in the country, and that the plan was comprehensive, covering areas such as economic, social and spatial development. We therefore knew that the plan was not only one of the biggest plans the Department would need to look at, but extensive in its remit. There was also recognition that it would need considerable revision as it went through the process. I came away from the meeting feeling quite confident that there was willingness to work with the county planners to ensure that, at every stage, concerns were addressed and amendments were made to avoid what has happened recently.

When drawing up the plan, the county had a number of major challenges, the main one being jobs—it is always about jobs in the north-east—and the second being the reducing working-age population in the county. I believe, as my colleagues do, that the county is right to be ambitious, optimistic and aspirational about economic development, and that the inspector has got it wrong. We have heard extensively about the details of that, so I will not concentrate on it.

I want to concentrate on the impact of the report on my constituency. The strong recommendation to withdraw the plan would have the biggest impact on my constituency, because to do so would remove the five-year supply of housing land defined by the council. That would leave housing development open to being assessed via the national planning policy framework and saved policies. The result will be a free-for-all on planning applications and a catastrophe for communities such as mine.

I will illustrate that by reference to two areas: Lanchester village and Consett town centre. The inspector has largely dismissed plans for building in and around Durham city but, seemingly out of the blue, he has recommended house building in a number of villages across the county, one of which is Lanchester. In doing so, he appears to have ignored all the evidence about flooding, increased traffic and the impact on services. Lanchester has a history of flooding, and it has had four one-in-100-year floods since 2002, but that does not appear to have been considered at all. I declare an interest because I live in Lanchester village. However, I live at the other end of the village, so none of this would have an impact on me personally.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The situation is worse than my hon. Friend describes. In the north of the county, the inspector has completely ignored the housing allocation and referred to places in my constituency such as Sacriston, Stanley and Great Lumley, but he has failed to identify any potential sites. The county council has already looked at those places in its consideration of supply for the next five years, and the sites do not exist. Where does my hon. Friend think the inspector envisages that the houses will go?

[Pat Glass]

I do not think that the inspector has given any consideration to that at all. He has simply picked those villages out of the blue without looking at any of the evidence; at least, that is how it appears to me. The inspector has recommended the adoption of the Project Genesis master plan in Consett, which would create new out-of-town retail developments that are not within walking distance of the town centre. To date, all retail-based planning has been close to the town centre. It is far from perfect, but, overall, it has worked. The inspector’s recommendation appears to be in contravention of all previous and current planning. It would damage Consett town centre, and it would result in unsustainable urban sprawl. Worst of all, the people of Consett have been given no opportunity to challenge any of the plans.

I and my communities want to see the County Durham plan back on course as soon as possible, and I ask the Minister to use whatever influence she has to address the concerns that have been raised and to get the plan back on track. The inspector appears to have made recommendations outside the plan in communities outside Durham city without considering the evidence and without giving those communities the opportunity to have their say. I do not want to comment on the merits, or otherwise, of the objections made to the original plan by those living in and around Durham city. Their views should be, and have been, heard, but so should the views of people living in other communities. I understand that this is how the process works, in a sense. People object to the plan, and if they stay silent or they are content, they have no role in the process. In this case, however, the inspector has simply named villages, and the people who live there find that they will be severely disadvantaged but they have no opportunity for redress.

I went to a public meeting in Lanchester village on Sunday, which was attended by 150 people, who could all be bothered to turn out at 3 o’clock on a Sunday afternoon. That showed the depth of their concern that an unsustainable planning application, which was, in their view, adequately addressed by the County Durham plan, puts them and their village at much greater risk of flooding and unsustainable traffic and puts their schools and community facilities at risk. Those people have no say in the process. Why should the views of people in places such as Lanchester, Consett, Crook, Wolsingham, Stanley and Sacriston count for less than those of other people who live in the county?

I hope that the Minister can use her influence to ensure that the plan is put back on track as soon as possible and that the inspector, or whoever takes the matter forward, works closely with all communities in County Durham, as I was promised that they would.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main.

County Durham is a beautiful county and a great place to live, but it is not a delicate flower, to be protected in a glass case. Its history is one of economic development and change, going back to the early Normans who built Durham cathedral, and including the expansion of coal mining, and steel making at Consett, in the 18th and 19th centuries. Another example is the development, at Barnard Castle in Bishop Auckland, of the Bowes museum under the inspirational leadership of John Bowes. I wonder what would have happened if Harold Stephens had been around at those times in history. Would he have told the Normans that they were being too ambitious in building a beautiful cathedral that would stand for 1,000 years? Would he have told John Bowes that his idea of a French chateau in the Durham countryside, to celebrate his fantastic collection of art, would impinge on the green belt and be too ambitious for a county such as Durham?

The leader of the council, Simon Henig, summed things up well last week when he said that we do not want to live in a museum. I am proud of my constituency, which includes the fantastic Beamish open-air museum—but I do not want to live in the museum. It is important to remind us of our past, but we cannot live in the past. County Durham has never lived in its past; it has always moved forward. The county council’s ambitious economic plan is part of that tradition of trying to drive industry forward and making sure that the county grows. One of the most ambitious projects in county Durham’s recent history was the development of the new towns at Peterlee and Newton Aycliffe. It was a bold vision at the time, but we now acknowledge the foresight of those who brought it about. I see the county council’s current plan in that context.

I do not think that we could have achieved such a plan before the county’s unitary status. A unique aspect of County Durham as a unitary county is the way it has got everyone together behind its ambitious plan—not just the business community but people in politics, and communities. That could never have worked at the time of the district councils, because the two tiers would have fought one another. That is something unique about the plan.

Is the plan too ambitious? I do not think it is. It fits quite well with what is proposed in Tyne and Wear, and Teesside. We have had a little bit of a problem in County Durham in the past few years, in that Teesside and Tyneside have been seen as the region’s powerhouses. I am not for a minute under the illusion that we will emulate those regional powerhouses, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) said, we can make a huge contribution to the growth of the economy of the north-east as a whole. To say that County Durham should be a rural backwater for those conurbations is not the way forward. It would not be good for the people who live there, and it would create generational problems. There was a huge problem in the 1980s—and earlier, in my part of the Durham coalfield, in the 1960s—when coal mining left. The economic reason for some communities went away overnight. We cannot recreate such industries in communities as they were then; but County Durham has put forward a plan on which it should be congratulated. It would at least try to develop industries and attract businesses, not necessarily directly to those same locations, but within striking distance—in the A1 corridor, for example.

As to the ambitions of County Durham, if someone had said five years ago that through the hard work of my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield it would attract Hitachi to invest as it has in Newton Aycliffe, most people would have wondered whether it was possible, but it happened, and that was down to the drive of my hon. Friend, the county council and local businesses.

[Phil Wilson]

Hitachi first came to the UK to look for a site to build a factory. It looked at 42 locations, and Newton Aycliffe was not one of them. Much of the reason it selected it was Durham county council.

[Mr Jones]

I agree. It has a can-do attitude—and that is what is behind the plan. To say that it is too ambitious is wrong. We cannot let our constituents down and think we can go along somehow, just tinkering at the edges, with time passing us by. There are communities in my constituency, as I have said, whose economic life blood went years ago. We need to provide them with industry, jobs and opportunities, within striking distance. My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) is right; things have changed. Instead of heavy industry there will be tourism, high tech and educational opportunities. The work atmosphere is very different from what it was, but the plan was at least going to deliver those things.

I want to mention two things that directly affect my constituency. One is the inspector’s removal from the plan of the development of housing at Lambton park. Lambton park is a result of County Durham’s history. It was built with wealth and proceeds from the coal mining industries, but it has been shut away for the past few years and has not really been accessible. The plan would provide executive housing on the site, but it would also open the parkland to public access. Cleverly, the development of executive housing, which is needed in County Durham, would be linked to providing affordable housing in the town of Chester-le-Street, but the inspector put a line through that and took it out completely. That creates a housing supply problem in Chester-le-Street, because with one fell swoop it knocked out 740 housing units from the 1,230 proposed for the Chester-le-Street area, which were identified in the strategic housing land availability assessment. That proposal was taken out, so we already have a shortfall. From my constituency surgeries I know the demand for affordable housing in Chester-le-Street. It also misses the point that the estate, which has sat idle for many generations, could be brought back into economic use, and not just for housing. There were also proposals to build offices and other developments in the area, but those proposals were taken out.

The other issue is the failure to agree the extension to the Drum industrial estate. I have two major industrial estates in my constituency: Drum and Stella Gill. The Drum industrial estate is important because it is located near the A1. To be fair, the county council has improved access to the A1, which has made the industrial estate more attractive to business. The extension would have allowed for growth, but it has been taken out. The Stella Gill industrial estate has been designated as the place where we need growth—it is the only industrial estate in the north of the county to be designated. Stella Gill is a small industrial estate that is not accessible to the A1, and it is not attractive to business. The decision will basically stifle job creation in my constituency.

My hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) mentioned the inspector’s arrogant attitude to housing allocation. I accept that there are people in the city of Durham who want to preserve the city the way they see it, and therefore they cannot have any housing at all, but the inspector basically said, “Well, if we are going to provide this housing, we can provide it elsewhere.” The inspector took no account whatever in his report of the strategic housing land availability assessment, because sites are not available in my constituency to take up that slack. If we do not agree the plan, there will be speculative development, as my hon. Friend said. People reacted in triumph last week, saying that they had saved the green belt, but they have done far from that. Without a plan in place, they have actually opened up parts of County Durham to speculation.

This is an ambitious plan, and it is a plan that is right for County Durham not only today, but for the future. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield said, the plan links into our wider ambitions for our region. County Durham cannot be kept out of those plans; it is an important part of the region. If we are to say to our constituents that we are doing our best to ensure that not only work but good quality housing is available locally, this plan must be implemented. Is there anything the Minister can do to get this moving? The report has been a slap in the face for County Durham as a whole and for the county council. I give credit to the county council—some people have not given the county council credit over the past few days—for its leadership on this issue, but we need the plan to proceed. We cannot stall the plan for several years to come, because there would otherwise be speculation and missed opportunities. There are businesses and housing developers out there that should come to my constituency and other parts of County Durham, but they will not come without the plan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Penny Mordaunt]

I was referring to the inward investment that would come into the area. The point that I was making is that the private sector would not be investing in Durham and the north-east unless it had confidence that local businesses and the local community could deliver. It is important to put it on record that we have confidence in the local ideas being put forward.

This is an important point of principle. We have supported local plans and made that a focus. Nearly four times as many councils have now adopted plans than at the start of this Parliament, and more than 1,300 communities are doing excellent work bringing forward neighbourhood plans, 26 of which are in County Durham. It is an important point of principle that those plans should come from the communities, which know their local patch best.

I empathise with the situation that Durham county council is in. It has put considerable effort into producing a plan. I want to make it clear that although the inspector has some concerns, what he has set out are interim findings. It is important to note that he says that

“for the avoidance of doubt, this not does not set out a final view”,

The inspector has offered the council different options for how to proceed. They include the opportunity for the council to undertake further work to support their approach.

I must add a caveat to my response: given my ministerial role, I must limit how specific my comments are on certain aspects of the plan as it remains at examination, but I do not think that that will prevent me from answering any of the questions that hon. Members have posed. The argument is that the County Durham plan would enable strong economic growth, significant housing and infrastructure, and represents an approach that has broad local support. In headline terms, those are perspectives fully endorsed by the Government’s planning policy.

The national planning policy framework is clear that authorities should plan proactively to meet businesses’ development needs and base their plans on a clear understanding of those needs. Our policy sets out that authorities should plan to meet objectively assessed development needs and provide appropriate infrastructure as far as is consistent with the policies in the framework as a whole. The Government have made it clear that we accord great importance to the green belt, whose fundamental characteristics are openness and permanence, and that green belt boundaries should be revised only in exceptional circumstances through the local plan process.

Our policy is clear that local plans should as far as possible reflect a collective vision and set of agreed priorities for the sustainable development of the area. The Government’s commitment to sustainable development, green belt protection and community involvement in planning is not in dispute. I reassure hon. Members who have raised concerns, as the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) did, that the absence of a plan will open the floodgates. Perhaps it would be helpful if I wrote to hon. Members in detail outlining some things that I think will give them comfort. There are clearly material considerations that need to be taken into account, even in the absence of a local plan.

I have mentioned the green belt and neighbourhood planning. A neighbourhood plan, of course, does not have to be ratified to have legal weight in the planning process. There is the “town centre first” policy—an issue that the hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) raised—and “infrastructure first”, which the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) mentioned. Perhaps it would be useful if I wrote to hon. Members to outline matters in detail; that may give hon. Members’ constituents some comfort.

I turn to the issues that the inspector raised. It is true that the plan would enable growth, but the inspector is not convinced, on the basis of the current evidence, that the level of growth proposed would be achievable, and that it would not adversely affect the council’s other city-centre strategies and the world heritage site status of Durham. The inspector is also of the view that more could be done to show how growth in Durham would interact positively or negatively with the growth being proposed by other north-east authorities. In summary, the inspector explains that, at present,

“the failure to fully assess the social, economic and environmental implications of lower growth options…is a serious omission”.

Let me be clear: that does not mean that the inspector has suggested that Durham should be less ambitious in its plan; it means that Durham needs to show clearly why the approach it proposes is the most appropriate strategy.

The plan clearly seeks to enable more housing than past trends would indicate, but the inspector has indicated that there are shortcomings in the methodology for establishing housing needs; for example, there is the question of whether the predicted in-migration levels are realistic.

In relation to housing provision, the inspector’s view is that the plan could do more to take into account the contribution that could be made to housing delivery by reusing brownfield land, potentially for around 2,000 homes; I hope that addresses the issue that the hon. Member for City of Durham mentioned. Based on these assumptions about housing growth, the plan allocates some 4,000 homes in the green belt. On this point, the inspector is clear that

“The process and evidence relating to the proposed amendments to the Green Belt boundary are flawed, particularly in relation to the release of sites to accommodate some 4,000 unnecessary dwellings...A full review of non-Green Belt sources of supply should be undertaken.”

The plan further advocates two relief roads in the green belt, but the inspector also has concerns about their justification and impact. Although planning inevitably involves difficult decisions that will not please everyone, the inspector points to significant concerns raised by a broad section of the public in relation to the proposed strategy.

The shortcomings identified in the current version of the plan may yet be resolvable at examination, as the inspector’s report sets out. I understand that the council is due to meet the inspectorate in March to discuss options for how to proceed, and I am pleased that the inspectorate is engaging openly with the local authority.

I can reassure hon. Members who have spoken today that the Planning Inspectorate is as pragmatic as possible when it comes to examining local plans. However, this is the crux of the matter: the inspector would not have arrived at his interim findings if there were not significant grounds for concern.

In summary, hon. Members who have spoken today have expressed their support for a plan that the inspector considers is not currently supported by robust evidence. In the absence of such evidence, the plan advocates a strategy that is potentially unrealistic or possibly detrimental to Durham, its sustainable development and in particular its green belt.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I take exception to the Minister saying that, because what has been put forward is an ambitious plan. She seems to be saying that on the one hand we need economic growth for the north-east, but on the other the plan is not achievable. The problem is treating County Durham as a small market county; it is a large county. If housing is not put in my area, it will be put somewhere else, which means my area will suffer as part of this plan.

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am simply stating the concerns that the inspectorate has raised. Clearly, I hope that we have a local plan in place for his area sooner rather than later. However, that plan needs to be based on good evidence if it is to be successful. I hope that, if the dialogue with the inspectorate is successful, the plan that emerges at the end of the process will be stronger for it.