FERRYHILL TOWN COUNCIL

TOWN COUNCIL

Town Hall Wednesday FERRYHILL 21 July 2010 TIME: 7.00PM

Dear Councillor, you are hereby summoned to attend the above meeting at which the following business will be transacted.

AGENDA

1. ETHICAL CODE – DISCLOSURE OF ANY PERSONAL PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS

2. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (SUBJECT TO PUBLIC PARTICIPATION POLICY)

3. APOLOGIES

4. MINUTES

Town Council ­ 16 th JUNE 2010

5. MATTERS ARISING

6. COMMITTEE MINUTES

Finance Committee ­ 16 th JUNE 2010

7. MATTERS ARISING

8. OTHER MINUTES

2000 Committee ­ 16 th JUNE 2010 Youth Council ­ 29 th JUNE 2010

9. THE COUNTY DURHAM PLAN, PLANNING THE FUTURE OF COUNTY DURHAM. A PLAN SETTING OUT THE OBJECTIVES FOR THE COUNTY FOR THE NEXT 30 YEARS, COPY OF SUMMARY REPORT ATTACHED

RECOMMENDATIONS

• To address the lack of a broad range of housing and in particular provide considerable new housing in particular Detached and Semi Detached houses.

• Exploit the excellent strategic location (as demonstrated by the high occupancy rates of the Town centre commercial premises) of the Town with new housing and commercial developments.

• Ferryhill should be highlighted as not only one of the major centres for regeneration but the priority centre to reflect the inherited obligations of Durham County Council to complete the Regeneration of Dean Bank and Ferryhill Station.

• An additional indicator should be added to the matrix namely travel time to the three main arterial routes within the County namely the A176, the A1 and the A19.

• That clarification be sought regarding the six anomalies within the Settlement Study and representations be made on these.

• The indicator proximity to a main Town should be removed or should only be introduced after the other 9 indicators have been listed in order of score to determine what are the main towns within the County.

• That a full submission be made to DCC on the County Durham Plan representing Ferryhill’s interests.

• That a commerce /office development be encouraged to the Town Centre area.

• That the encouragement of a supermarket to the Town Centre be suported

• That Partners organisations be encouraged to submit their views to DCC

• That publicity be given to the consultative event in Ferryhill on Monday the 26 th July 2010 from 2pm to 7pm at the Ferryhill Leisure Centre.

10. WORKS MANAGERS REPORT, COPY ATTACHED

RECOMMENDATION

THAT THIS BE RECEIVED AND NOTED

11. POLICE CONSULTATION, COPY ATTACHED

RECOMMENDATION

THAT THIS BE RECEIVED AND NOTED

12. FINAL ELEMENTS OF PHASE ONE REGENERATION FERRYHILL STATION, COPY OF REPORT ATTACHED

RECOMENDATION

• That the Town Council offers its views on these proposals

13. TOWN SURVEY REPORT, COPY ATTACHED

RECOMENDATION

• That the Town Council considers the Draft Survey agreeing any amendments as necessary;

• That the Town Council considers what prizes will be awarded at the Prize Draw;

• That the Town Council considers who the independent verifiers should be.

14. CORRESPONDENCE

15. NO OTHER BUSINESS WILL BE ACCEPTED OTHER THAN THE ITEMS ABOVE UNLESS CONSIDERED OF AN EMERGENCY NATURE AND ANY SUCH ITEMS MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER AT LEAST 48 HOURS BEFORE THE MEETING IN ORDER THAT HE MAY CONSIDER THE LEGALITY OF SUCH ITEMS.

ALL REPORTS ARE AVAILABLE TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AT THE TOWN HALL DURING OFFCIE HOURS.

Mr J R Corrigan Executive Officer Ferryhill Town Council Town Hall Ferryhill Co Durham

Tel: 01740 652157

Mr J R Corrigan – Executive Officer

CORRESPONDENCE

1. Durham Association News ­ Newsletter

2. Colin R Snowball, MRICS ­ Notice of alteration to an existing 2010 rating entry

3. 4 Together ­ 4 Together Partnership Forum, 28 th June 2010, 5pm – 8pm, Ferryhill Leisure Centre

4. National Employers Organisation for ­ Budget statement on Local Government Service Public Sector pay

5. Sedgefield and District CAB ­ Newsletter

6. Durham County Council ­ Letter regarding Parish Poll following request to hold on by Mr Dave Watson

7. Steven Galloway ­ Letter regarding temporary footpath closure

8. Quality of Mainsforth Sports Complex ­ Email from John Irvine Secretary Mainsforth Cricket Club

9. FBEC ­ Newsletter 9/7/10

10. Dean Bank and Ferryhill ­ Letter regarding works Literary Institute

11. Environmental Trust ­ Letter Regarding Duncombe Cemetery footpath

12. Take over of allotments Plot 29 or 31 Storehouse ­ Andrew Warrick

6 Thirlemere Road Ferryhill

REPORT “THE COUNTY DURHAM PLAN. PLANNING THE FUTURE OF COUNTY DURHAM”.

AUTHOR JAMIE CORRIGAN, EXECUTIVE OFFICER

DATE 6 TH JULY 2010

MEETING TOWN COUNCIL 21 ST JULY 2010

1 INTRODUCTION

This is the Local Development framework Core Strategy Document for the County, formally known as the Local Plan and will be referred to by Durham County Council as the County Durham Plan.

(Issues paper issued in November 2009 did we respond?)

This document is described by Durham County Council I a press release as its “plans for multi billion pound plans to transform the County into an economic powerhouse”. Council Chiefs say this is a once in a generation opportunity to reverse the County’s long standing decline and change the lives of its people for decades to come.

The Core Strategy, when finalised, will include the following:

• An overall spatial interpretation of the SCS Vision which sets out how the County and its towns and villages should develop;

• Objectives for the County, focussing on the key issues to be addressed;

• A delivery strategy for achieving these objectives; this will set out how much

development is intended to happen where, when and how it will be delivered;

• Core policies to set the basis for determining planning applications; and

• A limited number of strategic site allocations for key employment, housing, retail, minerals, waste etc developments, but only those sites considered central to the achievement of the strategy. In general the Core Strategy will not include site­specific detail.

If this is the case it is essential that Ferryhill is judged correctly and receives fair treatment within this plan.

The draft Plan is currently out for consultation and a consultation drop in event will be held on Monday the 26 th July 2010 from 2pm to 7pm at the Ferryhill Leisure Centre.

The Document has been developed “using consultation and evidence”.

“We need to get the right housing in the right locations”.

“More population brings more spending therefore more shops and more facilities and helps to keep our essential services going”.

“This is a fantastic opportunity for County Durham to set out a bold new direction which will lead to a more sustainable future”

Policing?

“The Core Strategy when finalised will include the following:

2 ISSUES FOR FERRYHILL

There are a number of key issues for Ferryhill, these include Housing allocation, Main Town Status, Regeneration. Each of these issues have knock on effects such as the future viability of local schools, future public spending in the Town, and dealing with the current over supply of terraced housing which inevitably gradually moves into private landlord ownership leading to a more transient community which in turn leads to added problems with crime and anti social behaviour.

3 MAIN TOWN STATUS

Within the Local Development Framework there are 12 main Towns listed, these are derived from the now defunct Regional Spacial Strategy. They are listed below.

To determine what is a “Main Town” the study undertook a “Settlement Study”. This analysed every one of the 207 settlements in the County of Durham in terms of a scoring matrix. Scores were allocated for the following facilities;

The first order of settlements identified by the Study confirms the status of the County’s main towns, which are identified as the focus for development by Regional Spatial Strategy. These settlements have the largest range of facilities although it is clear within this group that there are differences between the sub­regional roles of Durham City and Bishop Auckland, the more local roles of Crook and Shildon and the intermediate role of the remaining towns. The towns in this group are listed below. Central Durham Durham City North and East Durham Chester­le­Street Crook Consett Stanley Peterlee Seaham South Durham Bishop Auckland Spennymoor Newton Aycliffe Shildon West Durham Barnard Castle

Barnard Castle

This may seem like just a name to de

4

REPORT “THE COUNTY DURHAM PLAN. PLANNING THE FUTURE OF COUNTY DURHAM”.

AUTHOR JAMIE CORRIGAN, EXECUTIVE OFFICER

DATE 6 TH JULY 2010

MEETING TOWN COUNCIL 21 ST JULY 2010

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This is the Draft Local Development framework Core Strategy Document for the County, formally known as the Local Plan and will be referred to by Durham County Council as the County Durham Plan. It can be viewed at; http://durhamcc­consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/csiando/csio2010

1.2 This document is described by Durham County Council in a press release as its “plans for multi billion pound plan to transform the County into an economic powerhouse. Council Chiefs say this is a once in a generation opportunity to reverse the County’s long standing decline and change the lives of its people for decades to come.”

1.3 The Core Strategy, when finalised, will include the following:

• An overall spatial interpretation of the SCS Vision which sets out how the County and its towns and villages should develop;

• Objectives for the County, focussing on the key issues to be addressed;

• A delivery strategy for achieving these objectives; this will set out how much

development is intended to happen where, when and how it will be delivered;

• Core policies to set the basis for determining planning applications; and

• A limited number of strategic site allocations for key employment, housing, retail, minerals, waste etc developments, but only those sites considered central to the achievement of the strategy. In general the Core Strategy will not include site­specific detail.

1.4 This being the case it is essential that Ferryhill is assessed correctly and receives fair treatment within this plan.

1.5 The draft Plan is currently out for consultation and a consultation drop in event will be held onMonday the 26 th July 2010 from 2pm to 7pm at the Ferryhill Leisure Centre.

1.6 Key phrases from within the document are ;

• The Document has been developed “using consultation and evidence”.

• “We need to get the right housing in the right locations”.

• “More population brings more spending therefore more shops and more facilities and helps to keep our essential services going”.

• “This is a fantastic opportunity for County Durham to set out a bold new direction which will lead to a more sustainable future”

2 ISSUES FOR FERRYHILL

2.1 There are a number of key issues for Ferryhill, these include Housing allocation, Main Town Status, and Regeneration. Each of these issues has a knock on effect such as the future viability of local schools, future public spending in the Town, and dealing with the current over supply of terraced housing which inevitably gradually moves into private landlord ownership leading to a more transient community which in turn leads to added problems with crime and anti social behaviour.

3 MAIN TOWN STATUS

3.1 Within the Local Development Framework there are 12 main Towns listed, these are derived from the now defunct Regional Spacial Strategy. They are listed below.

3.2 “The first order of settlements identified by the Study confirms the status of the County’s main towns, which are identified as the focus for development by Regional Spatial Strategy.”

3.3 “These settlements have the largest range of facilities although it is clear within this group that there are differences between the sub­regional roles of Durham City and Bishop Auckland, the more local roles of Crook and Shildon and the intermediate role of the remaining towns. The towns in this group are listed below.”

3.3.1 Central Durham Durham City

North and East Durham Chester­le­Street Crook Consett Stanley Peterlee Seaham

South Durham Bishop Auckland Spennymoor Newton Aycliffe Shildon

West Durham Barnard Castle

4 SETTLEMENT STUDY

4.1 To determine what is a “Main Town” a draft “Settlement Study” was developed by Durham County Council. This analysed every one of the 207 settlements in the County of Durham in terms of a scoring matrix see below. This is a supplementary plan to the Core Strategy. This document can be viewed or downloaded at

http://durhamcc­consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/setstudy

4.2 The introduction to the document sets out is purpose.

“This study provides a detailed assessment of each of the settlements in County Durham, this is with the overall aim of providing the evidence to support a recommended settlement hierarchy in the Durham Local Development Framework and specifically to outline this within the Core Strategy. This Settlement Study will form part of the compendium of evidence base for the Local Development Framework

4.2.1 The settlement hierarchy will feed into the Core Strategy establishing a framework to help inform where new developments such as housing, employment and community facilities should be planned for. The key role of the Core Strategy is to set out a spatial development framework for County Durham which will guide future development.

4.2.2 At a basic level the settlement hierarchy seeks to understand the role of settlements within County Durham. 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 settlements sphere of influence and help to inform decisions about the scale and location of new development across the County. Ultimately the main reason for establishing a settlement hierarchy is to promote sustainable communities by locating services and facilities closer together to help reduce the need to travel.”

4.3 Clearly this Settlement Study therefore is a key driver to the development of the core strategy. I have reviewed this in detail and have noted a number of anomalies.

4.4 There is a scoring matrix within study which has been applied to every settlement in the County of Durham. The methodology used gives a score for each of 10 indicators of what is a sustainable community namely;

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

The first question in the document is should other facilities be included?

4.5 Regeneration

4.5.1 The first anomaly within the document is contained within paragraph 5.1 which states;

“……….At the same time, information was captured about the environmental quality of settlements – whether empty houses, empty shops, litter or graffiti were found within them. This will contribute to policy­making about environmental regeneration.”

4.5.2 However there is no measure that takes account of occupancy rates of existing housing or retail units. Additionally Ferryhill is not highlighted as a major location for regeneration despite the high number of vacant terraced properties and the inherited obligation to spend £50 million in the Ferryhill area on regeneration. Mr Glyn Hall recently met with Councillors and stated that Ferryhill was still a priority for regeneration for Durham County Council despite the temporary dip in available resources to progress this further.

4.5.3 As Councillors will recall from the June Town Council meeting Ferryhill Town Council undertakes a quarterly survey of all commercial premises in the Town Centre. Recent studies have shown that Ferryhill has more occupied commercial premises than two years ago and very few vacancies. This is in stark contrast to nearby Town centres such as Spennymoor, Newton Aycliffe and Shildon. This it is believed is due to the excellent strategic location of the Town and the readily available free parking.

4.5 The Scoring Matrix

4.5.1 The second anomaly is the scoring matrix. Having analysed this I contacted Durham County Council and have established and informed DCC that the matrix in the published document is not the one that was finally used.

4.5.2 The actual scoring matrix used is shown below. However there is still an anomaly in the initial score is supposed to reflect the actual level a community has for a particular indicator. The second table is the figure each indicator is to be multiplied by to reflect its weighting. However within the initial table some facilities have a higher maximum score than others which means that they are given a weighting in both tables.

4.5.3 Scoring Table Health (2/2) Hospital within settlement or within 800m 3 Health centre or larger GP surgery within settlement/ 800m 2 GP surgery within settlement/800m 1 No health facilities within settlement/800m 0 Education (3/3) Primary and secondary school within settlement/ 800m 3 Primary school only within settlement 2 No schools within settlement 0 Shopping (4/4) Defined local centre (as in district LP) within settlement / 800m 3 Three or more shops within settlement/800m but no local centre 2 One/two shops within settlement/800m 1 No shops within settlement/800m 0 Post offices (3/3) Post office within settlement/800m 3 No post office within settlement/ 800m 0 Public Houses (3/3) Public house within settlement/800m 3 No public house within settlement/ 800m 0 Sports/Leisure provision (3/3) Built public sports provision (leisure centre, swimming baths) within settlement/800m

3

Built sports provision within 800m ­ 3 km of settlement centre 2 No built sports provision within 3 km of settlement centre 0 Community facilities (3/3) Village hall or community centre with good facilities within settlement/800m

3

Simple village hall (i.e. hall, kitchen and toilets) within settlement/800m

2

No village hall or community centre within settlement 0 Employment (2/2) Larger or district industrial estate (as defined in district LPS) within the settlement or within 800m

3

Local industrial estate within the settlement/800m 2 No employment within the settlement /800m 0 Distance to nearest district or town centre* (4/12) RSS town centre within settlement or within 800m 3 RSS town centre 800m – 3km from settlement centre 2 RSS Regeneration Town Centre 3km – 6km from settlement centre

1

RSS Regeneration Town Centre over 6km from settlement centre

0

Access by public transport (3/3) Train station and frequent buses (more than every 30 minutes on most frequent route)

4

Frequent buses (more than every 30 minutes) 3 Less frequent buses (30­60 minutes) 2 Infrequent buses (under 60 minutes) 1 No public transport 0

(Scores in brackets are actual scores given by DCC and second one is estimated correct score by FTC)

4.5.4 WEIGHTING TABLE

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

4.6 Distance to Main Town

4.6.1 The third anomaly is one of the indicators is the “Distance to the nearest district or town centre”. The Towns given the highest scores are those within 800 metres of a designated Main Town. This means that existing main Towns (under the now defunct Regional Spacial Strategy) are automatically given a score of 12. This is then used to determine if they should be considered a Main Town giving existing main Towns an unfair advantage.

4.6.2 So for example Shildon, Crook and Barnard Castle would all score 12 whereas Ferryhill would only score 4 (this is also due to anomaly four below). In the overall final scores Shildon scored 90, Crook scored 93, and Barnard Castle scored 93 Ferryhill scored 87. Ferryhill is the only one not subsequently classified as a “Main Town”.

4.6.3 This has major implications for Ferryhill indeed the Study says ;

“These towns will play a leading role in the future development and provision of services with County Durham. Most new development will be focused in these towns.”

4.6.4 I have undertaken an assessment of the scores for Ferryhill and have scored the Town at 91 but if the above anomaly were eliminated so Ferryhill scored 12 for proximity to a main Town it would score 95, which would rank it tenth in the County, see below table.

4.6.5 Table 5 Main Towns Settlement Delivery Area Score Barnard Castle West 93 Bishop Auckland South 107 Chester le Street North and East 103 Consett North and East 98 Crook South 93 Durham City Central 107 Newton Aycliffe South 97 Peterlee North and East 102 Seaham North and East 103 Shildon South 90 Spennymoor South 96 Stanley North and East 98

(Ferryhill scored 87 though this is an erroneous figure and should be 95)

4.6.6 The result of the scoring at present is that Ferryhill is placed in the next sized category from “Main Towns”, namely “Larger Villages and Smaller Towns” along with communities such as Chilton, Bowburn, Blackhall, Wingate and Langley Moor.

4.6.7 As stated above this takes Ferryhill outside of the “Main Towns” in the County which are those highlighted for most of the development in the County at a time when the levels of publicly funded developments will be considerable less than in the past it would be extremely difficult to generate any significant development in the Town for the next 15 to 20 years.

4.6.8 This lack of main Town Status has been challenged by the Town Council previously and Durham County Council did undertake to review this when the opportunity next arose. It has had major implications in terms of reduced investment for Ferryhill in a climate where there was much more public money available.

4.7 Where is the centre of Main Towns and other Towns

4.7.1 The fourth anomaly is the locations chosen to determine if Ferryhill lies within 3km of the nearest existing “Main Town” so enabling Ferryhill to score a maximum of 8 points instead of 4 as at present.

4.7.2 As can be seen from the plan below the selected location of the “dot” to depict the “Centre” of a Town is crucial. The “dot” for Ferryhill is only just outside the 3km circle for Spennymoor, however the dot for Ferryhill is clearly in the wrong place it is located at the leisure centre and not the Town Centre. Even with this adjustment the dot would still be just outside the 3km area. However the location of the Spennymoor dot is very arbitrary and could be argued to be moved by a fraction this would then put Ferryhill within the 3km area.

4.8 Additional scores for multiples

4.8.1 A fifth anomaly within the scoring matrix applies to many of the indicators in that there are no additional points for multiples. So for example having a Post office scores 2 points later multiplied by 2 for it’s weighting giving a maximum score of 4. But this means for example that Bishop Middleham with a part time post office scores 4 points as does Ferryhill with two Post Offices. It becomes even more extreme when comparing with say Durham city which has at least 7 Post offices and still only scores 4 points.

4.8.2 This leads to an artificial condensing of the overall scores for the communities and explains why Durham City scores the same as Bishop Auckland at 107 and only scores 4 points more than Seaham at 103.

4.8.3 All the indicators should have an allowance for multiples with a ceiling set therein. So following the Post office example. The allowance for multiples should not be applied until after the weighting multiplication so Bishop Middleham would still score 2 x 2 = 4. Ferryhill Would score 2 x 2 = 4 plus 1 for additional Post Office = 5. Durham City would score 2 x 2 = 4 plus 4 = 8. A maximum additional should be applied so as not to distort the figures completely which could happen in for example the pubs category!

4.8 Population figures

4.8.1 The sixth anomaly within the settlement scores is that to do with populations. The figures quoted are those from the 2001 census, which seems a questionable source of data due to its age when there are more up to date figures available. The figures do appear to be on the low side also but taking that into account the population credited to Ferryhill is 10,006, the next highest in the same category as Ferryhill, Larger Villages and Smaller Towns is 7542, 6919, 5077,4753, down to 1683, 1183, and 941. Meaning that Ferryhill has a population of more than double that of 16 of the communities classed the same as it and at least 25% more than the other 3 communities. It is the stand out community in terms of population in this category.

4.8.2 Equally at 10,006 when comparing with those communities considered Main Towns it’s population is the same as Shildon, though more up to date figures suggest it is more than Shildon. It is also more than Crook at 8202 and Barnard Castle at 6641.

5 HOUSING

5.1.1 The implications for the provision of new housing to a Town are critical to its future viability and survival. Within the former Sedgefield Borough area of the four main Towns Ferryhill was consistently allocated by far the fewest new houses by the former planning authority. This lead to over 3000 new housing allocations for both Spennymoor and Newton Aycliffe and over 1000 for Shildon, which is the same size as Ferryhill, whilst Ferryhill was allocated less than 200 in the same period.

5.1.2 Furthermore developers who wished to develop new housing in Ferryhill were deterrd by the Local Plan and Planners who steered them instead to the other 3 main Towns and Sedgefield. The Town Council was in contact with one developer alone who wished to develop 1500 houses in the Town because of its excellent strategic location. Developers are currently looking to build up to 800 new houses in the station area of Town. But this will be severely hindered with the plan as it is presently.

5.2 Housing Problems for Ferryhill

5.2.1 Ferryhill currently has approximately 90% band A properties the vast majority of which are terraced houses, whilst there are relatively few Detached and Semi detached properties.

5.2.2 The lack of new housing has two major implications for a Town such as Ferryhill. It should also be noted that in recent years Ferryhill has lost several hundred houses due to demolitions also that in modern day society many more houses have sole residents which means that for the population to stay static additional houses are required.

5.3 Infrastructure

Without new housing the infrastructure of the Town for the existing residents becomes unsustainable such as local schools, one is currently operating at just over 50% capacity. At a time of severe pressure on public resources without new housing in the area such schools will inevitably be closed. Private as well as public sector infrastructure also becomes unsustainable such as local businesses including public houses, Post Offices and shops as well as local private members clubs.

5.4 Attraction of transient communities to the Town.

5.4.1 Increasingly large numbers of dysfunctional families with no community ties to the Town are located in Ferryhill which leads to artificial measures to try and address the problems they bring such as the licensing of Private Landlords and the proposed £50 million regeneration scheme. However initiatives such as this do not address the cause of the problem.

5.4.2 This is very often directly related to the lack of a broad range of housing in the Town allowing residents with strong ties to the Town to remain there if they wish to move up the property ladder and live in a property other than a terraced house. The consequence of this availability of a broad range of housing and an oversupply of terraced housing in the Town results in a reduction in the cost of terraced housing which in turn results in the housing becoming on the face of it attractive to private landlords. However there are then too many houses available for rent in the Town for those with community ties. Private landlords particularly those operating from afar then end up renting their properties to non locals who have often been evicted from council housing in neighbouring Towns. The landlord does this out of desperation to cover the cost of their mortgage. But this then results in a total breakdown in the community such as happened in the Rows area at Ferryhill Station and in parts of Dean Bank.

5.4.3 Decent local residents then make the decision to move away and sell their house at a low price inevitably to a private landlord. They move up the property ladder in another Town. When their children take their first step on the property ladder they inevitably do so in the new Town to retain proximity to their family. This means that one family moving away from the Town results in several families with community ties to the Town not buying properties in the Town. It is for this reason that Ferryhill was nationally recognised as cheapest Market Town in the Country to buy a house. Further presenting what appears to be the ideal investment opportunity for Private Landlords to secure investment opportunities.

5.4.3. Another significant impact of the poor mix of housing stock in the Town as everyone heard at the Annual Town Meeting is the relatively high levels of crime in areas with a high

transient community with no ties to the Town. Councillors may recall the astonishing figures for Dean Bank given by local Police at the meeting.

5.4.4. Crime, Dean Bank accounts for only 1.8% of the Housing stock of the former Sedgefield Borough area but it was responsible for

n 60% needle finds n 14% burglaries n 11% all crime n 33% repeat victims

5.4.5 To turn the tide on this inevitable degeneration the housing stock for the Town needs to be of a broader range, new housing of Detached and Semi Detached style is desperately needed. Indeed the Sustainable Communities Plan produced by the Deputy Prime Ministers Office in 2003 stated that for a community to be a sustainable community should include “decent homes of different types and tenures”.

5.5 Proposed housing allocations within the Plan

5.5.1 Currently the plan has two options for housing allocations but because of the flawed settlement study above there is no specific allocation for Ferryhill in either option

5.5.2 Table 4: Option A ­ Distribution of Net Housing Requirement to 2030

n TownRequirement Durham City 5050 Remainder of Central Durham 1590 Chester­le­Street 1590 Consett 3180 Peterlee 1450 Seaham 2030 Stanley 1450 Remainder of North and East Durham 1300 Bishop Auckland 3180 Crook 1450 Newton Aycliffe 1450 Shildon 1450 Spennymoor 1450 Remainder of South Durham 1300 Barnard Castle 725 Remainder of West Durham 290

Total 28935

5.5.3 Table 5: Option B ­ Distribution of Net Housing Requirement to 2030

ment Durham City 1940 Remainder of Central Durham 1550 Chester­le­Street 1420 Consett 1420 Peterlee 2420 Seaham 1420

Stanley 2840 Remainder of North and East Durham 1550 Bishop Auckland 1820 Crook 1550 Newton Aycliffe 2980 Shildon 1550 Spennymoor 3330 Remainder of South Durham 1850 Barnard Castle 775 Remainder of West Durham 520

Total 28935

6 STRATEGIC LOCATION OF FERRYHILL

6.1 The strategic location of Ferryhill is key to its increased profile within County Durham Plan. This has been almost totally ignored within the Plan as it stands.

6.2 At a recent meeting with colleagues from the other Larger Town Councils in the County it was interesting to hear representatives from almost every other location complain about the deterioration of their Town Centres and reduction in the number of occupied retail units. This is in direct contrast to Ferryhill where the number of unoccupied units is very low, less than 4%. Indeed the number of occupied units has increased during the recession.

6.3 One of the key reasons for this is the Strategic Location of the Town.

6.4 However this strategic location has not been considered in determining housing allocation, main town status and regeneration. Equally it has not featured in the potential for the introduction of commerce and office accommodation near to the Town Centre, to the North.

6.5 This development could be linked to a Medium size supermarket development for the Town Centre which has been identified within the plan.

7 FERRYHILL TOWN COUNCILS 2007 SUBMISSION TO THE SBC LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWOK

7.1 Despite the introduction to the Plan that consideration is to be given to existing documentation no consideration appears to have been given to this submission.

7.2 This document highlighted many of the above issues including the Town Centre Supermarket, Commerce / Office accommodation, increased new housing, regeneration initiatives and highway improvements.

7 RECOMMENDATIONS

Objectives of the LDF for Ferryhill should be;

• To address the lack of a broad range of housing and in particular provide considerable new housing in particular Detached and Semi Detached houses.

• Exploit the excellent strategic location (as demonstrated by the high occupancy rates of the Town centre commercial premises) of the Town with new housing and commercial developments.

• Ferryhill should be highlighted as not only one of the major centres for regeneration but the priority centre to reflect the inherited obligations of Durham County Council to complete the Regeneration of Dean Bank and Ferryhill Station.

• An additional indicator should be added to the matrix namely travel time to the three main arterial routes within the County namely the A176, the A1 and the A19.

• That clarification be sought regarding the six anomalies within the Settlement Study and representations be made on these.

• The indicator proximity to a main Town should be removed or should only be introduced after the other 9 indicators have been listed in order of score to determine what are the main towns within the County.

• That a full submission be made to DCC on the County Durham Plan representing Ferryhill’s interests.

• That a commerce /office development be encouraged to the Town Centre area.

• That the encouragement of a supermarket to the Town Centre be suported

• That Partners organisations be encouraged to submit their views to DCC

• That publicity be given to the consultative event in Ferryhill on Monday the 26 th July 2010 from 2pm to 7pm at the Ferryhill Leisure Centre.

Works Mangers Report

Mainsforth Sports Complex

Thatch fungus continues to be a problem on the bowling green and the dry weather conditions we are experiencing are not allowing spiking to take place which could assist in the problem, the green has been scarified on numerous occasions and an application of spring and summer fertiliser has been applied.

We have recently held a cricket game with players from Durham and Derbyshire for the over sixty’s they were very pleased with the cricket field and the facilities we had to offer and Durham have enquired about the possibilities of using the venue on a more regular basis.

All of the bedding has been planted now and the green has had the new water pipe fitted waiting to be connected to the pop up watering systems.

David Hindmarch

Deanbank Park

During this month the landscaping works for the phase 2 of the regeneration of the park has started, there has been a couple of serious incidents of vandalism which have been reported to the police we are now in possession of the perspex for the bowls pavilion which will be in place soon and the painting contractors will be decorating the front of the building.

The old wooden play equipment is to be removed as has come to the end of its use and does not meet up to the ROSPA safety standards.

All of the flower beds which can be planted up have planted up with the summer bedding plants now.

John Wilson / R. Seymour

Duncombe Cemetery

During this month there has been one internment in the cemetery the new works are now complete and the footpath link to the carrs is open. The grass continues to be cut on a 10day cycle and all of the headstones have been sprayed with a total weed killer to save on strimming.

John Todd

Outside Areas

This month we have completed the planting out of all of the summer bedding plants , all of the grass continues to be cut on a regular basis all litter is collected as and when requested.

King George Playing Field

The construction works in the changing rooms to provide an officials room and to refurbish the showers is well under way and will be completed before the start of the new football season, the play equipment is checked on a daily basis and the findings recorded. The litter bins are emptied on a regular basis.

Surtees Doorstep Green

The grass is being cut as it continues to grow, the play equipment is being inspected daily and any graffiti removed.

David Hindmarch

Northumbria in Bloom

We have now completed the planting of the flowerbeds around the town, all of the hanging baskets and boxes have now been placed out with Thinford nurseries watering all of the baskets and boxes and so far it is going very well and there has been numerous favourable comments on how nice the town looks this year. The judges are due to visit Ferryhill on Thursday the 15 th of July.

R. Seymour

REPORT: FINAL ELEMENTS OF PHASE ONE REGENERATION FERRYHILL STATION

DATE : 30 th JUNE 2010

AUTHOR : JAMIE CORRIGAN EXECUTIVE OFFICER

COMMITTEE: TOWN COUNCIL, 21 ST JULY 2010

1. INTRODUCTION

I have recently been supplied with a draft plan depicting the final works for the phase one regeneration of Ferryhill Station, copy is attached hereto.

As per the recent liaison meeting with Mr Glyn Hall from Durham County Council this will be the last phase to be completed for some time.

2. CONSULTATION

Durham County Council would like Ferryhill Town Council’s views before progressing this matter any further.

3. ISSUES

The biggest issue of concern to local residents was the “Promised” front gardens. This design seems to address this on an open plan basis in addition residents are to be given their own parking opposite.

Another concern raised was lighting in the back lane, this is not addressed but I have mentioned it to officers.

Other points of note are

• Need for bollards on small grass areas and gardens stop cars parking there • Repair Back lane • Secure fence along back lane

4. RECOMENDATION

• That the Town Council offers its views on these proposals.

REPORT: TOWN SURVEY

DATE: 28 th June 2010

AUTHOR: KAREN YOUNGHUSBAND, PROJECTS ASSISTANT

COMMITTEE: TOWN COUNCIL, 21 st JULY, 2010

1. INTRODUCTION

Last year Ferryhill Town Council carried out a survey of its services. A copy of the survey was distributed to each household in Ferryhill, with results being compiled and reported back to the Town Council in early 2010.

Everyone completing the survey was automatically entered into a prize draw, with the chance of winning a years free Council Tax.

As part of its ongoing commitment to provide the highest possible services to the people of Ferryhill, it is proposed that the Town Council revisits this survey, incorporating current issues. A draft survey has been compiled for the Council’s consideration and is attached herewith.

2. SURVEY PROCESS

It is proposed that surveys will be printed by K & M Print and then distributed by the Ferryhill & Chilton Chapter. As each household will only receive one copy of the survey it will be made clear

that additional copies will be available from the Town Council for any household who requires them. As with the previous survey, completion will automatically mean free entry into a prize draw. This year it is proposed that there be three prizes awarded. It is proposed that first prize be a cash amount of £300 with two runner­up prizes of £50 also being awarded.

Sealed collection boxes will be placed in different locations around the Town, for those taking part to deposit their entry. It is also proposed that staff will attend the Sunday of the Annual Summer Gala to try and encourage more local residents to take part in the survey. It is also intended that staff will attend Ferryhill Business and Enterprise College at the beginning of the new School year to encourage young people to have their say. Following the deadline for submitting surveys, collection boxes will be collected and opened in the presence of at least two independent verifiers who will initial each entry. Results will be compiled and presented at a Town Council meeting where the Prize Draw will also take place.

The survey will be widely advertised in the Ferryhill and Chilton Chapter, the Northern Echo, on the Town Council’s website and facebook page and in the Town’s community noticeboards.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Ø That the Town Council considers the Draft Survey agreeing any amendments as necessary;

Ø That the Town Council considers what prizes be awarded at the Prize Draw;

Ø That the Town Council considers who the independent verifiers should be.