‘County’s big plans barely mention dale’, Teesdale Mercury

PLANS to transform the County Durham economy have been blasted by members of a local assembly who stormed: “Teesdale’s been forgotten.”

Members of Teesdale Local Councils’ Forum, which is made up of villagers from across the area, have branded The County Durham Plan as the “Durham City Plan”.

They say the 130-page document, which sets out the county council’s vision for the future, has all but forgotten Teesdale. 

Council officers had earlier described how the plan aimed to revitalise the county and turn the city of Durham into an economic powerhouse.

They explained that the city was failing to “pull its weight” economically and needed to be better promoted.

But David Kinch, chairman of the forum, said: “This is a good plan for Durham City, but Teesdale has been only given a few paragraphs. To call it the County Durham plan is a bit far-fetched – there’s nothing for Teesdale.”

Cllr Kinch also told top council bosses: “Durham City has been there for a thousand years and if you have not promoted it by now, you never will.

“Isn’t it about time you try with Barnard Castle and other towns?”

County councillor George Richardson added: “There are more than 800 square miles in County Durham and 300 square miles in Teesdale. If you put Teesdale with Weardale, it’s over half of the county, but both those areas barely get a mention.”

The County Durham Plan outlines proposals to revitalise the county’s economy by investing in business, housing, roads, tourism, transport and shopping.

But county councillor Richard Bell was worried by a statement in the plan that said there was  “no overriding requirement” for new retail development in Barnard Castle. He said: “Most people consider the re-invigoration of the retail sector in the town a priority given the large turnover of shops and the number of stores that have been empty.

“Most other towns have been identified as having need for more retail – apart from Barnard Castle, Shildon and Consett.”

The council’s planning manager, Graham Reed, said that retail consultants had said that a large retail site would undermine other shops in the town.

Other parish councillors said people want to do all their shopping in a single place, rather than have to travel to Darlington.

But Mr Reed said: “Some areas are screaming out for retail sites but there’s no strong message in Barnard Castle. There’s no big need for big stores in Barnard Castle.”

However, Cllr John Watson and Cllr Bell said more needed to be done to boost smaller shops.

Tony Cooke, the town’s mayor, said the county plan made sweeping statements about reducing the inequalities in public transport.

He said: “About 75 per cent of Teesdale isn’t covered by public transport, so how are you going to bring us level with urban areas?”

Mr Reed admitted that not all of the statements in the plan were appropriate to Teesdale. But he said Barnard Castle had a proven track record of supporting business and had an important role to play. He said up to 775 houses could be built in the town to stimulate growth. Mr Reed said: “We’re trying to put forward a plan that is capable of being done. The days are over of creating a plan that may or may not happen.”

The County Durham plan proposes making Aykley Heads, in Durham City, a site suitable for a major national headquarters for business. The idea came after economic experts at Oxford and Cambridge universities predicted that County Durham would be the worst performing economic area in the North East by 2016.

Mr Reed said: “If we want to create jobs or wealth, we need to try something different – otherwise we are on a downward spiral.”