Plan as pdf 2017

The Plan document is available here as pdf files which you can print or download.






















The consultation on the draft Plan as now closed. However, the Plan is still available for viewing as pdf files above or on the Web from here.

We thank everyone who has sent in a response.

The next stage for the Plan is as follows:

  • to collate the responses and place them in the public domain
  • to analyse the responses and to amend the draft plan as applicable
  • to place the results of this process into the public domain


9 Responses to Plan as pdf 2017

  1. Jasmine Hixson says:

    The neighbourhood plan addresses the problems of living within a compact, historic city that needs to function with an expanding but transient youthful population.

    It suggests ways of redressing the radical alteration of the city scape and is a timely reminder that some developments can be physically intimidating and inappropriate.

    I endorse the plan as a whole and particularly its approach to preserving and enhancing the network of green spaces within the neighbourhood and encouraging sensitive and sustainable housing developments for all age groups in order to create a more harmonious community.

  2. A J Johnson says:

    Durham needs more toilet facilities in the centre, more seating that can be sat on i.e wooden benches (and not stone blocks as per the market square, which are truly uncomfortable), including more seats along the river bank, and to encourage more shops to come into the city (lower rates?) instead of the numerous cafes.
    Also, the area outside the Gala Theatre should be redesigned, instead of ‘windy city’ we should have a beautiful area with pleasant seating etc.

  3. Valerie Standen says:

    The Durham Neighbourhood Plan is comprehensive and well thought out. If implemented it would greatly improve the chances of Durham retaining its unique character of impressive historic buildings housing mainly educational activity in a pleasant environment. The plan details how the character of the city could be enhanced by appropriate planning to give the city a sustainable future, maintain its heritage and green infrastructure, promote a diverse economy and provide attractive affordable places to live based around a modern transport system. The policies proposed are realistic and go a long way towards achieving the stated aims.
    The need for the Durham Neighbourhood Plan arose from the concerns of local people about the deterioration of the quality of community life over the past 10 years. Policies such as those to enhance green spaces and encourage new and improve existing community facilities are greatly needed in Durham today.

  4. J George says:

    These are my views and while they may not be shared by all, as a person who lives in the city itself I agree wholeheartedly with this plan. It has been developed by people who obviously know Durham City well and understand all the current problems and pressures suffered by the people who do actually live in the city. I do hope Durham County Council take heed and do not try and dilute this plan. The plan is well thought out, well written and much needed. Please protect the heritage, green spaces and architecture and support permanent families in the city itself. Control further takeover of the city by Durham University. Encourage Durham County Council to regenerate villages and communities across the whole county.

  5. Janice Timmins says:

    In the section on sustainability and planning the guidelines are too vague – ‘as many as possible’ and as appropriate. Protecting green belt should be paramount, with sustainable energy use and climate change resilience next. Dense use of land is not part of desirable attributes of a plan , but this is one of the most important features to prevent use of green belt, reduce travelling distances, and thus make cycling and walking more desirable.
    There should need to be a proven demographic need for development, in the case of residential development, by comparison of number of residences with certain number of bedrooms and number of families in permanent residence together requiring that number of bedrooms. In general household size is shrinking so never mind squeals of developers, smaller properties are needed, not luxury developments.

  6. Keith Orford says:

    Church Street during term time is at times crowded with vehicle and foot traffic to a dangerous degree. The average flow rate of both might meet some industry standards for safety but even before the expansion in student numbers, and the large new teaching building behind Bow School, the pavements are hazardous within ten minutes of lecture start times. Students, and locals unfortunate enough to venture out at those times, frequently need to walk in the road.

  7. Steve Lindsay says:

    Overall I am in favour of the proposed plan, particularly reducing student accommodation and increasing properties for first-time buyers and the elderly.

    A number of suggestions:
    1. major student thoroughfares to the science site need a) traffic calming to 20 mph, b) expansion of pavements and the provision of cycle lanes and c) more rubbish bins to accommodate increased student numbers.
    2. In a previous plan there was mention of necklace parks along the river. This is an excellent idea for linking green spaces along the river. Greater provision should be made for cycling along the river paths to take cyclists off the road and encourage greater use of the riverbanks.
    3. Erosion of the greenbelt at Maiden Castle by the University should be resisted.
    4. Increasing the number of students by 6,500 would finally turn Durham City into Durham University campus and must be resisted.

  8. Martin Foulkes says:

    There is too much in this plan to comment on all its details. Suffice it to say that I applaud the effort, agree with its approach and wish it all the best in trying to influence actual planning policy and development in Durham City. I limit specific comment to one matter, that of trees in the WHS and urban space in general.

    Your plan (at 2.2.6) encourages ‘more proactive tree management’. If this was to be achieved it would be in the face of the Council’s current bias in favour of all trees in just about any circumstance and the Cathedral authority’s apparent disinterest in protecting its own historic buildings against being submerged in an ever encroaching green blanket of foliage. Trees are fine things in the right place; woods, forests, parks, carefully planned and maintained urban placements spring to mind. At present not enough is done to monitor and manage self-seeded specimens of what can only be described as giant weeds (sycamores, etc.) that are blocking views of the WHS and detracting from, not enhancing, the urban environment. Drains and gutters are blocked by leaves, roofs threatened by overhanging branches, street lights and signs are covered over. I hope that your plan can have some positive impact on this situation.

  9. Professor Maureen Meikle says:

    I wholeheartedly agree with these objectives:
    1. To change the imbalance towards student accommodation back to a sustainable,
    balanced community;
    2. To provide housing designed for the needs of older people and for people with
    3. To provide affordable housing for all sectors of the community, but particularly for
    families with children and young people starting out.

    I work with students, but want to stop Durham City from becoming a student ghetto! Working people need peace and quiet at night, not partying.