Chapter 5: Implementation and Monitoring

5.1: PROGRESSING THE PLAN

5.1 The City of Durham Neighbourhood Planning Forum will not be the body that undertakes implementation and monitoring of Our Neighbourhood Plan. It role is limited by legislation to producing the plan, with no on-going role. It is also important that the projects to improve the economic, social and environmental realm, summarised in Appendix A, are taken forward. The involvement of community organisations is invaluable, and such grass-roots bodies may often take the initiative in progressing and implementing the actions.

5.2 For the time being the Durham Area Action Partnership is a very good possible vehicle as it includes all of the main agencies – Police; Fire & Rescue; Health; Durham University; Community Action; public representatives; and above all the County Council with its wide range of functions including planning.

5.3 The setting up of an elected Parish Council for Our Neighbourhood has recently been agreed by Durham County Council (20 September 2017). The City of Durham Parish Council will become a recognised legal entity on 1 April 2018, with inaugural elections taking place in May 2018. This body will then assume the role of successor to the Forum once the Neighbourhood Plan is formally in place. Alongside it there will need to be an implementation agency (or perhaps more than one such agency) such as a Durham City Regeneration Body (a company limited by guarantee), able to give executive action to a series of projects that make a difference for the better and part-funded from the Community Infrastructure Levy and Section 106 receipts.

5.2: PROJECTS TO IMPLEMENT PLAN POLICIES

5.4 Some of our Neighbourhood Plan policies would benefit from implementation projects in addition to any relevant planning proposals that might be brought forward by interested parties.

Policy Implementation Project 1: Policy G3 – Creation of the Emerald Network

5.5 The Emerald Network could be set up via community action of wildlife groups and friends associations in partnership with statutory and other relevant bodies. The implementation strategy would comprise:

  • setting up a management group
  • writing an implementation plan
  • engaging the local community (local residents and friends groups, schools, university and colleges)
  • liaising with key stakeholders, such as Durham County Council, the City of Durham Parish Council, the Durham City Area Action Partnership, the Woodland Trust, the Durham Wildlife Trust
  • negotiating with landowners, e.g. the Cathedral, the University, owners of individual Local Wildlife sites etc., owners of land incorporating footpaths
  • seeking funding to carry out assessments of existing sites and paths and need for new sites and paths, and then for site and path management and maintenance, signposting and interpretation boards.

Policy Implementation Project 2: Policy D2.3 – Reconversion of Some Houses in Multiple Occupation Back to Family Homes and General Housing

5.6 Mechanisms for taking this forward include:

  • use of Community Infrastructure Levy receipts/Section 106 monies
  • developers of private PBSAs (purpose built student accommodation) and of University colleges donating into a fund, the level of the donation as a proportion of the number of beds in the PBSA/college
  • purchase of properties by housing associations – to renovate and bring back into normal use
  • forming a regeneration trust or company – the Durham City Regeneration Company – that acquires HMOs (houses in multiple occupation) in a pilot area, converts them to be suitable for families with children, young couples starting-out, and older people, and recycles the resultant capital or revenue into further project areas. The Viaduct area of the City is proposed as the first such pilot area.

Policy Implementation Project 3: Policy C1 – Community Arts Facilities

5.7 During the process of public consultation the need for improvements in facilities for the arts in the City were identified (Durham City Neighbourhood Planning Forum, 2017). This project includes three key aspects:

  • a range of community arts facilities – studio spaces for artists, rooms for courses and rehearsal space, art and crafts workshops for residents of all ages and rooms for meetings of art organisations;
  • a City art gallery, including gallery space for permanent and temporary exhibitions by national and local artists;
  • a creative business centre for local artists and/or more independent shops to help small creative businesses to sell their products, build a consumer base and give local artists ore exposure.

5.8 In order to implement this project when the Forum ceases to exist, it will be necessary to do two things:

  1. The Forum will continue to consult with organisations and partnerships involved with the arts and culture in Our Neighbourhood during the development of the Plan. This will be in order to support their existing strategies to improve facilities for the arts in the City and to encourage them to address elements of this project in any of their future strategies for the City. This includes working with Durham County Council, the City of Durham Parish Council, the Durham City Action Area Partnership, Durham University; the Cathedral Dean and Chapter, Durham BID (The Durham Business Improvement District Committee), the Chamber of Trade, the County Durham Cultural Partnership, Durham Creatives, Visit County Durham, The Empty Shop and other local and regional organisations.
  2. A Durham City Regeneration Body (a company limited by guarantee) could be set up in the future. The improvement of facilities for the arts would be part of its brief and the Body could work alongside a possible future Town Council.

Policy Implementation Project 4: Policy C2 – Information Hub

5.9 There is no central ‘information hub’ in the City. The need for one for the benefit of both residents and visitors has been identified during the process of public consultation as an essential facility (Durham City Neighbourhood Planning Forum, 2015, 2017). In order to implement this project it will be essential to do two things:

  1. The Forum will need to work with Durham County Council, the City of Durham Parish Council, and other key stakeholders.
  2. A Durham City Regeneration Body (a company limited by guarantee) could be set up in the future. The development of an Information Hub would be part of its brief and the Body could work alongside the Parish Council.

5.3: MONITORING THE PLAN

5.10 All plans require regular monitoring and this causes particular difficulties when there is no organisation charged with the responsibility. By its nature, our Neighbourhood Plan is a wide ranging one with its six themes and many objectives and policies.

5.11 It is necessary to monitor the Plan on a regular basis and important that the maximum assistance is available from bodies that hold information particularly Durham County Council. The recommendation is that a monitoring report is produced on an annual basis by the City of Durham Parish Council. This report could be informed by an annual qualitative questionnaire survey of residents. Monitoring by the County Council of the Durham City Masterplan will also provide extremely useful information.

5.12 It will be the role of the City of Durham Parish Council body to establish appropriate policy indicators and targets. The Forum suggests possible ones below. It should be noted that some of the indicators/targets are, by the nature of the policy in question, qualitative.

5.13

Theme 1: A City with a sustainable future

Policy S1: Sustainable Development Requirements of All Development and Re-development Sites

Policy S2: Sustainable Development Requirements of All New Building Developments Including Renovations and Extensions

Indicator for policies S1 and S2: Compliance with policies for new developments and conversions

Target: 100% compliance

5.14

Theme 2a: A beautiful and historic City – Heritage

Policy H1: Protection of the World Heritage Site

Indicator 1: Impact of new developments on the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Site

Target: No damaging impact

Indicator 2: Impact of new developments on views in Our Neighbourhood from and to the World Heritage Site

Target: No damaging impact

Policy H2: The Conservation Areas

Policy H3: The Character Areas

Policy H4: Our Neighbourhood Outside the Conservation Areas

Indicator for policies H2, H3 and H4: Compliance with policies for new developments and conversions

Target: 100% compliance

Policy H5: Listed Buildings, Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Registered Parks and Gardens and Registered Battlefields

Indicator 1: Inappropriate development of designated assets

Target: Zero

Indicator 2: Demolition of designated heritage assets

Target: Zero

Indicator 3: Impact of developments on the local environment of designated heritage assets

Target: No damaging impact

Indicator 4: Designated assets repaired and returned to appropriate compatible use

Target: No target set

Policy H6: Non-designated Heritage Assets

Indicator 1: Demolition of non-designated heritage assets

Target: Zero

Indicator 2: Non-designated assets at risk preserved and returned to use

Target: No target set

5.15

Theme 2b: A beautiful and historic City – Green infrastructure

Policy G1: Preserving and Enhancing Green Infrastructure

Indicator 1: Existing green assets

Target: None lost, or if lost they are replaced by green assets of an equivalent or better value elsewhere in Our Neighbourhood.

Indicator 2: Number and type of new green assets created

Target: No target set

Policy G2: Designation of Local Green Spaces

Indicator: Development on Local Green Spaces

Target: No development except that consistent with NPPF policy for Green Belt land

Policy G3: Creation of the Emerald Network

Indicator: Status of Emerald Network sites

Target 1: No damaging developments

Target 2: Enhancement of sites and connecting footpaths

Policy G4: Enhancing the Beneficial Use of the Green Belt

Indicator: Developments that enhance Green Belt land, consistent with NPPF policy

Target: No target set

5.16

Theme 3: A City with a diverse and resilient economy

Policy E1: Larger Employment Sites

Policy E2: Other Employment Sites

Indicator 1 for policies E1 and E2: Number and type of new business developments

Target: No target set

Indicator 2 for policies E1 and E2: Increase in employment

Target: No target set

Policy E3: Retail Development

Policy E4: Primary and Secondary Frontages

Indicator 1 for policies E3 and E4: Number and type of new commercial developments

Target: No target set

Indicator 2 for policies E3 and E4: Occupancy of buildings

Target: 100% occupancy

Indicator 3 for policies E3 and E4: Improved character and attractiveness of the City centre

Target: No target set

5.17

Theme 4: A city with attractive and affordable places to live

Policy D1: Land for Residential Development

Indicator 1: Number of units approved on each allocated housing site each year (April to March)

Indicator 2: Number of units completed on each allocated housing site each year (April to March)

Indicator 3: Number of units approved on non-allocated sites each year (April to March)

Indicator 4: Number of units completed on non-allocated sites each year (April to March)

Target for all indicators 1, 2 and 3: No target set as no need requirement.

Policy D2: Student Accommodation in Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO)

Indicator: Number and capacity of HMOs (houses in multiple occupation) approved and number and capacity completed where within 100 metres of the site more than 10% of the total number of properties are already in use as HMOs or student accommodation exempt from council tax charges or the student population exceeds 20% of the total population in that area.

Target: None approved and none completed.

Policy D3: Purpose Built Student Accommodation (PBSA)

Indicator 1: Number of PBSAs (purpose built student accommodation) built and total number of student beds provided

Target: Matches the need for additional student accommodation;

Indicator 2: Location of PBSAs (purpose built student accommodation) in relation to existing university or college academic site, or hospital and research site

Target: All developments to be on or adjacent to an existing university or college academic site, or hospital and research site

Indicator 3: Number of PBSAs (purpose built student accommodation) approved and completed where within 100 metres of the site more than 10% of the total number of properties are already in use as HMOs (houses in multiple occupation) or student accommodation exempt from council tax charges or the student population exceeds 20% of the total population in that area.

Target: None approved and none completed

Policy D4: Housing for Older People and People with Disabilities

Indicator 1: Percentage of approved and completed housing units that meet the specific needs of older people by housing type

Target: 10%

Indicator 2: Loss of housing units meeting the specific needs of older people by housing type

Target: None lost

Policy D5: Meeting Other Housing Needs

Indicator 1: Percentage of affordable housing units

Target: 15% housing provided on all sites of 10 housing units, or greater, to be affordable

Indicator 2: Loss of affordable housing units

Target: None lost

Indicator 3: Number of conversions of HMOs (houses in multiple occupation) (Use Class C4) back to conventional residential use (Use Class C3)

Target: No target set

Policy D6: Design of New and Renovated Housing to the Highest Standards

Indicator: Number of housing developments that meet the Building for Life criteria, or other national standard of equivalent or higher level

Target: 100%

5.18

Theme 5: A City with a modern and sustainable transport infrastructure

Policy T1: Accessibility of Proposed Developments

Indicator 1: Number of planning applications identifying measures to improve conditions for sustainable transport.

Indicator 2: Value of Section 106 contributions secured for sustainable transport improvements

Indicator 3: Resolution of issues identified in maps 11 and 12, and improvement in the quality and connectedness of the walking and cycling networks throughout Our Neighbourhood.

Target for indicators 1, 2 and 3: No target set

Indicator 4: Percentage of access by sustainable modes proposed in travel plans, and percentage achieved over the course of the travel plan

Target: Improvement by 10 percentage points of travel to work by sustainable modes compared with neighbourhood average for 2011 census

Policy T2: Designing for Sustainable Transport

Indicator: Use of appropriate design guidance for new infrastructure

Target: 100% conformance with design guidance

Policy T3: Residential Car Parking in the Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ)

Indicator 1: Number of planning applications brought forward within the Controlled Parking Zone, and number approved, proposing reduced car parking provision for residential properties

Target: No target set

Indicator 2: Impact of new development on neighbouring residential on-street car parking

Target: No measurable impact

Indicator 3: Number of car club spaces provided

Target: No target set

Policy T4: Residential Storage for Cycles and Mobility Aids

Indicator 1: Compliance with policy for new developments and conversions

Target: 100% compliance

Indicator 2: Quality of provision and convenience of access

Indicator 3: Uptake of cycle parking spaces

Target for indicators 2 and 3: No target set

5.19

Theme 6: A City with an enriched community life

Policy C1: Community Arts Facilities

Indicator: Presence of community arts facilities

Target: Community arts facilities set up

Policy C2: Information Hub

Indicator: Presence of an Information Hub

Target: Information Hub set up

Policy C3: Provision of New Community Facilities

Indicator: Number of new community facilities

Target: No target set

Policy C4: Protection of an Existing Community Facility

Indicator: Existing community facilities

Target: No existing facilities lost, unless an equivalent alternative facility is made available nearby

Policy C5: Protection of Urban Open Spaces

Indicator: Existing urban open spaces

Target: No loss of existing urban open spaces, unless a compensatory amount of open space of an equivalent or better quality is provided within easy walking distance

Policy C6: Health Care and Social Care Facilities

Indicator: Number of new health care and social care facilities

Target: No target set

Next section: Appendix A: Projects to Improve the Economic, Social and Environmental Realm

6 Responses to Chapter 5: Implementation and Monitoring

  1. Durham City Access For All Group says:

    We welcome the acknowledgment, in several places in the Neighbourhood Plan, of the need to take into proper account the importance of assuring and enhancing the accessibility of the City, its services, facilities and environment, to all people, whether they be City residents, neighbours or visitors. In recent years there have been some improvements in accessibility issues, but there remain persistent problems which can be addressed and resolved. One reason why less has been achieved than is possible and desirable has been the failure to consult those people who are affected when access is not as good as it should be, or to seek professional informed advice.

  2. John Lowe says:

    Conversations with members of the public at drop-in events made me aware of confusion about the projects mentioned in Chapter 5 and those in Appendix A. We need a thorough review of these two sections to strengthen them and remove any confusion.

  3. Sidegate Residents' Association says:

    Some concluding remarks from the SRA:

    * while our discussion did not look at every policy in detail, we are overall supportive of the plan and there are no individual policies to which we voiced an objection.
    * apart from individual policies, what is needed above all is a Masterplan to ensure connectivity between the different developments that are proposed. Lack of such oversight is seen clearly in the fact that both the Gates and Milburngate redevelopments include a cinema and there is no clear scheme to link the two neighbouring sites. This is the concept of town planning, but we only seem to consider individual planning applications. Even on the same site (eg Maiden Castle) applications come forward piecemeal so that the overall impact is never considered.

  4. Peter Morgan says:

    This is where aspiration meets reality.

    As a mere resident it is clear that we need:
    1. A strong body to represent the Plan. The Forum has worked hard and long to make this set of robust, necessary,sensible and eminently supportable policies.
    2. Leadership and Continuity separate from the County Council to ensure that the latter meets our needs, and not vice versa!
    3. The City Parish Council to be a supportive and empowered body.

    I agree with Mr Pacey’s comments

    Thank you for everything.

  5. John Pacey says:

    CHAPTER 5-IMPLEMENTATION &MONITORING-(Appendix A)

    By way of supplement to my earlier comments and with a view to an approved plan for the City which achieves a better balance between constraining development and pro-actively encouraging desirable development the Plan could be greatly improved by highlighting and including within Appendix A a redevelopment opportunity which will arise sooner or later within the heart of the City, and potentially within the Plan period.

    The relocation of Durham Prison, potentially including Crown Court accommodation, to a site outside the City under recent/current Government consideration would create a once-in-200 years opportunity for an innovative and transformational development within the heart of Our Neighbourhood with an emphasis on housing where the opportunity would exist to redress the current imbalance between the accommodation needs of “Town & Gown”.

    I propose that provision be made within the Neighbourhood Plan for this unique redevelopment opportunity to be frameworked by reference to a Site Map and key criteria reflecting the type of development that would be welcomed by the citizens of Durham.

    (The process through which the current redevelopment of the hospital site has progressed is an excellent example of what, through intelligent forward-planning could and should be avoided.)

  6. John Pacey says:

    CHAPTER 5-IMPLEMENTATION & MONITORING
    Whilst I understand and accept that the NPF will not be the body that undertakes implementation and monitoring of our Neighbourhood Plan, my sense is that the draft Plan in its current form is less strong in helping to promote desirable development than it will be in preventing undesirable development.
    Many people may think that, in a place like Durham, this should be the effect of the Plan.
    However, with a view to the Plan being more pro-active which I think it needs to be, I suggest that the Projects listed in Appendix A should include reference to the need for the Railway Station, Bus Station (on its current site please), and North Durham Hospital to be adapted over the course of the Plan period and beyond to meet the growing and changing needs of users.
    In addition I would wish to see a clear proposal for the extension of “park & ride” facilities to serve traffic from the south-west from Langley Moor, Meadowfield and beyond, and from the west of the City via Broom Lane.
    Our Neighbourhood would derive significant additional value from such a facility which might be capable of location on a site adjacent to the A 690 in the Stone Bridge area, even though it would lie just outside the Our Neighbourhood area