On December 3rd, Darlington Council could put a freeze on the builders’ masterplan for 4,500 unnecessary houses on the rolling, rural acres of Skerningham. But they won’t.
That’s when the Council cabinet and officials will discuss Theakston Estates’ “masterplan” for a “garden village” there. They don’t have to. Nor does the full council. Legally, council officers could do the required check that the masterplan complies with the council’s Design Code and the Local Plan.
But objectors, including Skerningham Woodland Action Group (SWAG) have been so vocal and effective that the council wants to appear a bit sympathetic.
When not in office, both Labour and Tory groups have cried crocodile tears about the despoilation of the borough’s rural “jewel in the crown” and the devastation of its rare animals, birds and vegetation, but when in power they let the scheme continue.
So SWAG sent a questionnaire to every councillor asking whether they are for or against the whole scheme and whether they think the masterplan should go to full council.
SWAG had replies from the deputy leader of the Labour group (but not his 23 Labour colleagues); three Conservatives (out of 13 councillors) ; six of the seven Green Party councillors, neither of the two Lib Dems and none of the four Independents.
Here are their comments:
LABOUR
Deputy leader Chris McEwan (Haughton & Springfield ward)
It has been the case, and has been for many years, that anyone – meaning residents and any Elected Member – can attend Cabinet and speak on any Agenda item. As I have said before, it is also the case that the Masterplan, which is not a Council document that would form part of the Council’s Policy Framework, does not need to be adopted through a decision at Full Council. Local Development Documents, such as the Design Codes for (Greater Faverdale) Burtree and Skerningham Garden Villages, have been presented to Full Council as their approval is governed specifically by legislation. In the case of the Skerningham Masterplan, there is a requirement for a technical assessment to ensure that a draft Masterplan conforms with the Local Development Plan (i.e. Darlington’s Local Plan 2016-2036) and the adopted Design Code. The nature of a Masterplan means that there is no governance requirement for a Decision on adopting the document to be made by Cabinet, Council, nor at any meeting in public. As I have also said, the current Cabinet have reflected on the strength of feeling within the community and have determined to bring the draft Masterplan to a future Cabinet meeting to allow for discussion of the proposal in public because, as per the above paragraph, Cabinet meetings are open for anyone to attend and express their thoughts on any item of business. Whether or not I agree, the principle of development for Skerningham Garden Village is established through its status as a housing allocation within the Local Plan. The Plan had been through Examination by an independent Inspector and found to be sound, including the allocation at Skerningham, and was adopted in February 2022 by the Conservative Council at the time. At the time of adoption, the Labour Group rejected the principle of Skerningham Garden Village and, working with other Parties within the Council, attempted to remove the allocation. Labour is focussed now on ensuring that any development that takes place within the allocated site is of the highest quality and will work to maximise the benefits of the development for residents, with a focus on protecting and enhancing the natural environment wherever possible, including Skerningham Woods. I hope this clarifies.
CONSERVATIVE
Scott Durham (Brinkburn & Faverdale)
As a member of Cabinet at the time I supported Cllr Bartch pausing of the design code in early 2023. He wanted to consult more with residents, look at how Skerningham could be more accessible and include protections for trees.
We also needed to look at how the design code could be used to restrict traffic from the sites down Barmpton Lane and Green Lane.
Upon taking control the Labour Group ignored this and removed protections for Woodland put in place. It's because of the above I am against the development.
Similarly In my ward we have Burtree Garden village where I spoke at planning asking them not to approve an application, as expected benefits ie link road at the moment will be a road with a dead end and put further pressure on the A68.
In terms of Council decisions I'm assuming your referring to the Masterplan? It's obviously not a Council document, without a usual route to Full Council and therefore can be dealt with by the ruling cabinet, rather than Council as with the Design code.
However in my opinion the ruling coalition needs to be seen to doing the right thing, listening and being as transparent as possible. For me they are missing an opportunity and should bring the paper to full council.
Andy Keir (Whinfield)
I do not support the Skerningham housing development and have objected due to the lack of highways infrastructure and for the disruption that it will cause in Whinfield ward because there is limited access without adequate roadways into that area. Absolutely the decision should go to full council and a named vote.
Jamie Bartch (Whinfield)
In answer to your questions, I currently sit on the Darlington Planning Applications Committee and as such cannot have a predetermined position. I absolutely think the decision should come to full council.
GREEN PARTY
Matthew Snedker, Green group leader (College)
I have been a long-term opponent of the Local Plan. It was built on inflated housing needs assessment, bought from a private company, when the ONS was unable to give a high enough figure. The plan was developed by the Labour group, in conjunction with the Conservative and LibDem groups.
The four-year hiatus in Labour’s decades of power, led to the plan becoming a political football. A process that generated more heat than light.
The new national Labour government has produces new housing needs assessments, that many are finding difficult to match to reality.
The new, centrally allocated, housing assessment for Darlington is only 8 higher per year that the one bought from ORS. Far from being a vindication of the Local Plan, this illustrates just how high the ORS figure was. While other local authorities gasp as the sky-high figure imposed on them from London, Darlington’s Labour administration imposed the figure on themselves.
Let me be clear, Darlington does need new houses to buy. And the private rental sector also needs drastic reform. Our Right Home Right House, Right Price pledge would make sure that affordability, sustainability, and connectivity are all considered when planning the new communities we will build in our town. It will need action at a national level to unlock the strangle hold that land-banking and housing developers baked in 20% profit margin have on our housing market.
My answers: At some time in the future, I may have a vote on a planning application that flows from the current Local Plan, Design Code and /or Comprehensive Master Plan. The risk of displaying predetermination, is that I could be challenged and forced to absent myself from a vote.
I am concerned that the Skerningham garden village will not be able to meet the needs of affordability, sustainability, and connectivity that the town needs. Any detailed planning applications that come forward would need to meet these three requirements at a very high level for my concerns to be assuaged.
I understand that the CMP, unlike the LP and the DC, is not a council document. However, the view of the council as a whole on this important document should be sought.
A vote at a meeting of the full council would be the appropriate place for members to express their views on the CMP.
Richard Lawley (Harrowgate Hill
I really appreciate everything you have been doing to help my residents understand the issues around the development. Unfortunately, as a member of the planning committee I can't publicly commit to a stance on the development as it would show that I pre-empted the planning decision and could stop me being able to vote on the application. Apologies I can't say more.
Roz Henderson (Harrowgate Hill)
I have many reservations about the building of Skerningham Garden Village. See below for the main themes. Loss of green space, specifically a road through Skerningham Woods Wrong type of housing and not the type we need Lack of ambition with regards future proofing of housing leading to need to retrofit in the future Lack of infrastructure, either short term, medium or long term. Includes medical facilities, schools, retail, employment opportunities Lack of a clear plan for sustainable transport which likely will lead to a much larger amount of traffic, congestion & emissions on the road I’ve spoken up about these concerns in the past both before and after I became a councillor, either by attending consultation meetings, asking questions at council meetings or putting in submissions to the various consultations. I personally feel we should be creative in finding space for the right type of housing before letting developers take the easy option to build on our precious green spaces. We should be maximising the targeting of empty houses, brownfield sites, retail units to convert into residential units and how we can better utilise the housing we already have. There should be wider reforms such as looking at the Right to Buy and rent controls. Q: Do you think the decision should go to full council? Are you happy for cabinet to decide? My preference would be for the comprehensive masterplan to go to full council. I feel this would better for democracy & transparency and involvement of residents. If the Masterplan does go to full council, I am keen to avoid any issue of predetermination on this post so that I am not forced to absent myself from the vote. I will consider what is in front of me with a fresh pair of eyes before I make my decision but I would be looking to see my concerns above being addressed. Should the masterplan not go to full council, I would encourage members of SWAG to attend to speak.
Anna-Maria Toms (Harrowgate Hill)
I attended the Design Code meetings before becoming a councillor and do not think that Skerningham is the most appropriate place to build houses, it was marked as the site of what was hoped to be a Tees Forest and houses many red and amber listed wildlife species, plus it is often flooded. However I do believe that we need many more houses because we will see a massive influx of environmental and war refugees in the next 30 to 50 years. We should be utilising brown sites to ensure as much farmland is retained for us to feed ourselves in the future. And any houses built should match the need of the town. Unfortunately the Local Plan is in effect now so my views are a mute point. Legally the Local Plan which both the Labour and Conservative councils previously heralded is a document that developers can demand be followed, the SPD that we have was developed with DesigNE and I do trust that they want to produce the best outcomes from the situation we are now in. They have been retained by the council as an independent body to ensure that any planning applications match the legally binding Local Plan and SPD. The masterplan should logically follow the Local Plan and SPD but it is not a council document, and is from my understanding akin to a designers mood board, a developers ideas document that holds a vision of what could be achieved. And that could is important because any application that goes to planning should be held to the legalities of the Local Plan not the masterplan. And that is where DesigNE come in again, and the councillors along with planning officers to ensure that developers are following the rules. Officers told us that this masterplan would not be adopted by the local authority as a supplementary planning document and as such does not hold the same weight as The Local Plan and current SPD. The masterplan in this state will be under regular review and flexible to adapt. For example, any road and proposed route may change due to cost/substrate. If that is the case I am happy to leave the planning committee and cabinet to ensure that it is fit for purpose as it is not my area of expertise, and it bears no significant relevance to the individual planning applications that will follow. If indeed it is to be adopted and become an SPD it definitely needs to come to full council, and councillors have time to properly engage with residents about it. Looking at the government website it states that 'care should be taken to ensure that masterplans are viable and well understood by all involved and that graphic representations of what the development will look like do not mislead the public by showing inaccurate details or significant elements not yet decided upon.' Paragraph 007 Reference ID 26-007-21091001. I am a realist and think that the best thing that I can do is to ensure that any planning application that comes into the council is carefully cross referenced againt the Local Plan and any SPDs, I rarely get chance to vote on these as I am not a member of cabinet or on the planning committee but I can point discrepencies out. As can any member of the public, and planning would like these to be pointed out as soon as possible so that they can be acted upon.
Kate Mammolotti (Hummersknott)
I do not support the Skerningham Housing scheme, as firstly, I am passionately opposed to Darlington’s equivalent of green belt being built on at all, for environment protection reasons. Most unfortunately it is not termed green belt, rather greenfield, otherwise we would not find ourselves in this current position. Secondly, this scheme does not reflect the kind of housing we actually do need in Darlington. I think the only democratic decision would be for it to go to full council.