County Durham Settlement Study

Transcription

The County Durham Plan
Consultation Report
County Durham Settlement
Study
December 2010
Contents
1. CONTEXT
2
2. METHODOLOGY
3
3. SCORING MATRIX
5
4. WEIGHTING
8
5. SETTLEMENT GROUPINGS
8
6. HOW TO COMMENT
19
APPENDICES
1. SETTLEMENT FACILITIES
RECORDING SHEET
20
2. SETTLEMENT FACILITIES
21
3. SETTLEMENTS BY DELIVERY
AREA
23
County Durham Settlement Study Planning the future of County Durham
1 Context
Over the past few decades the concept of 'sustainable development', which balances social, economic
and environmental goals, has become increasingly important in planning. Planning Policy Statement
1: Sustainable Development states that it is 'the core principle underpinning planning.' A related policy
aspiration, translated into law via the Sustainable Communities Act 2007, is the desire to achieve
'sustainable communities'.
Much has been written on what constitutes a 'sustainable community'. The Sustainable Communities
Plan (ODPM, 2003) lists some of the key requirements of a sustainable community. They should
have a flourishing local economy; strong leadership, effective engagement and participation by local
people; a safe and healthy local environment; good public transport; good quality public services;
and a diverse, vibrant and creative local culture. The built environment should be of 'the right layout
to support basic amenities' and should include 'decent homes of different types and tenures'.
This study is designed to look at elements of this list of requirements: it looks at the amenities
possessed by the settlements across County Durham, including public transport, public and private
services, and access to jobs. The “social cohesion” elements of leadership, engagement and
participation, and local culture fall outside the remit of this study; however, it could be claimed that
social cohesion is supported by the presence of local jobs and amenities. This Study will provide an
important part of the evidence needed to inform a settlement hierarchy to be included in the County
Durham Plan (the Council's Local Development Framework) which will ultimately establish a framework
to help inform where new development such as housing, employment and community facilities should
be located. An initial draft of this Study was published for consultation in July 2010. The results of
this consultation have been used, where deemed appropriate, to inform the preparation of this revised
draft study which is the subject of further consultation.
The Council recognises that once this Study is finalised further work is required to assess the other
aspects of what makes a sustainable community including the inter-relationships of neighbouring
settlements, in order to identify 'clusters' which share functions (especially important in the more
sparsely populated areas of the County), and understanding community aspirations for the future
development of their settlements. This work will be carried out in the next few months.
At a basic level the settlement study seeks to understand the existing 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 settlement's
role and sphere of influence. Determining the sustainability of settlements is useful in two respects:
firstly, because it helps to identify those settlements which are lacking in amenities, and where,
therefore, a policy aim might be to protect existing facilities and to support the development of new
ones; secondly, because it helps to identify those settlements which have the services and
infrastructure necessary to accommodate growth and cater for new residents.
Ultimately the main reason for establishing a settlement hierarchy is to promote sustainable
communities by locating new development in proximity to services and facilities. It makes sense for
most of our new housing to be built in larger settlements which have a better range of facilities and
services, because then more people have easy access to shops, schools and public transport.
However, the Council recognises that smaller villages need some new housing too; to provide homes
for new households which might form as young people leave home, older people move to smaller
houses and people move to the area - and to ensure that there are enough people in a village to keep
facilities and services going.
It is important that any settlement hierarchy is not excessively prescriptive and does not preclude all
development in smaller settlements particularly in rural areas. Research by the Centre for Rural
(1)
Economy indicates how important in-migration is for the maintenance of thriving rural economies
1
Rural Businesses in the North East of England: Final Survey Results (2009)
2 Planning the future of County Durham County Durham Settlement Study
and communities. The settlement hierarchy must ensure that this in-migration can be accommodated
in a sensible and sustainable way. Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic
Growth also recognises that more remote villages may have specific development needs despite not
having a full range of services including public transport.
2 Methodology
Data was collected by a visit to each settlement with a pro-forma designed to capture the range of
available facilities (see Appendix 1). Public perceptions of the local environment were also obtained
by interviews with passers-by, noting their responses. 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 information was supplemented by data from different sources, depending upon the type of facility.
Online telephone/business directories were exploited for data on many kinds of facility, especially
where a site visit was not possible due to time constraints, where respondents’ evidence was
inconclusive, or where there were no passers-by at the time of the visit.
The types of facilities assessed under our final methodology were:
health facilities;
schools;
shopping facilities;
post offices;
pubs;
built sports facilities;
community centres;
industrial estates;
proximity to nearest larger town; and
public transport services.
Question 1
Is the list of facilities correct or are there others we could use?
Health Facilities
Together with residents’ reports, the NHS Choices web-based database was used to establish the
size, type and location of health facilities in the District. Where larger health centres (those with 5 or
more GPs and a range of clinics) also operated a branch operation in a different location, the secondary
branch was counted as a GP practice only, rather than a health centre.
Shopping
The adopted local plans from the former districts were used to establish the locations of local centres.
As well as establishing an indicator relating to the shops found within the settlement itself, the Council
established a 'distance to nearest district centre' indicator. Originally, the Council used the district or
town centres identified in the former districts’ Local Plans. However, since former district authorities
differed in their concepts of what constitutes a district centre and what does not, the Council used
instead the Main Town (i.e. Durham), Regeneration Towns and Rural Service Centres defined in the
Regional Spatial Strategy.
County Durham Settlement Study Planning the future of County Durham 3
Employment
The adopted local plans for the former districts were used to establish the type, size and location of
the industrial estates in the County. At one stage, the Council considered including all employment
within the village within this indicator – counting a local centre as being of as much value as a local
industrial estate and counting a local shop and pub as 'minor employment'. However, these facilities
are also covered in other indicators. Therefore, the decision was taken to consider only designated
industrial estates or major employment sites.
Community Centres
As well as residents’ testimony, the County Council’s data was used for this indicator. The Council
hold data on the type and location of all village halls and community centres within the County.
Sports
The only category of facility considered in this indicator is built sports facilities, managed by the County
Council for the public benefit. It does not include private gyms or sports halls attached to schools,
although in many cases these are also used by the public outside school hours. Nor does it consider
football pitches or other recreation grounds. '
Because built sports facilities are less common than other facilities and therefore might be expected
to attract people from a wider area, an additional 3km outer catchment area has been applied to
them.
Bus Services
Most of the information for this indicator was taken from Durham County Council’s Interactive Public
Transport map; this is a web-based application which depicts all the bus routes in the County, with
links to their timetables.
Looking at the frequency and destination of services is more useful than looking at the simple presence
or otherwise of a bus stop. There are several factors determining a 'good' bus service. Among them
are: how many destinations it reaches, and whether they are the ones offering services and
employment; how frequent the service is; and whether it runs at appropriate times, e.g. whether the
bus can be used to access work. In practice, bus services tend to run to and from larger destinations;
they are also more likely to run in normal working hours, or rather earlier (some services are subsidised
specifically to improve access to work). Therefore, the principal variable is frequency; the others tend
to correlate heavily with it.
3 Scoring Matrix
The scoring matrix eventually determined was as follows:
Table 1 Scoring Matrix
Health
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
Primary and secondary school within settlement/ 800m
3
Primary school only within settlement
2
No schools within settlement
0
Shopping
Defined local centre (as in district Local Plans) 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
Post office within settlement/800m
3
No post office within settlement/ 800m
0
Public Houses
Public house within settlement/800m
3
No public house within settlement/ 800m
0
Sports/Leisure provision
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
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
Larger or district industrial estate (as defined in district Local Plans) 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*
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
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 (30-60 minutes)
2
Infrequent buses (under 60 minutes)
1
No public transport
0
In all cases, a facility was counted as being within the settlement if it is within the built-up area or
within 800m of the settlement centre. (the pedestrians’ association, Living Streets, defines an 'easily
reached' facility as one 'within 10 minutes walk or 800m'). The 800m limit permits a facility in villages
close to one another to serve them all (e.g. the Close House/ Eldon Lane cluster close to Bishop
Auckland).
800m circles were drawn around each settlement centre. This made it possible to judge consistently
whether one settlement was more than 800m away from the amenities possessed by another. In the
example below, the centre of Leeholme is less than 800m away from the local centre and industrial
estate in Coundon. Similarly, Middlestone Village and North Close are less than 800m away from the
centre of Kirk Merrington. The other villages in this example, although they have catchment areas
that overlap, are too far away from each other to share facilities.
800m, 3km and 6km catchment areas were drawn around sports centres and RSS town centres.
Question 2
Do you agree with the scoring matrix established?
4 Weighting
Since it was felt that different categories of facility had different levels of importance, weightings were
applied. Scores were multiplied by the following:
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
Question 3
Do you agree with the weighting applied to each of the scores?
5 Settlement Groupings
The weighted scores were calculated for each settlement and the settlement list arranged according
to the weighted scores. The original draft study then grouped the settlements into five settlement
types according to their relative scores. However, it become apparent that in practise the nature of
settlements relates more closely to one of six settlement types that display similarities in their relative
level of service provision and patronage. The groupings are shown below:
Main Towns: 90 points plus.
Secondary Settlements: 70 – 89 points
Local Service Centres: 55 – 69 points
Larger Villages: 40 - 54 points
Small Villages: 25 - 39 points
Hamlets: under 25 points
The dispersed settlement pattern throughout the County has created a natural order of villages and
towns that serve surrounding hinterlands and smaller settlements. It was considered the above
groupings reflect the relative scale and level of service/facilities provision which currently exists within
the settlements.
By observing the scores for each settlement it is apparent that the larger towns in the County are the
main service centres within their locality. These larger, Main Towns, all scored in excess of 90 points
in terms of their level of service and facilities provision and are grouped accordingly.
Below the main towns there is a second tier of settlements that act as smaller, more localised centres
and contain a reasonable array of services due to their location, which tends to be far enough away
from the main towns to ensure these settlements are self-sustaining, but to a lesser degree. This
second tier of settlement, which we have termed Secondary Settlements, fall within the ‘70 - 89’
points bracket in the survey of services and facilities provision. Appendix 2 illustrates the relative
level of service provision in these settlements.
The next grouping of settlements, Local Service Centres, tend to have fewer facilities than those in
the top tiers, although many of them have enough shops, facilities and services to constitute a local
centre. They are likely to have key facilities such as primary schools and post offices and serve a
function to a wider area. They are less self-contained than larger villages and small towns, but the
facilities they do have can reduce a significant amount of trip-generation between settlements.
Larger Villages tend to have a shop or two, a pub, community centre and primary school - a fairly
minimal set of facilities; some do not have the full set. They generally have at least some bus services.
The next two groups, Small Villages and Hamlets are quite poorly served by services. Small Villages
have some facilities. Residents in these types of settlement generally but not always need to travel
to work, schools and/or health facilities.
Maps of all settlements by the Core Strategy's four delivery areas can be found in Appendix 3.
Question 4
Do you agree with the way we have grouped settlements?
5.1 Main Towns
Table 2 Tier 1: Main Towns
Settlement
Barnard Castle
Delivery Area
West
Score
93
Bishop Auckland (including St Helen Auckland South
and West Auckland)
107
Chester le Street
North and East
103
Consett (including Blackfyne, Blackhill,
North and East
Bridgehill, Castleside, Crookhall, Delves Lane,
Leadgate, Moorside, Shotley Bridge,
Templeton, The Grove, and Villa Real)
98
Crook
South
93
Durham City
Central
107
Newton Aycliffe
South
103
Peterlee
North and East
98
Seaham
North and East
103
Shildon
South
98
Spennymoor
South
98
Stanley (including East Stanley, Kip Hill, Oxhill, North and East
Quaking Houses, Shield Row, South Moor,
and South Stanley)
98
Question 5
Is the scoring for Main Towns correct?
5.2 Secondary Settlements
Table 3 Tier 2: Secondary Settlements
Settlement
Delivery Area
Score
Annfield Plain (including Catchgate, Greencroft, North and East
New Kyo and West Kyo)
87
Blackhall Colliery/Rocks
South
76
Bowburn
Central
75
Brandon
Central
72
Chilton
South
74
Coxhoe
Central
74
Easington Colliery
North and East
72
Ferryhill
South
87
Great Lumley
North and East
74
Horden
North and East
80
Langley Moor
Central
75
Langley Park
Central
76
Middleton in Teesdale
West
73
Murton
North and East
74
Sacriston
Central
87
Sedgefield
South
79
Sherburn
Central
82
Shotton Colliery
North and East
77
Stanhope
West
79
Tanfield Lea
North and East
75
Ushaw Moor
Central
84
Willington
South
82
Wingate
South
75
Wolsingham
West
70
Question 6
Is the scoring for Secondary Settlements correct?
5.3 Local Service Centres
Table 4 Tier 3: Local Service Centres
Settlement
Delivery Area
Score
Bearpark
Central
66
Bloemfontein/The Middles
North and East
63
Burnopfield
North and East
68
Chilton Lane
South
55
Cockfield
West
59
Coundon
South
69
Deaf Hill
South
57
Dipton
North and East
63
Easington Village
North and East
57
Esh Winning
Central
67
Evenwood
South
66
Fencehouses
North and East
64
Fishburn
South
67
Gainford
West
66
Lanchester
Central
67
Leeholme
South
58
Meadowfield
Central
65
Ouston/Urpeth
North and East
69
Pelton Fell
North and East
56
Rainton Gate
North and East
57
Ramshaw
South
55
South Hetton
North and East
61
Staindrop
West
65
Tow Law
West
65
Trimdon
South
57
Trimdon Colliery
South
57
Trimdon Station
South
57
West Cornforth
South
67
West Rainton
North and East
57
Wheatley Hill
North and East
68
Question 7
Is the scoring for Local Service Centres correct?
5.4 Larger villages
Table 5 : Tier 4: Larger Villages
Settlement
Delivery area
Score
Billy Row
North and East
40
Bishop Middleham
South
41
Bournmoor
North and East
50
Burnhope
North and East
47
Butterknowle
West
43
Close House
South
44
Coronation
South
47
Cotherstone
West
43
Craghead
North and East
44
Ebchester
North and East
53
Edmondsley
North and East
44
Eldon
South
43
Escomb
South
46
Frosterley
West
50
Hamsterley Colliery
North and East
54
Haswell
North and East
45
Hesleden
South
49
High Etherley
West
47
High Handenhold
North and East
48
Howden-le-Wear
North and East
51
Hunwick
North and East
47
Kelloe
Central
44
Kirk Merrington
South
53
Low Etherley
West
47
Low Westwood
North and East
50
Medomsley
North and East
40
New Brancepeth
Central
46
Newfield
North and East
53
Roddymoor
North and East
40
Settlement
Delivery area
Score
St John's Chapel
West
54
Stanley Crook
North and East
40
Sunnybrow
North and East
46
Tantobie
North and East
43
Thornley
North and East
50
Trimdon Grange
South
45
Wellfield
South
43
West Pelton
North and East
48
Witton Gilbert
Central
48
Question 8
Is the scoring for Larger Villages correct?
5.5 Small villages
Table 6 Tier 5: Small Villages
Settlement
Delivery Area
Score
Beamish
North and East
31
Blackhouse
North and East
28
Bowes
West
26
Brasside
Central
30
Broompark
Central
34
Byers Green
South
36
Cassop
Central
39
Chester Moor
North and East
34
Clough Dene
North and East
37
Cold Hesledon
North and East
35
Coundon Grange
South
38
Croxdale
Central
37
Eldon Lane
South
38
Esh
Central
35
Fir Tree
North and East
28
Flinthill
North and East
37
Grange Villa
North and East
34
Hamsterley Forest
West
28
Settlement
Delivery Area
Score
Haswell Plough
North and East
28
Hawthorn
North and East
27
Helmington Row
South
26
High Pittington
Central
35
High Shincliffe
Central
38
Hutton Henry
South
28
Ingleton
West
28
Kimblesworth
North and East
37
Leamside
North and East
28
Ludworth
Central
29
Mickleton
West
26
Middlestone Village
South Durham
39
Nettlesworth
North and East
34
No Place
North and East
39
North Close
South
32
Pickering Nook/Hobson
North and East
32
Plawsworth
North and East
35
Quaking Houses
North and East
26
Quarrington Hill
Central
38
Romaldkirk
West
28
Rookhope
West
36
Seaton
North and East
33
Shadforth
Central
30
Sherburn Hill
Central
37
Shincliffe
Central
38
Stainton
West
25
Stainton Grove
West
25
Sunderland Bridge
Central
33
Sunnyside
South
27
Tanfield
North and East
37
Toft Hill
South
36
Toronto
South
26
Westgate
West
31
Witton-le-Wear
West
34
Question 9
Is the scoring for Small Villages correct?
5.6 Hamlets
Table 7 Tier 6: Hamlets
Settlement
Delivery Area
Score
Barningham
West
9
Binchester
South
15
Bolam
West
17
Boldron
West
13
Bradbury
South
19
Brancepeth
Central
20
Brignall
West
4
Burnt Houses
West
14
Castle Eden
South
20
Cleatlam
West
15
Copley
West
18
Copley Lane
West
5
Cornsay
West
0
Cornsay Colliery
West
19
Cowshill
West
9
Crawley Side
West
17
Crimdon
South
14
Daddry Shield
West
11
East Hedley Hope
West
13
East Law
North and East
19
Eastgate
West
24
Edmundbyers
West
20
Eggleston
West
22
Esperley
South
0
Etherley Grange
South
15
Evenwood Gate
South
20
Gilmonby
West
0
Grants Houses
North and East
Greta Bridge
West
20
9
Settlement
Delivery Area
Score
Hamsterley Mill
North and East
Headlam
West
Hett
Central
High Grange
South
9
High Hesleden
South
23
High Lands
South
9
High Urpeth
North and East
4
High Westwood
North and East
10
Hilton
West
Holmside
Central
13
Hummerbeck
South
18
Hunderthwaite
West
4
Hunstanworth
West
9
Hutton Magna
West
18
Ireshopeburn
West
18
Iveston
North and East
15
Lambton Park
North and East
10
Lanehead
West
5
Lartington
West
9
Leasingthorne
South
4
Lintz Green
North and East
14
Lintzford
North and East
15
Little Newsham
West
Little Thorpe
North and East
Littletown
Central
2
Low Pittington
Central
21
Maiden Law
Central
23
Mainsforth
South
21
Medomsley Edge
North and East
10
Middridge
South
24
Mordon
South
8
Morley
South
5
Morton Tinmouth
West
0
Muggleswick
West
0
New Coundon
South
23
15
0
22
0
5
19
Settlement
Delivery Area
Score
Newbiggin
West
13
Newfield (Bishop Auckland)
South
20
North Bitchburn
South
24
Oakenshaw
South
11
Old Cassop
Central
0
Old Quarrington
Central
2
Ovington
West
24
Parkhill
Central
23
Phoenix Row
South
15
Quebec
Central
0
Rokerby
West
4
Ruffside
West
10
Rushyford
South
23
Satley
West
19
Scargill
West
0
Sheraton
South
4
Sherburn House
Central
South Cleatlam
West
0
South Side
West
0
Spring Gardens
South
4
Station Town
South
18
Thornley Village
West
13
Tursdale
Central
20
Wackerfield
West
Waldridge
North and East
24
Waterhouses
Central
18
Wear Valley Junction
West
4
Wearhead
West
22
West Blackdene
West
0
Westerton
South
4
Whorlton
West
22
Wilks Hill
Central
14
Winston
West
23
Witton Park
South
23
Woodland
West
18
15
9
Settlement
Delivery Area
Score
Woodside
South
23
Wycliffe
West
0
Question 10
Is the scoring for Hamlets correct?
6 How to Comment
You can comment on this report in a number of ways, but we would like to encourage you to comment
via our interactive website. To visit our interactive website please click here:
http://durhamcc-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/. Comments can also be sent by email to:
ldfconsultation@durham.gov.uk. If you do not have access to the internet or email, please respond
in writing to:
FREEPOST RSHY-RLTR-EXCU
Planning Policy Team
Durham County Council
Civic Centre Newcastle Road
Chester-le-Street DH3 3UT
You can also call the Planning Policy Team with any questions, to request hard copies of the
documentation or to request further information, on: 0300 123 7070. We would welcome your comments
on this report by no later than Friday 14th January 2011.
Notes
Environment
(please tick)
Sports/
Leisure
Community
facilities
(please tick)
Commerce
Education
Much
Shops
Some
Vacant houses
Number
None
Much
Built sports facilities
Village hall with good facilities
Number
Number
Secondary schools
Post Office
Some
Vacant shops
None
Much
Some
Simple village hall (i.e. kitchen, hall and toilets only)
Number
Number
Primary schools
Number
No hall
Public houses
No schools (please tick)
No health facilities
Litter
None
Much
Some
Graffiti/vandalism
No built sports facilities (please tick)
GP surgery
Health centre/ surgery plus pharmacy
Health
facilities
(please tick)
Hospital
Date of survey
Name of settlement
Appendix 1 Settlement facilities recording sheet
None
Appendix 2 Settlement facilities
The tables below rate service provision in the 12 main towns and in the 22 secondary settlements.
The ‘traffic light’ approach has been adopted to give a visual impression of how well particular
settlements are served for the range of services and facilities that have been surveyed for the
Settlement Study; green signifying good provision, amber satisfactory provision and red representing
little or no provision.
Notes
Education relates to schools within settlement or within 800m of the edge of the settlement: a
primary and secondary school is rated green, settlements with primary but no secondary is rated
amber and no schools is rated red.
Retail relates to shopping facilities in the settlement or within 800m of the edge of the settlement:
a ‘defined local centre’ is rated green, three or more shops but no local centre is rated amber
and less than two shops is rated red.
Employment relates to access to industrial estates either within settlement or within 800m of
the edge of the settlement: large industrial estates/business parks is rated green, a small industrial
estate of local importance is rated amber and no employment areas is rated red.
Sports relates to built public sports provision (leisure centre, swimming baths) within settlement:
a settlement with facilities within the settlement or within 800m of the edge of the settlement is
rated green, provision within 800m - 3 km of settlement centre is rated amber and no provision
within 3km of settlement centre is rated red.
Health relates to access to health facilities: settlements with a Hospital within settlement or
within 800m of the edge of the settlement is rated green, those with a Health centre or larger
GP surgery within settlement or within 800m of the edge of settlement is rated amber and those
with a small GP surgery or no health facilities is rated red.
In census data, Horden was counted as part of Peterlee, so its population is not known.
Population
2001
census
Education
Facilities
Retail
Provision
Employment
Provision
Built
Sports
Provision
Health
Facilities
Public
Transport
Accessibility
Community
Hall/ Centre
Pub/
Post
Office
Access
to
District
Centre
Main Towns
Durham City
42123
Peterlee Major
Centre
30093
Consett Major
Centre
27394
Newton Aycliffe
Major Centre
25504
Bishop Auckland
Major Centre
24392
Chester-le-Street
Major Centre
23946
Seaham Major
Centre
21714
Spennymoor Major
Centre
17241
Stanley Major
Centre
16306
Shildon Major
Centre
10079
Crook
8212
Barnard Castle
Major Centre
6641
Population
2001
census
Education
Facilities
Retail
Provision
Employment
Provision
Built
Sports
Provision
Health
Facilities
Public
Transport
Accessibility
Community
Hall/
Centre
Secondary
Settlements
Ferryhill
10006
Annfield Plain
7542
Murton
6919
Sacriston
5077
Brandon
4753
Willington
4534
Shotton Colliery
4254
Langley Park
4229
Sedgefield
4214
Coxhoe
3397
Great Lumley
3549
Chilton
3908
Ushaw Moor
3671
Bowburn
3514
Blackhall Colliery
3135
Wingate
2996
Sherburn
2956
Easington Colliery
2619
Tanfield Lea
2089
Stanhope
1633
Langley Moor
1183
Middleton in
Teesdale
941
Wolsingham
2061
Horden
Not known
Pub/
Post
Office
Access
to
District
Centre
Appendix 3 Settlements by Delivery Area
To find out more about the County Durham Plan contact:
Write to:
Planning Policy Team
Durham County Council, Civic Centre
Newcastle Road, Chester-le-Street
County Durham, DH3 3UT
Telephone:
0300 123 70 70
Email:
ldfconsultation@durham.gov.uk
Website:
www.durham/gov.uk/ldf
Interactive Website:
http://durhamcc-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning
ldfconsultation@durham.gov.uk
0300 123 70 70

County Durham Settlement Study

Transcription

Similar documents

East Durham College, Houghall Campus, Durham

EX_People_and_Culture_2_files/PEOPLE AND - GEO

Here For Pdf Version

Piikani Nation Waters

Plawsworth Road, Sacriston, Durham Auction

Juventud Presente No. 27

Greg Webb`s Verdicts and Settlements

Durham Careers in Hospitality

Foundation settlements Settlements of foundations

Story - CaryMagazine.com