Residents disappointed by police no-show at Blackhall PACT meeting for September

There was a disappointing turn out for the Blackhall PACT meeting scheduled to be held last night (Wednesday) in the Parish Offices on Middle Street.

The residents were there as usual. I was there as usual. But unfortunately for some reason the police didn't attend. Given the whole purpose of the PACT (Police and Communities Together) which is to bring the community and the police together (obviously) the absence of the police last night was particularly annoying for residents.

However, although residents were disappointed, it's probably fair to acknowledge there might have been an emergency call-out last night which would have taken officers elsewhere. So to give them the benefit of the doubt I've contacted Peterlee Police this morning to ask for a reason why the PACT meeting was cancelled without notice, and also to ask for a commitment that they improve communications with our communities in promoting the Blackhall PACT meetings better and also let me and residents know as soon as possible if there's any reason for them to cancel meetings in future.

I'll update on the outcome as soon as I have a response from the police, but in the meantime details of the scheduled PACT meetings for this year can be found in the post I published on this site back in January: Blackhalls & Hesledens: PACT meeting dates for 2026

Durham County Council launches Budget & Council Tax consultation

Durham County Council has launched a public consultation exercise to gauge public opinion on its MTFP, Council Tax and Budget proposals. The main points of interest, including further cuts to services and a maximum Council Tax increase are set out below in a document produced by the council's Director of Resources. The public consultation runs until Sunday 15 November 2026.

On 16 September 2026, the council published a comprehensive update of its Medium-Term Financial Plan (MTFP) for the period between 2027/28 and 2030/31. Durham County Council's Cabinet has now approved a public consultation on proposals to help address these financial challenges, including options for council tax increases and savings proposals totalling £21.519 million. 

The council has for many years operated in a period of significant financial uncertainty and chronic funding shortfalls. The report includes several updated assumptions around rising cost pressures due to higher levels of inflation, continually rising demand for many statutory services and new Government initiatives – in areas such as social care, special educational needs, home to school transport, waste management and environmental services. 

Like many other employers, the council's cost base is also heavily driven by increases to the National Living Wage. Last winter, the Government announced funding allocations for the three-year period from 2026/27 to 2028/29. While the introduction of a new funding formula has provided some medium-term certainty by providing indicative funding allocations for the next two financial years, funding has not kept pace with rising costs and increasing demand for statutory services. The Government has also made clear its expectation that councils will increase council tax by the maximum permitted amount over the next two years to help fund these pressures locally – which in DCC's case would be an annual increase of 4.99% per annum. If the council does not apply increases it faces a real terms cut in funding over the next two years, and even with a 4.99% increase applied, this is insufficient to meet the unavoidable cost increases it faces. 

Residents are therefore having to bear the brunt of difficult decisions around how the council sets its budgets and how much it must raise from council tax and how it makes savings and efficiencies within the budget. For the four years ahead, the council faces higher levels of inflation and increased service demand for many statutory services, particularly Children and Adult Social Care, Special Educational Needs, Environmental Services and Home to School Transport. These issues continue to impact significantly on financial planning, with the council’s spending pressures largely influenced by matters outside its control, relating to national pay bargaining arrangements and national Government policy, particularly in relation to the National Living Wage and on changes to waste management legislation. 

The Cabinet report outlines that the council faces spending pressures of £138.244 million over the next four years. The majority of these pressures relate to essential and statutory services that the council is legally bound to deliver and are relied upon by some of its most vulnerable residents. Central Government grant and local taxation income from increases in the tax base (before any assumed council tax increases) is only projected to grow by £52.027 million over the same period. The council is already committed to making savings of £2.555 million, which were approved by full council in February 2026. This leaves a four-year budget deficit of £83.662 million before it considers any additional new savings proposals and before any council tax increases are applied (of which £23.278 million relates to next year in 2027/28). 

To address this budget gap, the Budget report identifies new savings proposals of £21.519 million. These savings follow nearly sixteen years of continuous delivery of savings and efficiencies totalling £301 million to allow it to maintain a stable financial position in the face of government austerity and insufficient central government funding. Of the £21.519 million of new savings proposals, £9.171 million are ready to be delivered if agreed. These relate to a variety of savings for back-office efficiencies, income generation and changes to front-line services. A further £12.348 million of longer-term savings plans are proposed in the September Cabinet report as part of the proposed Changing Together transformation programme. 

The Changing Together programme aims to transform and redesign how the council operates as a council and delivers services, making better use of data and insight, technology and digital tools (including the use of Artificial Intelligence), improving efficiency and sustainability, and helping ensure services remain accessible and responsive to residents’ needs. The overarching vision for Changing Together is “to create a modern, confident and financially sustainable council, powered by digital and shaped by the needs of our communities”. Savings proposals developed as part of Changing Together are at an early stage and need more work over the next 12 to 18 months to set out options for services, the potential impacts of these proposals, service benefits and delivery arrangements. Any detailed proposals would be subject to separate consultation before any final decisions are made. However, as will be seen in the report and the consultation, they relate to how the council delivers several of its front-line services in relation to areas such as leisure centres, libraries, local area networks, highways, environmental/street scene and waste management services and community protection. The council also has a very ambitious programme of transformational change relating to investment in digital access. This looks to improve how customers access services and ensure delivery of critical investment in back-office systems. 

Even after considering the delivery of £21.519 million of savings, the council will still have a budget shortfall of £62.143 million across the next four years, of which £16.616 million is likely to fall in 2027/28, and £16.471 million relates to the following year in 2028/29. As the council approaches the end of the decade, it will enter another phase of uncertainty around its long-term funding position. Cabinet has made it very clear to officers that they must strive to deliver high-quality services, whilst being as efficient as they can, and to deliver value for money for residents and businesses. 

Without any further council tax increases (or limited increases below the annual 4.99% recommended increase by Government) the council will have to consider more substantial savings over and above the £21.519 million set out in the report. At this stage, MTFP planning does not factor in any council tax increases, but the resultant deficit is unsustainable so either council tax increases will have to be applied or additional cuts to services will need to be implemented, as the council must set a balanced budget. The report and consultation documents set out the impact of council tax increases at various levels each year. The consultation asks for views on a range of council tax increases, including a 0%, 1%, 2% CPI-based, 3%, 4% and 4.99% rise. Decisions on council tax increases have a material impact on the council’s budget shortfall. 

The council may need to consider the use of reserves in 2027/28 to balance the budget, but this approach can only be a temporary measure, with more long-term options needing to be identified to address budget shortfalls. Every 1% increase in council tax raises an additional £3.15 million for the council, and this has a significant impact on its funding position. If the council does not look at options to raise council tax, up to 4.99% each year over the next four financial years, the scale of savings needed to make over and above the existing proposals of £21.519 million will increase further. 

The consultation exercise explains the size of the financial challenge the council faces. It outlines which areas the £21.519 million of new savings proposals relate to and distinguishes between savings that could be implemented now, and those which would require more detailed planning and further rounds of consultation under the Changing Together programme. It also asks for preferences and views on the options for council tax increases. 

The consultation commenced on Monday 21 September 2026 and will run through to Sunday 15 November 2026. The results of the consultation will be presented to Cabinet on 20 January 2027 and 10 February 2027, as part of the Cabinet’s final budget deliberations. Full council will also receive a detailed budget report to approve the 2027/28 budget on 24 February 2027.

Comments can be recorded by email at: 

• letstalkcountydurham@durham.gov.uk or

• via the council's public consultation portal at: Project: Annual budget (2027/28) Durham County Council

County Durham should celebrate the sacrifices made by our mining and armed forces communities

Durham County Council's public consultation on its Council Plan review comes to an end next week, so this is your last opportunity to let the council know what you think about the services it provides, how it links with its service plans and the priorities it has set out to improve the county.

By way of background the latest draft of the revised Council Plan was put before the authority's Corporate Overview & Scrutiny Management Board earlier this month to give members of the board an opportunity to comment on the council's current priorities.

In one section of the committee report I noticed that the authority is focused on how it will prioritise the armed forces community. On the assumption that this would include armed forces veterans I agreed that the council owes a debt of gratitude to those who have served our country and who might now struggle with some of the crises they might now face - whether that be through Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or difficulties in finding appropriate housing once they return home So it's only right that we recognise their contribution and prioritise their needs. 

In addition I reminded members of the board that we all represent the people and communities of County Durham and that many of the towns and villages across our county were established and sustained by generations of miners and their families, often in the face of dreadful working conditions, substandard housing and the illnesses and injuries they now suffer caused by years of toiling underground.

It's impossible to tell the story of County Durham without coal being at the heart of its legacy, so if we want to preserve our culture and heritage and recognise the contribution miners and their families have made to the county's development, and also acknowledge the miners' contribution to powering the nation through two world wars, we must also prioritise the wellbeing and welfare of the miners, their families and the communities they built and held together for generations.

County Durham can be proud of the men and women who served and continue to serve in the defence of our country against the threats we face today. Equally we can celebrate the contribution the miners and their families have made over the generations to build and sustain many of its towns and villages. The county wouldn't be the place we are all proud of today if it hadn't been for the collective sacrifices made by the men and women of Durham in generations past and those who keep our communities alive and thriving today. 

There's room to acknowledge the roles played by all of our many working communities in the past, regardless of occupation, and prioritise their needs for the years ahead. After all it's that diversity and the spirit of standing together in the face of adversity that's made our county the wonderful place it is today.

If you would like to comment on the council's consultation please follow the link below, but be quick. The exercise comes to an end next week:

Help shape the Council Plan 2027-2031 | Durham County Council

Road closed next week for Northumbrian Water sewer repair works

I've received notification from Durham County Council that the back lane between The Crescent and Middle Street in Blackhall Colliery will be closed to traffic for a period of up to 5 days from Monday 21 September to allow Northumbrian Water to carry out sewer repair works.

The rather formal notification I received is reproduced below for information:

COUNTY COUNCIL OF DURHAM ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION ACT 1984 

TEMPORARY ROAD CLOSURE NOTICE BACK MIDDLE STREET, BLACKHALL COLLIERY 

WHEREAS THE COUNTY COUNCIL OF DURHAM BEING THE HIGHWAY AUTHORITY FOR THE BLACKHALL COLLIERY AREA IS SATISFIED THAT SUCH RESTRICTION IS NECESSARY TO PERMIT SEWER REPAIR WORKS ON OR ADJACENT TO THE SAID PUBLIC ROAD, THE COUNCIL IN EXERCISE OF ITS POWERS UNDER SECTION 14(2) OF THE ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION ACT 1984, HEREBY GIVES NOTICE OF THE TEMPORARY CLOSURE TO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC OF A 115 METRE LENGTH OF BACK MIDDLE STREET BETWEEN THE JUNCTIONS OF HESLEDEN ROAD AND PARK AVENUE. 

THE MAXIMUM DURATION OF THE TEMPORARY CLOSURE UNDER THIS NOTICE IS 5 DAYS COMMENCING FROM 21 SEPTEMBER 2026. THE ANTICIPATED PERIOD OF CLOSURE IS 5 DAYS. AN ALTERNATIVE ROUTE FOR VEHICULAR TRAFFIC IS AVAILABLE FROM THE EAST SIDE OF THE CLOSURE VIA HESLEDEN ROAD, MIDDLE STREET AND BACK MIDDLE STREET TO THE WEST SIDE OF THE CLOSURE, AND VICE VERSA. 

Pass Wide & Slow 2026 - promoting road safety for horses and their riders

You can tell the summer months are on their last legs when the rain clouds gather and the time comes for the annual Pass Wide & Slow event. This year's campaign was organised by Denise Richardson and was hosted again by Glenn and Leisa at South Blackhall Farm on the Coast Road in Blackhall Rocks.

Once again there was a fantastic turnout by local riders and their horses who came together yesterday morning to take part in both short and long rides along organised routes in Blackhall Colliery, Blackhall Rocks and High Hesleden. The Blackhall event was just one of several similar rides taking part across the country, and the aims of the campaign are to highlight to drivers the risks to horses and their riders when drivers overtake at excessive speed or fail to allow sufficient safe space between their vehicle and horses. Full details can be found on the British Horse Society's website: Dead Slow | The British Horse Society 

Since last year's event I've been working with Denise and members of the regional BHS to improve access for horses and their riders, mainly along the coastal route but at other countryside locations too. The process is unnecessarily complicated, and the timescales at the moment aren't particularly helpful, but the campaign will continue for as long as it takes until access is granted for horses and their riders to long-established historic routes.

I would like to thank Denise for inviting me again to this year's event, to the many riders who came along to support the local campaign and of course to Glenn and Leisa for hosting us all. Thanks also to officers from Durham Constabulary who came along again to support the event and to make sure everyone stayed safe.

It was a pleasure to meet up again with local riders and play just a small part in their campaign to improve conditions on the highway for horses and their riders.

New flower planter at school bus stop attracts positive comments

I'd like to offer my thanks to the residents who have contacted me over the past few days to comment on the new flower planter installed earlier this week at the bus stop in front of Blackhall Colliery Primary School on Middle Street.

By way of background I was contacted a couple of months ago by a local resident who suggested that the area around the bus stop would benefit from a few minor improvements. With that in mind I approached the clerk to Monk Hesleden Parish Council to see what the parish thought about placing a flower planter next to the bus stop to add some colour and to tidy the area up a bit.

Together we put a plan in place where I would provide the funding and the parish would arrange for their estates management team to install the planter. The work was completed earlier this week and from the comments I've received since residents have noticed the immediate improvement. This latest work follows enhancements to the seating area further down Middle Street last year where the parish council repaired the damaged fence on their land and installed flower beds on either side of the bench.

Given the success of this latest addition we'll continue to work together to carry out further improvements where they are most needed in other parts of Blackhall and Hesleden.

My thanks go to the clerk and members of the parish council for their help with this initiative, and especially to the council's estates management team under the supervision of Antony Peace. I'm sure residents will agree that their hard work and devotion to improving our villages have made a real difference.

Tea & Chat at St Andrew's continues to provide a vital service to our community

For some time now, along with Monk Hesleden Parish Council, I've been helping to fund and support the monthly Tea & Chat events at St Andrew's church hall on The Crescent in Blackhall Colliery. So it was nice to receive warm words of thanks earlier this week from the organiser George Duddin on behalf of the St Andrew's Neighbourhood Outreach Group and Fr Kyle:

Hello Lynda and Rob,

Today was the tea n chat and as usual 55 people turned up and had a good time. Fun meeting their friends, good food and of course the raffle and bingo.

This month's tea n chat marked the end our fourth year as it all began in September 2022.

It has remained a big part of peoples lives since then so as we start the fifth year next month, St Andrews Neighbourhood Outreach Group would like to say a very big thank you for your continued support each year.

It has made a huge difference to the people of our parish.

Thank you.

Best wishes,

George

In return I would like to thank George, Fr Kyle and the members of the Outreach Group for the last four years of providing a vital service in our village. Their events offer friendship, company and much more for many residents in Blackhall and beyond. Without their initiative and tireless work our community would be so much the poorer.

I wish them good look for the future.

Date set for the Benridge Solar Farm planning application

I received notification yesterday afternoon that the Benridge Solar Farm planning application will be put before the council's Countywide Planning Committee next week for a decision:

Application Ref: DM/25/01964/FPA 

Site Address: Land To The East, South And West Of Benridge Farm, Fillpoke Lane Blackhall Rocks TS27 4BT 

Proposal: Installation of a solar farm together with all associated works, equipment and necessary infrastructure including battery storage. 

The above application which relates to a proposal within your Electoral Division is to be reported to the County Planning Committee on 29 July 2026 in the Council Chamber, County Hall, Durham, DH1 5UL at 1pm.

The full committee report can be found in this link: DM-25-01964-FPA Benridge Farm Solar Farm 

Although the planning case officer has recommended that the application should be approved it should be noted that this is just a recommendation and does not represent a decision. A decision on whether the proposal should be approved or rejected will be made by members of the planning committee next week. 

Alongside a local residents group and the local Parish Council I have opposed this development from day one, and my written objections have been submitted to the county council for the attention of planning committee members. Given the quality of the objections raised by the local community I'm confident that, despite the case officer's recommendation, planning committee members will be sufficiently convinced by the evidence to refuse this application.

Details of the local campaign can be found here: Residents' campaign to oppose Benridge Solar Farm

My letter of objection can be found in this link: Formal objections to the Benridge Solar Farm planning application

Changes to planning system will silence local voices

Durham County Council met on Wednesday 15 July to discuss amongst other issues the local impact of the Planning & Infrastructure Act 2025. In essence the government is proposing changes through the Town & Country Planning Regulations that will refer most minor planning applications to senior officers of the council for a decision rather than put them before the council's area planning committees for deliberation as they do at the moment.

As things stand Durham County Council has a Countywide planning committee which considers major planning applications such as large-scale housing developments and infrastructure issues such as wind and solar farms. Alongside this committee there are also three Area planning committees where relatively minor planning applications are decided. However a majority of minor planning matters are already referred to senior planning officers or directors who make decisions by themselves under what is known as Delegated Authority. At the moment local members have the right to refer any potentially contentious matter to the planning committee for a decision, and this is where residents and their local councillor have the opportunity to tell committee members what they think of a particular planning application.

Changes through the Town & Country Planning Regulations are to due to come into force on 31 October this year, which will mean the three Area committees will be scrapped, with most applications to be decided under Delegated Authority instead. Although the Countywide committee will continue it will subsume the responsibilities of the Highways committee which will also cease to exist from 31 October.

At Wednesday's council meeting I raised my objections to the changes because they remove the right of residents and local councillors to have their say on planning matters that might affect them and their communities. I fully acknowledge the need to speed up the government's pledge to deliver on its housebuilding programme - something that will bring housing developments to those locations where it's most needed - but there are better ways to achieve those aims other than to silence the voices of local communities.

For decades planning committees have been one of the main ways for residents and their local councillors to have a direct input on issues that shape their own villages and towns. This is a vital element of local democracy, especially so in this case because no one knows their own communities better than the residents who live there and have sustained them for generations,

By way of a local example of the potential problems ahead, there's a developer currently making preliminary enquires about potential housing developments on two patches of land in our villages (full details here: Developer seeks public opinion on potential housing development sites). There has been no planning application submitted at the moment, but if the developer eventually decides to go ahead and submit an application it's likely that local residents will no longer have the opportunity to air their views in front of the council's planning committee. Instead the decision will be made under delegated authority by an officer of the council, and I don't think that's good enough.

I'm not implying that officers aren't able to make decisions of this nature, in most cases they do that already, but I'm genuinely concerned that the people who know their own villages better than anyone else will no longer be able to put their case in the public arena of a planning committee. That cannot be seen as anything other than a retrograde step that closes down the voices of the people who matter the most and will be most affected by planning decisions.

The Planning & Infrastructure Act is already up and running so the chances of anything changing soon are slim at best. But that doesn't mean we should back away or stay silent on matters like this that will conceal the decision-making process behind closed doors and undermine local democracy itself.

As this is a central government issue I've contacted the office of the Easington MP Grahame Morris with a request that our concerns are raised in all the right places. If the government is serious about empowering local communities they could get off to a good start by making sure that the decision-making process on planning matters remains in the hands of local authority members and the residents they're elected to represent.

Request for Chimneys update

Over the weekend I was contacted by a couple of local residents curious to know what's been happening lately with Chimneys - formerly known as The Trust on East Street in Blackhall Colliery.

I've asked the planning department this morning for an update on what progress has been made since the owners submitted a planning application to re-open the building as accommodation for people with autism and learning disabilities.

I'll post a full update as soon as I have a response from the service, but in the meantime you can get the latest information about this issue in an article I published on these pages last year: https://robcrute-blackhall.blogspot.com/2025/01/conversion-works-continue-at-former.html

Care provider puts an end to unfounded rumours about the Yohden Care Complex

Last week I was contacted by someone concerned about yet more rumours about the future of the Yohden Care Complex in Blackhall Colliery. This followed similar rumours circulating throughout the community last year, amid baseless claims that the facility was scheduled to close. Full background details can be found here: Care home manager clarifies rumours about Yohden Care Complex in Blackhall Colliery

Although these repeated rumours are nipped in the bud almost immediately they still crop up every few months and they are having a profoundly unsettling impact on staff and residents at the care complex and also on the rest of our community.

Rather than contact the care complex I've been in touch with the Adult & Health Services department at Durham County Council. They've contacted the care provider direct who has confirmed that parts of the complex have been closed temporarily for redecoration and planned maintenance works only. Once again they've quashed the rumours as absolutely unfounded. 

I've reproduced the full statement from the service below in the hope they bring assurance to the staff and residents:

We have again checked the concerns with the provider who own the care home (Maria Milliband Care Group). Following discussions with MMCG’s Regional Director, it has been confirmed that the provider has temporarily closed “The Court” area of the home to allow for planned maintenance and redecoration works to be completed. As there were already a number of vacant rooms within this part of the home, remaining residents were relocated to a more central area whilst the improvement works are undertaken. Staff have been informed of the changes according to the regional director.

We were told that the works are intended to enhance the overall environment and appearance of the home. MMCG has confirmed that there remain no plans to close the home, and that the temporary closure of The Court is solely to facilitate refurbishment and maintenance activities.

Developer seeks public opinion on potential housing development sites

A developer is making early, preliminary enquiries about two sites for potential housing developments: one adjacent to Weym’s farm in Hesleden and one to the east of the Black Path on the Blackhall Colliery side.

There has been no planning application submitted at this stage because the developer wants to gauge the opinion of residents first before they make a decision about whether it’s worth going ahead with their plans.

The developer has offered to hold open days in both villages at some point in the future to meet with residents and answer any queries and comments. At this stage though this is simply a developer putting the feelers out to see whether this is something the community would support.

This post is intended for information purposes only. All comments and queries should be sent direct to the developer for their attention: siteplanco@gmail.com

Durham County Council opens public consultation on its County Durham Plan

Durham County Council has opened a public consultation exercise on its scoping report - the first stage in establishing its revised County Durham Plan which gives residents the opportunity to have their say on how planning issues should be managed and where the council should identify land to set aside for housing developments and other planning-related issues across the county. 

The County Durham Plan is Durham County Council's version of a local plan setting out the framework which determines future development sites and planning applications for housing, jobs and the environment, as well as the transport, schools and healthcare infrastructure needed to support it. It plays a key role in the planning system and sets out a framework for how future development in the county should be managed.

The scoping stage marks the first formal step in preparing the new Local Plan and is the first opportunity for residents to have their say on issues that will help shape the new County Durham Plan and shape future decisions about housing, jobs, transport, the environment, town centres and community facilities.

Full details can be found in the link here: Help shape the new Local Plan for County Durham

Formal objections to the Benridge Solar Farm planning application

In articles published on this site over the past year or so I've outlined my objections to a proposed solar farm development on land at Benridge Farm, just off Fillpoke Lane between High Hesleden and the A1086 Coast Road at Crimdon. My most recent post sets out the main issues and can be found here: Residents' campaign to oppose Benridge Solar Farm

I've now submitted my formal objections to the county council and I've published my comments below in full for information. If you haven't already had your say on the Benridge development please consider submitting your comments to the council's planning department. All you need to do is enter the planning code DM/25/01964/FPA into the search bar in this link: Simple Search and follow the directions.

A decision on whether this development should go ahead will be made by the council's planning committee, which consists of 12 elected members of Durham County Council. Members are compelled to judge all applications with an open mind and take all the facts presented to them into consideration. So if we want to stop this proposal it's up to us as a community to persuade committee members that this is the wrong type of development in the wrong place. Make your voice heard.

DM/25/01964/FPA | Installation of a solar farm together with all associated works, equipment and necessary infrastructure including battery storage. | Land To The East, South And West Of Benridge Farm, Fillpoke Lane Blackhall Rocks TS27 4BT

My objections to the proposed solar farm at Benridge Farm, Fillpoke Lane should be considered alongside the other points of objection raised by residents, businesses and organisations from the Blackhalls & Hesledens communities I represent as the county councillor.

Given the general nature of the objections I wish to register my concern that an Environmental Assessment was not requested by the LPA. This omission has caused considerable alarm in the community, giving rise to fears that environmental risk factors associated with the proposal have not been adequately assessed. In my view the absence of an EA suggests that the application cannot be approved safely with any level of assurance for our residents or their communities.

The comments below are an outline only of my concerns and are not exhaustive. The points raised here will be developed when the application is put before members at the planning committee stage

Land Use: The land proposed for use in this development is privately owned. Durham County Council’s own policy is that priority for solar developments should be given to brown field sites and land that is Council owned. Provision already exists within the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to compulsorily purchase land for public benefit. 

Given the scale and accelerating momentum recently of solar farm applications, the position of any further proposals should balance the needs of developers, landowners and the general public. Schemes such as this, if done fairly, on Council-owned, brown field sites could generate substantial capital receipts, or significant revenue streams, to properly fund vital public services in deprived local communities such as the Blackhalls and Hesledens. Critically, solar farms should be developed on land an acceptable distance from settled communities (see comments below on the cumulative and visual impact of solar farms).

Productive agricultural land: The loss of agricultural land or the disposal of the panels has not been adequately taken into consideration. The fields at the proposed site are already providing vital energy in the form of food, and food security must be seen in the context of current global upheaval and uncertainty. The DCC Local Plan refers to the sustainability of food production, and losing another valued location to solar goes against this commitment.

No discernible local benefit: This development will not provide any significant level of employment for local people, and no one will save a single penny on their energy bills as a consequence of this scheme. Understandably residents who will be adversely impacted most by the proposed solar farm are annoyed that they are expected to shoulder any associated disruption and inconvenience while the company and the grid stand to benefit from the scheme.

Visitors from local villages and beyond come to this part of the Durham coast to enjoy the scenery and its distinctive rural setting. All available evidence points to the physical and mental health benefits of the natural environment. The overall effect of this proposal will have an adverse social and public health impact with no financial benefits to outweigh the harm. In other words, the benefits of the scheme do not outweigh the drag it will have on the natural environment or the settled communities around it.

Decommissioning and aftermath: We live in volatile times, and many energy companies have gone out of business or have been swallowed up by larger energy industry companies. It is not possible to know for certain that the company will exist 20 or 30 years from now, leading to fears that residents nearby will be left with a vast, rusting landscape on their doorstep.

The scrap market is also unreliable so it’s reasonable to conclude that the residual panels may well be worthless by the time the site is decommissioned. Given these factors I would request that as a condition an assessment of the full cost of decommissioning should be made prior to any construction and funds supplied by the applicant in the form of an index-linked bond to cover the full costs of decommissioning.

Cumulative and Visual impact: The application must be seen within the wider context of hundreds of acres of agricultural land already lost to recently approved solar farm sites nearby. Taken as a whole, this development will essentially industrialise historic, unspoilt countryside on the edge of ancient woodland. The community at large deserves to be protected from this and any future similar industrial developments.

In addition, local residents feel that this proposal offers no benefit to the community. For many people living in the settlements around the proposed development site the countryside is the only amenity, so to consign residents to living in such close proximity to an industrial solar farm is unfair. The company is proposing to install their solar farm at this location simply because they can, and because it appears to them to be an easy option.

Battery storage facilities risk: Documented evidence is available which demonstrates the risks associated with Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS), especially when they are installed in close proximity to residential areas. It is noted that the village of High Hesleden is very close to the proposed development site, and an additional housing development directly adjoining the BESS location is currently in the pipeline. Battery fires cannot be ruled out and the risk is not adequately mitigated in the company’s planning application. In addition, the production, shipping and supply costs associated with BESS seriously weakens any claims of ‘Net Zero’ benefits to be accrued from solar farm development.

Planning considerations: When this application is put before the planning committee for a decision the planning policies it contradicts will be developed in full. For the purpose of this letter of objection however I refer here to just a few of the most relevant policies and how they relate to this application. The list is not exhaustive:

·    Para 28, NPPF Part 15 Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment: the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes and sites of biodiversity or geological conservation interests, recognising the wider benefits of ecosystems, minimising the impacts on biodiversity, preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from pollution and land stability and remediating contaminated or other degraded land where appropriate

·    Para 39, Policy 31 – Amenity and Pollution: states that development will be permitted where it can be demonstrated there will be no unacceptable impact, either individually or cumulatively, on health, living or working conditions or the natural environment, and that the development can be effectively integrated with any existing business and community facilities. Development will not be permitted where inappropriate odours, noise, vibration and other sources of pollution cannot be suitably mitigated against

·    Para 43. Policy 39 – Landscape: states that proposals for new development will only be permitted where they would not cause unacceptable harm to the character, quality or distinctiveness of the landscape, or to important features or views. Proposed developments affecting Areas of Higher Landscape Value (AHLV) will be permitted only where it conserves and enhances the special qualities of the landscape

In conclusion I would urge planning officers to take these comments into consideration and give them significant weight before they come to a recommendation. I believe there is sufficient evidence to suggest that this application ought to be recommended for refusal on the grounds set out here and elsewhere by members of the community and local organisations.

Cllr Rob Crute

Blackhalls & Hesledens Division

Durham County Council

Friday 12 June: Park Avenue closed to traffic for sewer clearance works

I’ve been notified by the council’s highways department that Park Avenue in Blackhall Colliery will be closed to traffic next Friday to allow for sewer cleansing works to take place.

The short term works restriction will be in place between 8am and 4pm on Friday 12 June 2026 for an anticipated period of 1 day, and I'm told that notices will be posted at either end of the street advising residents of the closure.

Road closures around the A19 interchange at Castle Eden from tonight

On Friday 5 June a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order (TTRO) will come into effect to enable road works to take place at the Wellfield interchange and on the A19 slip roads.

I checked arrangements earlier this week with highways engineers and they have confirmed that resurfacing works are scheduled to take place overnight for a period of 10 nights. In effect this means roads in the immediate area will be closed to traffic between 8pm and 6am each night from Friday 5 June until Sunday 14 June.

Diversion routes will be in place with full details available on the DCC website via this link: https://www.durham.gov.uk/roadworks

Reform UK to hire political fixers to serve their members. And you get to pay for them!

At Durham County Council's Annual General Meeting held in county hall yesterday (Wednesday 20 May 2026) the Reform UK administration in control of the council asked members to agree to appoint two political assistants for a minimum three years at a total cost to the County Durham taxpayer of £256,000 (£85,300 over 3 years). 

The papers for the meeting set out the basis for the administration's plan to pay for political advisors to work for and on behalf of the two biggest political parties on the council, currently Reform UK and the Lib Dems. The assistants will be nominated, selected and appointed by the political parties themselves and will work to the orders of the leader of that political group. In other words, you are going to pay through the nose for someone to do the jobs of the councillors you voted into office at the local elections last year - councillors who are already receiving an allowance for their role as local representatives!

Political Assistants will be employed to serve the political party that handed them the job. And you the taxpayer gets to stump up £85,300 every year for the next three year term of this Reform UK administration - that's a whopping £256,000 in total. 

That's bad enough in itself, especially after we were told just a couple of months ago that there was no money to spare to help some of the most vulnerable families across the county struggling with rising council tax bills. But to make matters worse there's nothing in the council's constitution to provide for these posts and there's nothing in the budget to pay for them. 

Instead, senior managers at the council will now be told to go away and find £256,00 down the back of a couch somewhere - normally code for further service cuts to pay for something that Reform UK kept under wraps when they were on the doorsteps asking for your vote during the election campaign last May. Make no mistake, someone's been working hard behind the scenes to change everything around for the sole benefit of Reform UK members on Durham County Council.

In effect the proposal amounts to the creation of two-tier council representation at DCC for the first time ever, with Reform UK dipping into the pockets and purses of the taxpaying public to give themselves a significant advantage over the smaller parties. Someone more cynical than me might be tempted to call that political interference.

To be clear, over the years there have been thousands of local councillors elected to public office to work on behalf of their communities, and for decades they've managed to do all that without having to hire someone at public expense to give them a helping hand. Although the allowance that councillors receive isn’t a salary it’s been just about sufficient to enable members to carry out their public duties without external assistance. That is until now.

There's something happening in local government lately that's never happened before. Unelected officials are being selected and appointed by political parties to work for those same political parties and no one else – all at the taxpayers’ expense. That is unprecedented here in County Durham.

As a County Durham taxpayer, if you're ok with Reform UK raiding the public purse to pay for their own Political Assistant, you've got nothing to fear and nothing to lose. If on the other hand you're concerned that you're paying through the nose to employ someone to promote and expand the influence of a specific political party at taxpayers’ expense you need to watch out for how your local councillor voted on Wednesday morning.

It goes without saying that on behalf of the County Durham Labour Group I spoke against this ill-considered measure at yesterday's council meeting, and I was supported by almost every member of the other political groups. Only Reform UK members voted in favour - although it should be noted that over a dozen of their members stayed away yesterday rather than obey their party whip.

I've published below a transcript of the notes I used in objecting to Reform UK's proposal. My comments are based on the papers tabled at yesterday's council meeting: Political Assistants final Council report.pdf

When this matter was first tabled at the Constitution Working Group a few weeks ago I raised my objections – mainly on principle because I could see straight away that using taxpayers’ money to fund party political posts is impossible to justify.

At the time I warned other members of the CWG that this wouldn’t sit well with members of the public – and now that we’ve seen the actual costs of the proposal I’m even more convinced that voicing my concerns then was the right thing to do.

Just a few months ago we were told there was no money to maintain a safety net to protect vulnerable families struggling with council tax demands - yet now we’re being asked to support a proposal that’s going to cost the taxpayers of County Durham £85k a year – that’s over a quarter of a million pounds over the next 3 years.

To make matters worse, there’s nothing in the constitution to provide for these posts and there’s nothing in the budget to pay for them. So in effect we’re asking officers to go away and find £85,000 down the back of the couch to fund something that was never mentioned during the elections last year – and something that no one even knew about until a few days ago.

I know there are quite a few members from all the parties struggling with this one, so my advice is to put yourself in the place of the people who sent you here. And ask yourself if they’d be comfortable stumping up for a party-appointed post that answers to the party alone, and has no positive effect whatsoever in directly improving public services.

If local government is to work properly on behalf of the people - in financial terms - we need to look at this from a different angle. In essence, taxpayers create a shared resource through council tax. That pool of money is meant to provide services collectively that individuals otherwise couldn’t afford to pay for – whether it’s for social care services, highways, education or whatever - that money is there to serve our residents and communities.

But what we have here is a political party dipping into that pool of taxpayers’ money to pay for a party-political post that serves only the party - on the party’s own terms and with no direct benefit to the people paying for it. That cannot be right. And if you look at it from that perspective it’s impossible to justify.

If you’re happy for taxpayers to stump up to fund jobs for party political benefit - and you’re then prepared to face the consequences - by all means vote for this proposal. But be warned. Things like this have a habit of coming back to haunt you.

We won’t support this proposal - simply because it’s impossible to justify - and I urge members to think about exactly what you’re asking the taxpayers of County Durham to do this morning. Take a look at this from the perspective of those taxpayers, apply some common sense - and join with us in opposing what our residents will rightly see as a blatant misuse of public money for party political purposes.

Labour members leading the way on community casework

A Freedom of Information (FoI) request was received by Durham County Council recently asking for details of the casework items raised and registered by individual councillors.

The data in the table below show that 3 out of our 5* Labour members were placed in the top 10 in the list of casework queries raised with the council on behalf of their residents, businesses and communities. Proof, if it was needed, that Labour members are leading the way when it comes to all-year-round community activity and responding efficiently to their residents' queries and concerns.

*NB: Labour's Julie Griffiths was elected as the member for Murton in a by-election held earlier this month.

Casework Items	Surname	First Name	Political Group
415	Crute	Rob	Labour Group
302	McGlenen	Jack	Not aligned
282	Maddison	Liz	Spennymoor and Tudhoe Independent Group
280	Molloy	Pete	Not aligned
201	Bell	Alan	DCC Independent Group
178	Gray	Alison	Labour Group
177	Grimes	Darren	Reform UK Group
171	Sims-Brydon	Saffron	Reform UK Group
160	Smith	Tracie	Labour Group
158	Wilkes	Mark	Liberal Democrat Group
146	Mavin	Eric	Liberal Democrat Group
142	Hutchinson	Gary	DCC Independent Group
135	Bowron	Stephen	Reform UK Group
128	McAloon	Billy	Spennymoor and Tudhoe Independent Group
126	Hope	Kenny	Reform UK Group
119	Taylor	Louise	Reform UK Group
107	Penders	Louise	Reform UK Group
102	Craggs	Neil	Reform UK Group
102	Rodiss	Robbie	Reform UK Group
100	Redmond	Tom	Reform UK Group
96	Elmer	Jonathan	DCC Independent Group
94	Husband	Andrew	Reform UK Group
94	Ramage	Michael	Not aligned
87	Foote-Wood	Chris	Labour Group
85	Haney	Dominic	Liberal Democrat Group
83	Neil	Alex	Liberal Democrat Group
77	Grindle	Sandra	Reform UK Group
74	Brown	Liz	Liberal Democrat Group
74	Catchpole	Ian	Reform UK Group
73	Blatchford	Christine	Reform UK Group
73	Rowland	Kate	Reform UK Group
72	Rooney	Kathryn	Liberal Democrat Group
68	Pickard	James	Reform UK Group
65	Franklin	Steven	Reform UK Group
64	Heaviside	Phil	DCC Independent Group
63	Quinn	Joe	Reform UK Group
61	Lines	Chris	DCC Independent Group
60	Harrison	Andrew	Reform UK Group
59	Robson	Tim	Reform UK Group
59	Rowney	Mark	Reform UK Group
56	Biggs	Steve	Reform UK Group
56	Martin	Craig	Liberal Democrat Group
55	McGuinness	Tim	Reform UK Group
53	Walton	David Walton	Reform UK Group
52	Campbell	Jillian	Reform UK Group
51	Hopgood	Amanda	Liberal Democrat Group
51	Husband	Susan	Reform UK Group
50	Burriss	Rhys	Reform UK Group
49	Cook	John	Reform UK Group
49	Gray	Stephen	Reform UK Group
49	Hunt	Cathy	Reform UK Group
47	Elmer	Priscilla	DCC Independent Group
46	Healy	Sean	Reform UK Group
43	Bellingham	Dawn	Reform UK Group
43	Fairs	Chris	Reform UK Group
43	Freeman	David	Liberal Democrat Group
42	Teasdale	Jackie	Reform UK Group
41	Genner	Kyle	Reform UK Group
41	Pears	Elizabeth	Liberal Democrat Group
40	Hillam	Aaron	Reform UK Group
40	Kinvig	John	Reform UK Group
40	Potts	Rob	Reform UK Group
39	Franklin	Mary-Lynn	Reform UK Group
39	Shuttleworth	John	DCC Independent Group
38	Woodhouse	Scott	Reform UK Group
37	Marshall	Craig	Reform UK Group
34	Blakey	Jan	DCC Independent Group
34	Burnard	Matt	Reform UK Group
33	Mountford	Paul Mountford	Reform UK Group
32	Brydon	Gavin	Reform UK Group
30	Stephenson	James	Reform UK Group
28	Allison	Karen	Reform UK Group
27	Bell	Richard	Not aligned
27	Quirey	Brian	Reform UK Group
25	Rooney	Terry	Liberal Democrat Group
25	Schulman	Adrian	Reform UK Group
23	Brown	Nicole Brown	Reform UK Group
21	Eales	Andrew	Reform UK Group
19	Bean	Paul	Not aligned
19	Grant	John Grant	Reform UK Group
19	Sexton	Paul	Reform UK Group
18	Lyons	Nicola	Reform UK Group
17	Brown	Howard	Reform UK Group
17	Hopgood	Ellie	Liberal Democrat Group
17	Savory	Anita	DCC Independent Group
16	Fox	Lyndsey	Reform UK Group
13	Hunt	Emma	Reform UK Group
10	Mavin	Lesley	Liberal Democrat Group
10	Saunders	Dawn	Reform UK Group
10	Stead	Michael	Liberal Democrat Group
8	Cottier	John	Reform UK Group
8	Cross	Ian	Reform UK Group
6	Brown	Nick	Not aligned
6	Moist	Bill	Not aligned
5	Anderson	George	Reform UK Group
4	Fox	Jasmine	Reform UK Group
3	Griffiths	Julie	Labour Group (Elected 5.3.26)
1	Scott	Elizabeth	Liberal Democrat Group