Durham County Council economic masterplan a 'high risk gamble' say critics

The Northern Echo: Kirsty Thomas Kirsty Thomas

COUNCIL chiefs are taking a high risk gamble and putting all County Durham’s eggs in one fragile basket by betting its future on Durham City becoming a boom town, critics have claimed.

Durham County Council officials have spent years working on the County Durham Plan, which includes multi-billion pound plans to create 30,000 new jobs and build 30,000 new homes by 2030, and they say it represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reverse the area’s long-standing decline and transform it into an economic powerhouse.

However, with latest round of consultation closing on Monday (November 26), criticism is growing stronger.

Kirsty Thomas, a spokeswoman for the Durham Green Belt Group (DGBG), said the Plan’s “huge concentration of development on Durham City puts all the county’s eggs in one fragile basket”, risking damaging loss to Durham’s “priceless” green belt and harming the prospects of other towns and villages.

“This is a high risk gamble the county council does not need to take. Durham is at the crossroads and the county council has read the signs wrongly,” she said.

DGBG has filed a 30-page response proposing an alternative model of moderate growth based on regenerating towns and villages, using previously developed land and improving public transport.

Meanwhile, the City of Durham Trust, the North-East’s largest civic amenity society, said the Plan’s focus on Durham would damage the city, irretrievably altering its character.

Chairman Roger Cornwell said: “Borrowing the authority’s slogans, these proposals will not result in an ‘Altogether better’ county but, unfortunately, will be ‘Making a difference where you live’. We say: County Durham deserves better.”

The Trust has filed a 59-page response to the Plan, which, for Durham city, proposes: 5,000 new homes, a world-class business centre at Aykley Heads and two new bypasses.

This summer, environmentalist Jonathon Porritt said the plans were completely manic, way over the top and unbelievably damaging.

Stuart Timmiss, the council’s head of planning and assets, denied it was putting all its eggs in one basket, saying: “I hope anyone reading the plan will see significant proposals that ensure the future prosperity and sustainability of all the settlements across the county with focus on all of our main towns.”

The Plan seeks to turn round the county’s economic fortunes, setting it on a stronger financial path, he said; meeting the needs and aspirations of its communities, while also making environmental improvements from the coast to the dales.

The next draft of the Plan is expected to be published next summer.

Comments (77)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:20pm Thu 22 Nov 12

loonyleft says...

The council does need to take this gamble,Durham needs to be unshackled from people trying to preserve the area like a living museum.I like the countryside but that will not create jobs,sacrifices will have to be made else people like my children will never find employment.
The council does need to take this gamble,Durham needs to be unshackled from people trying to preserve the area like a living museum.I like the countryside but that will not create jobs,sacrifices will have to be made else people like my children will never find employment. loonyleft

8:31pm Thu 22 Nov 12

ceddesfeld says...

It's not often I agree with the County Council, but on this one they have it dead right. Durham city is the jewel in the crown, sadly surrounded by zombie villages such as Ferryhill and Thornley where only the crazy would look to invest.
It's not often I agree with the County Council, but on this one they have it dead right. Durham city is the jewel in the crown, sadly surrounded by zombie villages such as Ferryhill and Thornley where only the crazy would look to invest. ceddesfeld

10:21pm Thu 22 Nov 12

tomtopper says...

Rapists...That's what the council are..

I don't see any benefits of increased population, only more traffic, more urban sprawl, higher crime, longer waiting times at the doctors and hospital, no community, as people don't know each other... I see a disaster

DCC needs to realise that Durham City (should be town) is naturally a small and historic town, not some cosmopolitan metropolis like Newcastle, and it never will be... It has massive tourism potential which is sadlly wasted... The whole plan is idiotic...

Aykley heads a world class business hub? Are they for real? It says it all really, when supposedly intelligent people think that Aykley heads can make Durham an economic powerhouse..Dear me,I really have heard it all..
Rapists...That's what the council are.. I don't see any benefits of increased population, only more traffic, more urban sprawl, higher crime, longer waiting times at the doctors and hospital, no community, as people don't know each other... I see a disaster DCC needs to realise that Durham City (should be town) is naturally a small and historic town, not some cosmopolitan metropolis like Newcastle, and it never will be... It has massive tourism potential which is sadlly wasted... The whole plan is idiotic... Aykley heads a world class business hub? Are they for real? It says it all really, when supposedly intelligent people think that Aykley heads can make Durham an economic powerhouse..Dear me,I really have heard it all.. tomtopper

8:16am Fri 23 Nov 12

loonyleft says...

Tomtopper, as far as i can remember you are a retired person ,so what do you think all the unemployed young people in the area should do move away, further draining away the workforce in the area.You can't live of the view,and i want the best for my children,not idling about on the dole.I love the countryside ,but the area needs jobs for people like my children,who are itching to find employment and make something of themselves.
Tomtopper, as far as i can remember you are a retired person ,so what do you think all the unemployed young people in the area should do move away, further draining away the workforce in the area.You can't live of the view,and i want the best for my children,not idling about on the dole.I love the countryside ,but the area needs jobs for people like my children,who are itching to find employment and make something of themselves. loonyleft

9:32am Fri 23 Nov 12

David Lacey says...

Dead right Tom. Durham's attraction to tourists (who bring in massive amounts of income) is that it is an ancient city with a Cathedral and Castle that dominate the skyline. We don't need more housing and roads. There are plenty of other places such as Spennymoor, Peterlee and Newton Aycliffe where investment in business would be welcomed. The people of Durham do not want this ridiculous plan. Put it where it belongs - in the bin.
Dead right Tom. Durham's attraction to tourists (who bring in massive amounts of income) is that it is an ancient city with a Cathedral and Castle that dominate the skyline. We don't need more housing and roads. There are plenty of other places such as Spennymoor, Peterlee and Newton Aycliffe where investment in business would be welcomed. The people of Durham do not want this ridiculous plan. Put it where it belongs - in the bin. David Lacey

9:46am Fri 23 Nov 12

loonyleft says...

David ,what you have said goes against your capatilist principles doesn't it, what about employment, Durham is an employment blackspot you can't eat a nice view.One of the places you mentioned Spennymoor, people are complaining they don't want redevelopement there, with this attitude the industrial revolution would never have started!!!
David ,what you have said goes against your capatilist principles doesn't it, what about employment, Durham is an employment blackspot you can't eat a nice view.One of the places you mentioned Spennymoor, people are complaining they don't want redevelopement there, with this attitude the industrial revolution would never have started!!! loonyleft

12:19pm Fri 23 Nov 12

David Lacey says...

Nobody in Spennymoor is opposing the construction of new factories or business units. They are against building houses on former industrial sites. You must take care when reading the news.
.
It's CAPITALIST and REDEVELOPMENT by the way.
Nobody in Spennymoor is opposing the construction of new factories or business units. They are against building houses on former industrial sites. You must take care when reading the news. . It's CAPITALIST and REDEVELOPMENT by the way. David Lacey

12:31pm Fri 23 Nov 12

Birdyy says...

Minded to agree with you on this one loonyleft.

Attracting business and nurturing enterprise is lacking for a city with such a great university.

There is a lot of resistance with change from certain demographics. Taking risks is a good thing. The expectation is that any potential adverse impacts will be mitigate or eliminated through collaboration.

Lets welcome this
Minded to agree with you on this one loonyleft. Attracting business and nurturing enterprise is lacking for a city with such a great university. There is a lot of resistance with change from certain demographics. Taking risks is a good thing. The expectation is that any potential adverse impacts will be mitigate or eliminated through collaboration. Lets welcome this Birdyy

1:24pm Fri 23 Nov 12

loonyleft says...

you didn't answer my main point mr spellcheck, what's the point of attractive scenery(apart from the castle and cathedral it's not so special really),there is hardly any work in the city The area needs jobs,noted it's mainly elderly people like you ,tomtopper,and kirsty thomas,objecting to creation of jobs, something that is no concern to people like4 you anymore so step out of the way and let working age people have a life.
you didn't answer my main point mr spellcheck, what's the point of attractive scenery(apart from the castle and cathedral it's not so special really),there is hardly any work in the city The area needs jobs,noted it's mainly elderly people like you ,tomtopper,and kirsty thomas,objecting to creation of jobs, something that is no concern to people like4 you anymore so step out of the way and let working age people have a life. loonyleft

1:24pm Fri 23 Nov 12

loonyleft says...

you didn't answer my main point mr spellcheck, what's the point of attractive scenery(apart from the castle and cathedral it's not so special really),there is hardly any work in the city The area needs jobs,noted it's mainly elderly people like you ,tomtopper,and kirsty thomas,objecting to creation of jobs, something that is no concern to people like4 you anymore so step out of the way and let working age people have a life.
you didn't answer my main point mr spellcheck, what's the point of attractive scenery(apart from the castle and cathedral it's not so special really),there is hardly any work in the city The area needs jobs,noted it's mainly elderly people like you ,tomtopper,and kirsty thomas,objecting to creation of jobs, something that is no concern to people like4 you anymore so step out of the way and let working age people have a life. loonyleft

1:24pm Fri 23 Nov 12

loonyleft says...

you didn't answer my main point mr spellcheck, what's the point of attractive scenery(apart from the castle and cathedral it's not so special really),there is hardly any work in the city The area needs jobs,noted it's mainly elderly people like you ,tomtopper,and kirsty thomas,objecting to creation of jobs, something that is no concern to people like4 you anymore so step out of the way and let working age people have a life.
you didn't answer my main point mr spellcheck, what's the point of attractive scenery(apart from the castle and cathedral it's not so special really),there is hardly any work in the city The area needs jobs,noted it's mainly elderly people like you ,tomtopper,and kirsty thomas,objecting to creation of jobs, something that is no concern to people like4 you anymore so step out of the way and let working age people have a life. loonyleft

1:24pm Fri 23 Nov 12

loonyleft says...

you didn't answer my main point mr spellcheck, what's the point of attractive scenery(apart from the castle and cathedral it's not so special really),there is hardly any work in the city The area needs jobs,noted it's mainly elderly people like you ,tomtopper,and kirsty thomas,objecting to creation of jobs, something that is no concern to people like4 you anymore so step out of the way and let working age people have a life.
you didn't answer my main point mr spellcheck, what's the point of attractive scenery(apart from the castle and cathedral it's not so special really),there is hardly any work in the city The area needs jobs,noted it's mainly elderly people like you ,tomtopper,and kirsty thomas,objecting to creation of jobs, something that is no concern to people like4 you anymore so step out of the way and let working age people have a life. loonyleft

3:15pm Fri 23 Nov 12

David Lacey says...

Wow! Your hiccups are getting worse! I see you've avoided dealing with the point I made about Spennymoor - too embarrassed I presume - and I guess that the fact we retired people have children and grandchildren has also passed you by. Incidentally, how come you are able to patrol this site day and night? Are you retired as well?
Wow! Your hiccups are getting worse! I see you've avoided dealing with the point I made about Spennymoor - too embarrassed I presume - and I guess that the fact we retired people have children and grandchildren has also passed you by. Incidentally, how come you are able to patrol this site day and night? Are you retired as well? David Lacey

3:29pm Fri 23 Nov 12

loonyleft says...

you are still avoiding the point you are always on about people are unemployed being lazy,but at the same time you don't want any work and extra housing in durham. In Spennymoor the new housing w ill house the workers at the new development near Sedgefield,now will you please answer why we can't have jobs in Durham,or do you approve of people in Durham staying on the dole instead of being in gainful employment like you are always advocating.
you are still avoiding the point you are always on about people are unemployed being lazy,but at the same time you don't want any work and extra housing in durham. In Spennymoor the new housing w ill house the workers at the new development near Sedgefield,now will you please answer why we can't have jobs in Durham,or do you approve of people in Durham staying on the dole instead of being in gainful employment like you are always advocating. loonyleft

4:01pm Fri 23 Nov 12

loonyleft says...

David,do any of your children live near Durham,don't you want the best for them employment wise, a nice view can't help build peoples futures,and contrary to most right wingers beliefs all socialists want is to make a living from work instead of lying about on he dole.
David,do any of your children live near Durham,don't you want the best for them employment wise, a nice view can't help build peoples futures,and contrary to most right wingers beliefs all socialists want is to make a living from work instead of lying about on he dole. loonyleft

5:11pm Fri 23 Nov 12

David Lacey says...

Durham City doesn't need or want new build housing or new roads. This became absolutely clear at the recent consultation events which I attended. Were you there?
.
Thought not.
Durham City doesn't need or want new build housing or new roads. This became absolutely clear at the recent consultation events which I attended. Were you there? . Thought not. David Lacey

6:15pm Fri 23 Nov 12

loonyleft says...

David ,what you mean is selfish people like you do not want development,but the area needs jobs to be created,and you still wont answer me why can't Durham have new jobs which the would be local work force desperetly needs.At the consultation what was the average age of atendees well over 60 i would be willing to bet on,all to selfish to care about people looking for work.
David ,what you mean is selfish people like you do not want development,but the area needs jobs to be created,and you still wont answer me why can't Durham have new jobs which the would be local work force desperetly needs.At the consultation what was the average age of atendees well over 60 i would be willing to bet on,all to selfish to care about people looking for work. loonyleft

7:46pm Fri 23 Nov 12

tomtopper says...

loonyleft wrote:
David ,what you mean is selfish people like you do not want development,but the area needs jobs to be created,and you still wont answer me why can't Durham have new jobs which the would be local work force desperetly needs.At the consultation what was the average age of atendees well over 60 i would be willing to bet on,all to selfish to care about people looking for work.
There was a majority of working age people at the consultation i went to at Durham Johnston school and the town hall... Plus I still work too, by the way... Looks like you'd lose your bet...

And you really think this rape of the 'city' will solve the employment problems of the current residents? Are you forgetting about the 30'000 homes being built? Probably around an extra 70'000 plus people? Will these people be working in the new industries brought to Durham City? So much for the local people eh? Not that local residents would be employed anyway, as the calibre of business influx would require skill-specific people, most of whom would travel from all parts of the north east and beyond, or reside in the massive sprawl of housing intended for the fields adjacent to the new college..

You say a nice view won't bring employment? What do you think the planning officer is using as his defence for promoting aykley heads to potential businesses? Err.. the nice view (you'd know this if you attended the consultations)...

The thing is Durham, could be an economic powerhouse through world tourism if the city were developed in the right way... It's gifted with a structure that other tourist savvy cities worldwide would die for.. Sadly it's horribly wasted by the idiots at DCC... Now that is selfish
[quote][p][bold]loonyleft[/bold] wrote: David ,what you mean is selfish people like you do not want development,but the area needs jobs to be created,and you still wont answer me why can't Durham have new jobs which the would be local work force desperetly needs.At the consultation what was the average age of atendees well over 60 i would be willing to bet on,all to selfish to care about people looking for work.[/p][/quote]There was a majority of working age people at the consultation i went to at Durham Johnston school and the town hall... Plus I still work too, by the way... Looks like you'd lose your bet... And you really think this rape of the 'city' will solve the employment problems of the current residents? Are you forgetting about the 30'000 homes being built? Probably around an extra 70'000 plus people? Will these people be working in the new industries brought to Durham City? So much for the local people eh? Not that local residents would be employed anyway, as the calibre of business influx would require skill-specific people, most of whom would travel from all parts of the north east and beyond, or reside in the massive sprawl of housing intended for the fields adjacent to the new college.. You say a nice view won't bring employment? What do you think the planning officer is using as his defence for promoting aykley heads to potential businesses? Err.. the nice view (you'd know this if you attended the consultations)... The thing is Durham, could be an economic powerhouse through world tourism if the city were developed in the right way... It's gifted with a structure that other tourist savvy cities worldwide would die for.. Sadly it's horribly wasted by the idiots at DCC... Now that is selfish tomtopper

8:32pm Fri 23 Nov 12

loonyleft says...

Durham already gets a lot of tourists,what we need is proper jobs not seasonal work,and if as you say the view won't be spoilt then one reason to go ahead with the plan one thing is sure Durham is a terrible job blackspot,which won't be cured by tourism alone,especially in rotten weather like we had this year.Yes i know there will be a lot of houses built where were you when newton hall, and th other estates that have been built in the last fivety years went up? Durham needs a future not preserved as a museum,are you saying local people cannot compete with incoming workers,they will have to take their chance like everybody else,what we can't do is stand still and let the chance pass us by.
Durham already gets a lot of tourists,what we need is proper jobs not seasonal work,and if as you say the view won't be spoilt then one reason to go ahead with the plan one thing is sure Durham is a terrible job blackspot,which won't be cured by tourism alone,especially in rotten weather like we had this year.Yes i know there will be a lot of houses built where were you when newton hall, and th other estates that have been built in the last fivety years went up? Durham needs a future not preserved as a museum,are you saying local people cannot compete with incoming workers,they will have to take their chance like everybody else,what we can't do is stand still and let the chance pass us by. loonyleft

9:21am Sat 24 Nov 12

David Lacey says...

The County of Durham is in desperate need of jobs. Durham City is not.
The County of Durham is in desperate need of jobs. Durham City is not. David Lacey

10:30am Sat 24 Nov 12

loonyleft says...

David,you are wrong the city is an employment blachspot i've already told you that,you are the one that is always talking about people finding work,except it seems in Durham-typical nimby.
David,you are wrong the city is an employment blachspot i've already told you that,you are the one that is always talking about people finding work,except it seems in Durham-typical nimby. loonyleft

12:37pm Sat 24 Nov 12

David Lacey says...

I wish you had a clue. Durham City IS NOT AN UNEMPLOYMENT BLACKSPOT. (You said BLACHSPOT but I get your drift).
.
Read the plan - in respect of employment it says "Durham City performs significantly better than other areas of County Durham".
.
It is East Durham, Wear Valley and Sedgefield that need jobs, preferably in the manufacturing sector.
I wish you had a clue. Durham City IS NOT AN UNEMPLOYMENT BLACKSPOT. (You said BLACHSPOT but I get your drift). . Read the plan - in respect of employment it says "Durham City performs significantly better than other areas of County Durham". . It is East Durham, Wear Valley and Sedgefield that need jobs, preferably in the manufacturing sector. David Lacey

4:38pm Sat 24 Nov 12

loonyleft says...

why is there very few vacancies then,and it's always been the case not just during the current recession, and if they create jobs elsewere how does that help people in Durham,transport costs e.t.c.
why is there very few vacancies then,and it's always been the case not just during the current recession, and if they create jobs elsewere how does that help people in Durham,transport costs e.t.c. loonyleft

5:51pm Sat 24 Nov 12

Longbowman666 says...

As Tom Topper has aluded to, why is it that other cities have made a lot of their history (and a lot of money out of it) yet Durham has never ever seemed to look at doing this? For instance, take a look at York. The Jorvik centre is a world leading tourist attraction and draws in a lot of money with the tourists, and they have also capitalised on their Viking past.

Durham, by comparison has done very little. For what you can see and from the literature that is churned out, no-one would ever know that it was here, not 1 mile from the city itself, that a desperate and bloody battle was fought between the English and the Scots (Neville's Cross). All we have to show for it is the remains of the original cross erected just after the battle and a grotty, faded sign board! This city has a history spanning from the Anglo-Saxons as Dunholm to the inception of the University under Henry VIII and on into the English Civil War, yet what do we have to show for it -

Nothing! No events, no large museum - not even any mention of it apart from 'the land of the Prince bishop's) (but no explanation as to who or what they were)

DCC could make a lot more money for the city if they used some of this to their advantage, but they don't, and its a crying shame.
As Tom Topper has aluded to, why is it that other cities have made a lot of their history (and a lot of money out of it) yet Durham has never ever seemed to look at doing this? For instance, take a look at York. The Jorvik centre is a world leading tourist attraction and draws in a lot of money with the tourists, and they have also capitalised on their Viking past. Durham, by comparison has done very little. For what you can see and from the literature that is churned out, no-one would ever know that it was here, not 1 mile from the city itself, that a desperate and bloody battle was fought between the English and the Scots (Neville's Cross). All we have to show for it is the remains of the original cross erected just after the battle and a grotty, faded sign board! This city has a history spanning from the Anglo-Saxons as Dunholm to the inception of the University under Henry VIII and on into the English Civil War, yet what do we have to show for it - Nothing! No events, no large museum - not even any mention of it apart from 'the land of the Prince bishop's) (but no explanation as to who or what they were) DCC could make a lot more money for the city if they used some of this to their advantage, but they don't, and its a crying shame. Longbowman666

8:18pm Sat 24 Nov 12

loonyleft says...

longbowman, as i have said you need more than tourism to provide decent jobs, ask hotel workers and the like places like that think they are still in the middle ages with levels of pay to match!.Why are people objecting to more houses, newton hall and all the other estates built in the last fivety yrs were built on fields, the proposed sites are away from the peninula.Where the "hub" is proposed their used to be a coal mine imagine a hundred yrs or so every time somebody proposed creating some jobs, objections came flying in nobody would be working.
longbowman, as i have said you need more than tourism to provide decent jobs, ask hotel workers and the like places like that think they are still in the middle ages with levels of pay to match!.Why are people objecting to more houses, newton hall and all the other estates built in the last fivety yrs were built on fields, the proposed sites are away from the peninula.Where the "hub" is proposed their used to be a coal mine imagine a hundred yrs or so every time somebody proposed creating some jobs, objections came flying in nobody would be working. loonyleft

8:18pm Sat 24 Nov 12

loonyleft says...

longbowman, as i have said you need more than tourism to provide decent jobs, ask hotel workers and the like places like that think they are still in the middle ages with levels of pay to match!.Why are people objecting to more houses, newton hall and all the other estates built in the last fivety yrs were built on fields, the proposed sites are away from the peninula.Where the "hub" is proposed their used to be a coal mine imagine a hundred yrs or so every time somebody proposed creating some jobs, objections came flying in nobody would be working.
longbowman, as i have said you need more than tourism to provide decent jobs, ask hotel workers and the like places like that think they are still in the middle ages with levels of pay to match!.Why are people objecting to more houses, newton hall and all the other estates built in the last fivety yrs were built on fields, the proposed sites are away from the peninula.Where the "hub" is proposed their used to be a coal mine imagine a hundred yrs or so every time somebody proposed creating some jobs, objections came flying in nobody would be working. loonyleft

8:38pm Sat 24 Nov 12

David Lacey says...

Fivety years. A new low in your intelligence.
Fivety years. A new low in your intelligence. David Lacey

9:19pm Sat 24 Nov 12

Longbowman666 says...

And yet places such as York prosper...and with good profits for those who work in the industries connected to them. Oddly enough so does Liverpool (maritime Heritage), Leeds (Royal Armouries) and of course London (too numerous to mention). Isn't it strange that those places can make it work -even Newcastle manages it with the Keep and St Nichs Cathedral (Civil War). Not to put too fine a point on it, why can't we have a concentration on both the tourism and in attempting to build new 'hubs' for businesses? Surely the two can co-exist in the DCC strategy? Or are they so narrow minded that this can't happen...

As to why do people object to houses etc? - Oh yes let me see, perhaps because they are fed up with others such as the DCC who like to march into their communities and tell everyone what they are going to do, despite what the community might want. Ah, but, you will say, they will then 'consult' with the community - and in reply I will give theirs 'Yes, we consult, but we don't have to take any notice of what is said'. And so is born the 'Heart of the Community / City / farmyard or whatever last name they wish to give the title 'Heart of' to.

Why do people object? Because they don't want concrete jungles from horizon to horizon, with every village built up with rabbit hutch style dwellings. They do, belive it or not, want jobs etc, but not at the expense of losing all of the green space that they currently enjoy. Why do you think that Village green applications have gone up, just because those 'teribly wealthy' folks who've moved in don't want their views spoiled? No, sorry to tell you but they are ordinary people motivated because they are sick of an authoritarian Council who seem to think that they know what's good for everyone and then get left with egg on their face when it all goes wrong!

The current market place is the perfect example - why did it need to be altered? Because it was old fashioned and doing so would attract more businesses to the centre of Durham. No-body wanted it -but tough, 'We're the DCC, we know it will work'. the project was begun and caused chaos for the months it took, and the result? People being nearly killed as someone had the bright idea of having no traffic lights and no kerbs, and a Market Place that has no other new businesses in it? In fact if you care to walk down Silver street and into North Rd, you tell me how many shops have now gone. Attracting business?

The only 'business' that has been attracted is the business of lining corrupt Councillors pockets, and little else.
And yet places such as York prosper...and with good profits for those who work in the industries connected to them. Oddly enough so does Liverpool (maritime Heritage), Leeds (Royal Armouries) and of course London (too numerous to mention). Isn't it strange that those places can make it work -even Newcastle manages it with the Keep and St Nichs Cathedral (Civil War). Not to put too fine a point on it, why can't we have a concentration on both the tourism and in attempting to build new 'hubs' for businesses? Surely the two can co-exist in the DCC strategy? Or are they so narrow minded that this can't happen... As to why do people object to houses etc? - Oh yes let me see, perhaps because they are fed up with others such as the DCC who like to march into their communities and tell everyone what they are going to do, despite what the community might want. Ah, but, you will say, they will then 'consult' with the community - and in reply I will give theirs 'Yes, we consult, but we don't have to take any notice of what is said'. And so is born the 'Heart of the Community / City / farmyard or whatever last name they wish to give the title 'Heart of' to. Why do people object? Because they don't want concrete jungles from horizon to horizon, with every village built up with rabbit hutch style dwellings. They do, belive it or not, want jobs etc, but not at the expense of losing all of the green space that they currently enjoy. Why do you think that Village green applications have gone up, just because those 'teribly wealthy' folks who've moved in don't want their views spoiled? No, sorry to tell you but they are ordinary people motivated because they are sick of an authoritarian Council who seem to think that they know what's good for everyone and then get left with egg on their face when it all goes wrong! The current market place is the perfect example - why did it need to be altered? Because it was old fashioned and doing so would attract more businesses to the centre of Durham. No-body wanted it -but tough, 'We're the DCC, we know it will work'. the project was begun and caused chaos for the months it took, and the result? People being nearly killed as someone had the bright idea of having no traffic lights and no kerbs, and a Market Place that has no other new businesses in it? In fact if you care to walk down Silver street and into North Rd, you tell me how many shops have now gone. Attracting business? The only 'business' that has been attracted is the business of lining corrupt Councillors pockets, and little else. Longbowman666

11:02pm Sat 24 Nov 12

nocommonsense says...

ceddesfeld wrote:
It's not often I agree with the County Council, but on this one they have it dead right. Durham city is the jewel in the crown, sadly surrounded by zombie villages such as Ferryhill and Thornley where only the crazy would look to invest.
Places such as Ferryhill and Thornley have been blighted by poor decision making by local and national government for decades now. Firstly a complete lack of any plan for future employment after the closure of the durham coalfield, the population of the mining towns and villages was not just going to disappear they still need feeding. Secondly the small amount that was done to try to fill the employment vacuum, the industrial estates of Newton Aycliffe, Spennymoor and Peterlee were ruined by our governments complete lack of support for the manufacture and export of British goods.Thirdly a complete lack of interest in the north east from national government. take Ferryhill station as an example once one of Britains largest goods yards on the east coast mainline and a busy passenger station when it was closed no thought was given to the wider impact of this on the town and surrounding communities. Lastly a recent example of poor decision making that has cost the zombie village dearly Ferryhill station was bulldozed to make way for new housing that is not needed there are many empty properties in Ferryhill. Anyway to make way for this development the petrol station was bulldozed ,jobs lost, ashfields a firm that distributed safety goods was bulldozed. jobs lost Neecol a structural steel and engineering firm was bulldozed more precious jobs lost ,then the global financial crisis started and the development stopped and we have traded the small amount of local employment that was available for a vast swathe of waste land. If DCC really wanted to make a difference they would reopen the railway station improve job prospects by making industrial property cheaper many units are standing empty due to the crazy cost to small business of renting and improving public transport across the county .any town of over 10000 homes in the south east would have a rail link to london as we should to the major cities of the north east and beyond
[quote][p][bold]ceddesfeld[/bold] wrote: It's not often I agree with the County Council, but on this one they have it dead right. Durham city is the jewel in the crown, sadly surrounded by zombie villages such as Ferryhill and Thornley where only the crazy would look to invest.[/p][/quote]Places such as Ferryhill and Thornley have been blighted by poor decision making by local and national government for decades now. Firstly a complete lack of any plan for future employment after the closure of the durham coalfield, the population of the mining towns and villages was not just going to disappear they still need feeding. Secondly the small amount that was done to try to fill the employment vacuum, the industrial estates of Newton Aycliffe, Spennymoor and Peterlee were ruined by our governments complete lack of support for the manufacture and export of British goods.Thirdly a complete lack of interest in the north east from national government. take Ferryhill station as an example once one of Britains largest goods yards on the east coast mainline and a busy passenger station when it was closed no thought was given to the wider impact of this on the town and surrounding communities. Lastly a recent example of poor decision making that has cost the zombie village dearly Ferryhill station was bulldozed to make way for new housing that is not needed there are many empty properties in Ferryhill. Anyway to make way for this development the petrol station was bulldozed ,jobs lost, ashfields a firm that distributed safety goods was bulldozed. jobs lost Neecol a structural steel and engineering firm was bulldozed more precious jobs lost ,then the global financial crisis started and the development stopped and we have traded the small amount of local employment that was available for a vast swathe of waste land. If DCC really wanted to make a difference they would reopen the railway station improve job prospects by making industrial property cheaper many units are standing empty due to the crazy cost to small business of renting and improving public transport across the county .any town of over 10000 homes in the south east would have a rail link to london as we should to the major cities of the north east and beyond nocommonsense

12:37am Sun 25 Nov 12

tomtopper says...

Longbowman666 wrote:
And yet places such as York prosper...and with good profits for those who work in the industries connected to them. Oddly enough so does Liverpool (maritime Heritage), Leeds (Royal Armouries) and of course London (too numerous to mention). Isn't it strange that those places can make it work -even Newcastle manages it with the Keep and St Nichs Cathedral (Civil War). Not to put too fine a point on it, why can't we have a concentration on both the tourism and in attempting to build new 'hubs' for businesses? Surely the two can co-exist in the DCC strategy? Or are they so narrow minded that this can't happen...

As to why do people object to houses etc? - Oh yes let me see, perhaps because they are fed up with others such as the DCC who like to march into their communities and tell everyone what they are going to do, despite what the community might want. Ah, but, you will say, they will then 'consult' with the community - and in reply I will give theirs 'Yes, we consult, but we don't have to take any notice of what is said'. And so is born the 'Heart of the Community / City / farmyard or whatever last name they wish to give the title 'Heart of' to.

Why do people object? Because they don't want concrete jungles from horizon to horizon, with every village built up with rabbit hutch style dwellings. They do, belive it or not, want jobs etc, but not at the expense of losing all of the green space that they currently enjoy. Why do you think that Village green applications have gone up, just because those 'teribly wealthy' folks who've moved in don't want their views spoiled? No, sorry to tell you but they are ordinary people motivated because they are sick of an authoritarian Council who seem to think that they know what's good for everyone and then get left with egg on their face when it all goes wrong!

The current market place is the perfect example - why did it need to be altered? Because it was old fashioned and doing so would attract more businesses to the centre of Durham. No-body wanted it -but tough, 'We're the DCC, we know it will work'. the project was begun and caused chaos for the months it took, and the result? People being nearly killed as someone had the bright idea of having no traffic lights and no kerbs, and a Market Place that has no other new businesses in it? In fact if you care to walk down Silver street and into North Rd, you tell me how many shops have now gone. Attracting business?

The only 'business' that has been attracted is the business of lining corrupt Councillors pockets, and little else.
Here Here...Fantastic posts.. Right on the money..
[quote][p][bold]Longbowman666[/bold] wrote: And yet places such as York prosper...and with good profits for those who work in the industries connected to them. Oddly enough so does Liverpool (maritime Heritage), Leeds (Royal Armouries) and of course London (too numerous to mention). Isn't it strange that those places can make it work -even Newcastle manages it with the Keep and St Nichs Cathedral (Civil War). Not to put too fine a point on it, why can't we have a concentration on both the tourism and in attempting to build new 'hubs' for businesses? Surely the two can co-exist in the DCC strategy? Or are they so narrow minded that this can't happen... As to why do people object to houses etc? - Oh yes let me see, perhaps because they are fed up with others such as the DCC who like to march into their communities and tell everyone what they are going to do, despite what the community might want. Ah, but, you will say, they will then 'consult' with the community - and in reply I will give theirs 'Yes, we consult, but we don't have to take any notice of what is said'. And so is born the 'Heart of the Community / City / farmyard or whatever last name they wish to give the title 'Heart of' to. Why do people object? Because they don't want concrete jungles from horizon to horizon, with every village built up with rabbit hutch style dwellings. They do, belive it or not, want jobs etc, but not at the expense of losing all of the green space that they currently enjoy. Why do you think that Village green applications have gone up, just because those 'teribly wealthy' folks who've moved in don't want their views spoiled? No, sorry to tell you but they are ordinary people motivated because they are sick of an authoritarian Council who seem to think that they know what's good for everyone and then get left with egg on their face when it all goes wrong! The current market place is the perfect example - why did it need to be altered? Because it was old fashioned and doing so would attract more businesses to the centre of Durham. No-body wanted it -but tough, 'We're the DCC, we know it will work'. the project was begun and caused chaos for the months it took, and the result? People being nearly killed as someone had the bright idea of having no traffic lights and no kerbs, and a Market Place that has no other new businesses in it? In fact if you care to walk down Silver street and into North Rd, you tell me how many shops have now gone. Attracting business? The only 'business' that has been attracted is the business of lining corrupt Councillors pockets, and little else.[/p][/quote]Here Here...Fantastic posts.. Right on the money.. tomtopper

10:30am Sun 25 Nov 12

David Lacey says...

Two fantastic letters that expose the utter stupidity of other offerings posted above by a certain loopy person.
Two fantastic letters that expose the utter stupidity of other offerings posted above by a certain loopy person. David Lacey

10:35am Sun 25 Nov 12

loonyleft says...

longbowman you said no one wanted the market place altered actually it waqs six thousand,i was asked to sign the petition,i said no knock down the statue instead,the person with the petition said a lot of people had said the same as i,six thousand out of a hundred thousand is not a majority. The Durham plan does not propose building all over the area, i'll say it again Durham city needs jobs,tourism does not provide stable ,decently paid work.
longbowman you said no one wanted the market place altered actually it waqs six thousand,i was asked to sign the petition,i said no knock down the statue instead,the person with the petition said a lot of people had said the same as i,six thousand out of a hundred thousand is not a majority. The Durham plan does not propose building all over the area, i'll say it again Durham city needs jobs,tourism does not provide stable ,decently paid work. loonyleft

12:13pm Sun 25 Nov 12

Longbowman666 says...

But did it bring any more jobs, businesses etc? No. So the point of the exercise was what exactly? And as a point of fact, none of the businesses around the area in question wanted it and all suffered with its effects, some actually losing trade as a result. They warned DCC of this, and of course got taken no notice of. I mean, what could they possibly know?

As for jobs etc Durham is in exactly the same position as most other places - recession hits hard and those firms that are vulnerable go under. No, tourism is never going to provide the full answer, but it would a whole lot better than nothing at all and at least would help bring an influx of money to the city. This in turn might help attract some business to the area - better that than a street full of nothing but empty shops.

Nice of DCC to take notice of your petition about the statue, wasn't it? Like the lights, and the kerbs etc...but they did carry out the 'consultation', didn't they...?
But did it bring any more jobs, businesses etc? No. So the point of the exercise was what exactly? And as a point of fact, none of the businesses around the area in question wanted it and all suffered with its effects, some actually losing trade as a result. They warned DCC of this, and of course got taken no notice of. I mean, what could they possibly know? As for jobs etc Durham is in exactly the same position as most other places - recession hits hard and those firms that are vulnerable go under. No, tourism is never going to provide the full answer, but it would a whole lot better than nothing at all and at least would help bring an influx of money to the city. This in turn might help attract some business to the area - better that than a street full of nothing but empty shops. Nice of DCC to take notice of your petition about the statue, wasn't it? Like the lights, and the kerbs etc...but they did carry out the 'consultation', didn't they...? Longbowman666

6:20pm Sun 25 Nov 12

loonyleft says...

longbowman.first you said the market revamp lost trade for people, lets have some detail please, then you said it's the recessions fault,which is it .You are wrong blaming the recession,Durham has never been a good area for employment, thats what the Durham plan is about !, but a lot of people on here don't want change for their sake ,even at the expence of generations of young people being forced to leave the area like they have been forced to do in the past.The Durham plan is trying to reverse this trend,but no people who already have a good life,don't care about Durham only their own wants and needs and their own comforts.
longbowman.first you said the market revamp lost trade for people, lets have some detail please, then you said it's the recessions fault,which is it .You are wrong blaming the recession,Durham has never been a good area for employment, thats what the Durham plan is about !, but a lot of people on here don't want change for their sake ,even at the expence of generations of young people being forced to leave the area like they have been forced to do in the past.The Durham plan is trying to reverse this trend,but no people who already have a good life,don't care about Durham only their own wants and needs and their own comforts. loonyleft

8:15pm Sun 25 Nov 12

Longbowman666 says...

Fine - I shall do so. Firstly, businesses were forced to close for several days at a time whilst electrical work for the market place was carried out - this then equates to a loss of trade, as they were either not able to open for the full day or had to close entirely. The market place works dragged on longer than was expected (and at extra cost), and so the local trade suffered, not just in terms of the electrical work, but also of the noise and general disruption caused by the work.

Secondly, I then progressed to say that the recession has caused problems for all places, not just in Durham but all over the country. True, Durham has not been the best place for jobs, but then a lot of other areas will also say the same thing, especially you will find in the areas which traditionally relied upon heavy manufacturing industries or upon one source for its jobs (hence the need for young people to look elsewhere for opportunities when this source is gone) I could also further bring into the debate that the high street is also vulnerable not just to the two issues mentioned, but also to shopping trends in general such as online shopping and the movement to out of town shopping complexes / superstores.

Like most things in life it’s rarely one single thing to blame for anything, it’s a conjunction of many that make the whole.

Now, to the Masterplan. You state that those who are in opposition appear to be doing so because they either fear change or don’t want it, and that they are people who already ‘have a good life’ and basically don’t care about others as long as they get what they want. A little simplistic, isn’t it? Some perhaps do fear change, but equally there are many other perfectly ordinary folks who aren’t particularly well off or comfortable etc who are concerned at what they see as the DCC once again wanting to ride roughshod over everyone who thinks they might be wrong and taking no other views into account. The article mentions several groups and individuals who have such concerns – are they all wrong? Are they all self-seeking and care nothing for those around them?

Or are they perhaps those who think a little more, plan a little more, and see things from another perspective, a one that DCC doesn’t like and therefore declares to be wrong because their ideas challenge their plan with other facts that should be taken into account and other ways to do things other than DCC’s own?

Just as those who told them the Market Place project was flawed...and proved to be correct...but DCC didn’t listen to them either. And with their current history, this looks to be no different.

I just wonder what this will be the ‘Heart of’ this time...?
Fine - I shall do so. Firstly, businesses were forced to close for several days at a time whilst electrical work for the market place was carried out - this then equates to a loss of trade, as they were either not able to open for the full day or had to close entirely. The market place works dragged on longer than was expected (and at extra cost), and so the local trade suffered, not just in terms of the electrical work, but also of the noise and general disruption caused by the work. Secondly, I then progressed to say that the recession has caused problems for all places, not just in Durham but all over the country. True, Durham has not been the best place for jobs, but then a lot of other areas will also say the same thing, especially you will find in the areas which traditionally relied upon heavy manufacturing industries or upon one source for its jobs (hence the need for young people to look elsewhere for opportunities when this source is gone) I could also further bring into the debate that the high street is also vulnerable not just to the two issues mentioned, but also to shopping trends in general such as online shopping and the movement to out of town shopping complexes / superstores. Like most things in life it’s rarely one single thing to blame for anything, it’s a conjunction of many that make the whole. Now, to the Masterplan. You state that those who are in opposition appear to be doing so because they either fear change or don’t want it, and that they are people who already ‘have a good life’ and basically don’t care about others as long as they get what they want. A little simplistic, isn’t it? Some perhaps do fear change, but equally there are many other perfectly ordinary folks who aren’t particularly well off or comfortable etc who are concerned at what they see as the DCC once again wanting to ride roughshod over everyone who thinks they might be wrong and taking no other views into account. The article mentions several groups and individuals who have such concerns – are they all wrong? Are they all self-seeking and care nothing for those around them? Or are they perhaps those who think a little more, plan a little more, and see things from another perspective, a one that DCC doesn’t like and therefore declares to be wrong because their ideas challenge their plan with other facts that should be taken into account and other ways to do things other than DCC’s own? Just as those who told them the Market Place project was flawed...and proved to be correct...but DCC didn’t listen to them either. And with their current history, this looks to be no different. I just wonder what this will be the ‘Heart of’ this time...? Longbowman666

9:39am Mon 26 Nov 12

David Lacey says...

Thanks Longbowman. A useful contribution. Sadly you and I are banging our heads against a thick brick wall. Here we have a person who is happy for people to have their say - unless they say the wrong thing. I suggest that he/she is quite happy to support Rotherham Council. It would be nice to know.
Thanks Longbowman. A useful contribution. Sadly you and I are banging our heads against a thick brick wall. Here we have a person who is happy for people to have their say - unless they say the wrong thing. I suggest that he/she is quite happy to support Rotherham Council. It would be nice to know. David Lacey

11:01am Mon 26 Nov 12

loonyleft says...

Thanks David now you know how it feels ,because you always refuse to accept any bodys view even when you know you are wrong,Longbowman,ple
ase supply details of how much shops lost when the workmen were in the market place ,because i never had any problem shopping,there were walkways into every shop so what was the problem,they did thereselves a disservice telling the papers when there wasn't one.You said it was simplistic to say people oppose change because they don't want it simplistic but true ,the city of Durham oppose nearly every development,except monstosities like dunelm house,which i will never understand.As i've said before Durham increased in size a lot in the sixties and seventies,did it destroy Durham-no it's just some people can't cope withchange and they don't care if that obstructs other peoples future.
Thanks David now you know how it feels ,because you always refuse to accept any bodys view even when you know you are wrong,Longbowman,ple ase supply details of how much shops lost when the workmen were in the market place ,because i never had any problem shopping,there were walkways into every shop so what was the problem,they did thereselves a disservice telling the papers when there wasn't one.You said it was simplistic to say people oppose change because they don't want it simplistic but true ,the city of Durham oppose nearly every development,except monstosities like dunelm house,which i will never understand.As i've said before Durham increased in size a lot in the sixties and seventies,did it destroy Durham-no it's just some people can't cope withchange and they don't care if that obstructs other peoples future. loonyleft

11:01am Mon 26 Nov 12

loonyleft says...

Thanks David now you know how it feels ,because you always refuse to accept any bodys view even when you know you are wrong,Longbowman,ple
ase supply details of how much shops lost when the workmen were in the market place ,because i never had any problem shopping,there were walkways into every shop so what was the problem,they did thereselves a disservice telling the papers when there wasn't one.You said it was simplistic to say people oppose change because they don't want it simplistic but true ,the city of Durham oppose nearly every development,except monstosities like dunelm house,which i will never understand.As i've said before Durham increased in size a lot in the sixties and seventies,did it destroy Durham-no it's just some people can't cope withchange and they don't care if that obstructs other peoples future.
Thanks David now you know how it feels ,because you always refuse to accept any bodys view even when you know you are wrong,Longbowman,ple ase supply details of how much shops lost when the workmen were in the market place ,because i never had any problem shopping,there were walkways into every shop so what was the problem,they did thereselves a disservice telling the papers when there wasn't one.You said it was simplistic to say people oppose change because they don't want it simplistic but true ,the city of Durham oppose nearly every development,except monstosities like dunelm house,which i will never understand.As i've said before Durham increased in size a lot in the sixties and seventies,did it destroy Durham-no it's just some people can't cope withchange and they don't care if that obstructs other peoples future. loonyleft

11:44am Mon 26 Nov 12

Longbowman666 says...

Ah, so WH Smith etc 'did themselves a dis-service' did they? Okay, so you go and tell them that, as it seems that someone like you cannot ever entertain the fact that they might be wrong or even slightly in error. You obviously know better than them, so go ahead, knock yourself out if that's what rings you're bell.

No, I don't have the specific details of profit and loss of every company / firm in durham Market place - but from your very statement you know that the shops had a lot of problems and did indeed say that at the time, so therefore it follows that they would have seen a loss in trade / profit because of it. Simple logic...

The council elections are coming round, I suggest you stand as a candidate, as you'd be in very good company with them. They don't listen either, believe everyone else is wrong and that no-one else could possibly hold any other kind of answers but them.

And as for any more detail. I have told you as much as is required and my answers stand to both argument /debate and to the laws of common sense...but like DCC, you are long on words and opinion, short on detail and reality.

The council job's looking good, isn't it?
Ah, so WH Smith etc 'did themselves a dis-service' did they? Okay, so you go and tell them that, as it seems that someone like you cannot ever entertain the fact that they might be wrong or even slightly in error. You obviously know better than them, so go ahead, knock yourself out if that's what rings you're bell. No, I don't have the specific details of profit and loss of every company / firm in durham Market place - but from your very statement you know that the shops had a lot of problems and did indeed say that at the time, so therefore it follows that they would have seen a loss in trade / profit because of it. Simple logic... The council elections are coming round, I suggest you stand as a candidate, as you'd be in very good company with them. They don't listen either, believe everyone else is wrong and that no-one else could possibly hold any other kind of answers but them. And as for any more detail. I have told you as much as is required and my answers stand to both argument /debate and to the laws of common sense...but like DCC, you are long on words and opinion, short on detail and reality. The council job's looking good, isn't it? Longbowman666

5:52pm Mon 26 Nov 12

loonyleft says...

longbowman,Why would i need to stand for the council,they already do what i want ,l.o.l. As for the consultations about council plans,yes it's staring to click with people like you at last,my friends in the know at the council told me they are to keep non labour voters like you and David happy ,then you go away thinking people are taking notice of you but it's just to keep you quiet ha ha,why do you think i don't bother going ,your all very slow are you not-yes you are.
longbowman,Why would i need to stand for the council,they already do what i want ,l.o.l. As for the consultations about council plans,yes it's staring to click with people like you at last,my friends in the know at the council told me they are to keep non labour voters like you and David happy ,then you go away thinking people are taking notice of you but it's just to keep you quiet ha ha,why do you think i don't bother going ,your all very slow are you not-yes you are. loonyleft

5:52pm Mon 26 Nov 12

loonyleft says...

longbowman,Why would i need to stand for the council,they already do what i want ,l.o.l. As for the consultations about council plans,yes it's staring to click with people like you at last,my friends in the know at the council told me they are to keep non labour voters like you and David happy ,then you go away thinking people are taking notice of you but it's just to keep you quiet ha ha,why do you think i don't bother going ,your all very slow are you not-yes you are.
longbowman,Why would i need to stand for the council,they already do what i want ,l.o.l. As for the consultations about council plans,yes it's staring to click with people like you at last,my friends in the know at the council told me they are to keep non labour voters like you and David happy ,then you go away thinking people are taking notice of you but it's just to keep you quiet ha ha,why do you think i don't bother going ,your all very slow are you not-yes you are. loonyleft

5:52pm Mon 26 Nov 12

loonyleft says...

longbowman,Why would i need to stand for the council,they already do what i want ,l.o.l. As for the consultations about council plans,yes it's staring to click with people like you at last,my friends in the know at the council told me they are to keep non labour voters like you and David happy ,then you go away thinking people are taking notice of you but it's just to keep you quiet ha ha,why do you think i don't bother going ,your all very slow are you not-yes you are.
longbowman,Why would i need to stand for the council,they already do what i want ,l.o.l. As for the consultations about council plans,yes it's staring to click with people like you at last,my friends in the know at the council told me they are to keep non labour voters like you and David happy ,then you go away thinking people are taking notice of you but it's just to keep you quiet ha ha,why do you think i don't bother going ,your all very slow are you not-yes you are. loonyleft

7:37pm Mon 26 Nov 12

Longbowman666 says...

Now I'm curious - why exactly do you post the same thing three times in a row? Seems to be an issue with you as you do it in most of the threads you've been on - bizarre, but well, that's your hang-up not mine.

Now, I direct you to your rather odd ramblings (it reads a little bit like Smeagol from Lord of the Rings), but I will attempt to make some semblance of order from it. I believe that what you are attempting to say is that you have the ear of the council, and that these consultations are of course just exercises to keep people like me happy (this being correct and actually from DCC itself, as I told you previously) and that this is why (at least from what I can make out of the gibbering words I see before me) you do not need to bother going to any meetings etc and that we are all very slow in the uptake of this? (I mean, after all, someone like me would never really work out that the real decisions are taken well before they ever meet the public gaze, either in cabinet or council chamber, would they?)

My reading of this is that you are attempting in a very childish way to be sarcastically funny and to put me down? Correct? Good. (Either that, or you do really believe the stuff you’re saying and in that case they do have medication for this) However, we shall take the first option and now that we have established these facts then I shall proceed.

You have not even attempted to enter a debate upon the issues, which from the reading of the above I’m not surprised at, given the lack of intelligence (nay, wit) that you have demonstrated to all and sundry. You instead wish to sneer from the sidelines and mock. I mean, after all, I am merely a ‘non-labour voter’ – (although how it is that you deduce what my political preferences are is beyond me, or is that another hangup of yours when the word common sense comes out to play and someone opposes your rather meagre and narrow viewpoint upon the world?), and of course, as you say, no-one would ever take notice of what people like me say, least of all those in such lofty circles as the DCC?

Odd that! – Because they did.

You see, this village and its residents proved beyond doubt that when people of all political persuasions pull together in the face of something they believe to be patently unfair and plain wrong then even the monolith that is DCC can be stopped in its tracks.

THEY wanted to take our village green, take OUR school and rip it out from where it was, despite what the villagers wanted. And why? Oh yes – because they knew better than us, because it was the ‘Heart of the Community’ and we had no right to question it. But we did question, we did fight, we did go to every council and cabinet meeting – and we won. The new school was built where we, the villagers wanted it, the play area likewise, and now the Green is a designated Village Green with all the protection that this gives.

But then, no-one would ever take notice of us, would they…?
Now I'm curious - why exactly do you post the same thing three times in a row? Seems to be an issue with you as you do it in most of the threads you've been on - bizarre, but well, that's your hang-up not mine. Now, I direct you to your rather odd ramblings (it reads a little bit like Smeagol from Lord of the Rings), but I will attempt to make some semblance of order from it. I believe that what you are attempting to say is that you have the ear of the council, and that these consultations are of course just exercises to keep people like me happy (this being correct and actually from DCC itself, as I told you previously) and that this is why (at least from what I can make out of the gibbering words I see before me) you do not need to bother going to any meetings etc and that we are all very slow in the uptake of this? (I mean, after all, someone like me would never really work out that the real decisions are taken well before they ever meet the public gaze, either in cabinet or council chamber, would they?) My reading of this is that you are attempting in a very childish way to be sarcastically funny and to put me down? Correct? Good. (Either that, or you do really believe the stuff you’re saying and in that case they do have medication for this) However, we shall take the first option and now that we have established these facts then I shall proceed. You have not even attempted to enter a debate upon the issues, which from the reading of the above I’m not surprised at, given the lack of intelligence (nay, wit) that you have demonstrated to all and sundry. You instead wish to sneer from the sidelines and mock. I mean, after all, I am merely a ‘non-labour voter’ – (although how it is that you deduce what my political preferences are is beyond me, or is that another hangup of yours when the word common sense comes out to play and someone opposes your rather meagre and narrow viewpoint upon the world?), and of course, as you say, no-one would ever take notice of what people like me say, least of all those in such lofty circles as the DCC? Odd that! – Because they did. You see, this village and its residents proved beyond doubt that when people of all political persuasions pull together in the face of something they believe to be patently unfair and plain wrong then even the monolith that is DCC can be stopped in its tracks. THEY wanted to take our village green, take OUR school and rip it out from where it was, despite what the villagers wanted. And why? Oh yes – because they knew better than us, because it was the ‘Heart of the Community’ and we had no right to question it. But we did question, we did fight, we did go to every council and cabinet meeting – and we won. The new school was built where we, the villagers wanted it, the play area likewise, and now the Green is a designated Village Green with all the protection that this gives. But then, no-one would ever take notice of us, would they…? Longbowman666

8:16pm Mon 26 Nov 12

tomtopper says...

Longbowman666 wrote:
Ah, so WH Smith etc 'did themselves a dis-service' did they? Okay, so you go and tell them that, as it seems that someone like you cannot ever entertain the fact that they might be wrong or even slightly in error. You obviously know better than them, so go ahead, knock yourself out if that's what rings you're bell.

No, I don't have the specific details of profit and loss of every company / firm in durham Market place - but from your very statement you know that the shops had a lot of problems and did indeed say that at the time, so therefore it follows that they would have seen a loss in trade / profit because of it. Simple logic...

The council elections are coming round, I suggest you stand as a candidate, as you'd be in very good company with them. They don't listen either, believe everyone else is wrong and that no-one else could possibly hold any other kind of answers but them.

And as for any more detail. I have told you as much as is required and my answers stand to both argument /debate and to the laws of common sense...but like DCC, you are long on words and opinion, short on detail and reality.

The council job's looking good, isn't it?
This is what I call the rain on loonyleft's sugar pedestal... Complete verbal assassination... Brilliant stuff..
[quote][p][bold]Longbowman666[/bold] wrote: Ah, so WH Smith etc 'did themselves a dis-service' did they? Okay, so you go and tell them that, as it seems that someone like you cannot ever entertain the fact that they might be wrong or even slightly in error. You obviously know better than them, so go ahead, knock yourself out if that's what rings you're bell. No, I don't have the specific details of profit and loss of every company / firm in durham Market place - but from your very statement you know that the shops had a lot of problems and did indeed say that at the time, so therefore it follows that they would have seen a loss in trade / profit because of it. Simple logic... The council elections are coming round, I suggest you stand as a candidate, as you'd be in very good company with them. They don't listen either, believe everyone else is wrong and that no-one else could possibly hold any other kind of answers but them. And as for any more detail. I have told you as much as is required and my answers stand to both argument /debate and to the laws of common sense...but like DCC, you are long on words and opinion, short on detail and reality. The council job's looking good, isn't it?[/p][/quote]This is what I call the rain on loonyleft's sugar pedestal... Complete verbal assassination... Brilliant stuff.. tomtopper

8:19pm Mon 26 Nov 12

loonyleft says...

unbelieveable , you suggesting i was avoiding the subject ,i.e. the Durham plan i was trying to discuss the subject ,it was you wittering on about the work in the market place , any inconvienience caused to the shop keepers was unavoidable ,but the end result was well worth it, the area is much more attractive now,it would be even better if they got rid of Londonderrys statue.I'll say it one more time,theplan will be good for Durham,i'm glad you got your village green,now they just need a village idiot,hope you pass the audition.
unbelieveable , you suggesting i was avoiding the subject ,i.e. the Durham plan i was trying to discuss the subject ,it was you wittering on about the work in the market place , any inconvienience caused to the shop keepers was unavoidable ,but the end result was well worth it, the area is much more attractive now,it would be even better if they got rid of Londonderrys statue.I'll say it one more time,theplan will be good for Durham,i'm glad you got your village green,now they just need a village idiot,hope you pass the audition. loonyleft

8:52pm Mon 26 Nov 12

Longbowman666 says...

Ooh, the hurt! The Pain! I reel from your stinging barbs...

And the point about the market place - is it an improvement? Debatable, when even the local (labour) MP called it an 'accident waiting to happen' when it was unveiled to its 'adoring' public and when even the traffic lights had to be brought back because of the dangerous conditions that had been created?

And has it succeeded in its premise to bring more business? No, it hasn't.

So it failed then, didn't it?

Oh, yes, and I'll be sure to let you know when we hold the auditions, as I'm sure we can let such an admirable candidate as yourself win the day - 'twould be criminal to waste such a 'loony' talent as yours - you'd most certainly beat us all, hands down.
Ooh, the hurt! The Pain! I reel from your stinging barbs... And the point about the market place - is it an improvement? Debatable, when even the local (labour) MP called it an 'accident waiting to happen' when it was unveiled to its 'adoring' public and when even the traffic lights had to be brought back because of the dangerous conditions that had been created? And has it succeeded in its premise to bring more business? No, it hasn't. So it failed then, didn't it? Oh, yes, and I'll be sure to let you know when we hold the auditions, as I'm sure we can let such an admirable candidate as yourself win the day - 'twould be criminal to waste such a 'loony' talent as yours - you'd most certainly beat us all, hands down. Longbowman666

11:07pm Mon 26 Nov 12

loonyleft says...

yes it has brought in more business, it's a much better space for markets and the like ,and you are still avoiding the main point about the durham plan,o and it's your village your green, your job son!!!!!
yes it has brought in more business, it's a much better space for markets and the like ,and you are still avoiding the main point about the durham plan,o and it's your village your green, your job son!!!!! loonyleft

12:23am Tue 27 Nov 12

Longbowman666 says...

You are making no sense - there have been no new firms setting up shop in durham Market place, no new influx of new money, no economic 'boom' for the area -so no, it has not done what it was set out to do. As for the market area there has always been enough space for such things, so that argument is of little consequence.

As for the Durham plan I have already given you enough to work with, that you are blind enough to simply 'believe' that this wonderful all powerful plan is going to come and save you, then by all means carry on with your delusion. Others more august than me are giving the warning signs and only a blind fool will ignore all advice and believe that he alone holds the single answer - just as DCC ignored folks over the Market and those folks proved to be right, and just as they will no doubt do again - only its your money they are using so enjoy watching them waste it, after of course first 'consulting' and then ignoring you.

And then who will be the idiot I wonder?
You are making no sense - there have been no new firms setting up shop in durham Market place, no new influx of new money, no economic 'boom' for the area -so no, it has not done what it was set out to do. As for the market area there has always been enough space for such things, so that argument is of little consequence. As for the Durham plan I have already given you enough to work with, that you are blind enough to simply 'believe' that this wonderful all powerful plan is going to come and save you, then by all means carry on with your delusion. Others more august than me are giving the warning signs and only a blind fool will ignore all advice and believe that he alone holds the single answer - just as DCC ignored folks over the Market and those folks proved to be right, and just as they will no doubt do again - only its your money they are using so enjoy watching them waste it, after of course first 'consulting' and then ignoring you. And then who will be the idiot I wonder? Longbowman666

9:01am Tue 27 Nov 12

loonyleft says...

the durham plan is a step in the right direction ,it's not the be all and end all, they did not ignore everybody over the market place,i've said before 6 thousand is not a majority, many more were for but they weren't regestered on there opinion.As for making sense where is the sense in being complacent ,and happy that Durham is a dead end as far as employment goes and people are forced to leave to find work,that is either idiotic or just plain callous.
the durham plan is a step in the right direction ,it's not the be all and end all, they did not ignore everybody over the market place,i've said before 6 thousand is not a majority, many more were for but they weren't regestered on there opinion.As for making sense where is the sense in being complacent ,and happy that Durham is a dead end as far as employment goes and people are forced to leave to find work,that is either idiotic or just plain callous. loonyleft

9:55am Tue 27 Nov 12

David Lacey says...

Tom, Longbowman and others who are literate and sensible. Please give up. It is pointless arguing with this person. He/she patrols this site 24/7 and adds gibberish in copious quantities to any thread that hints at criticism of anything to do with Labour. Anything.
.
A couple of days ago he/she tried to vilify a person who used the term "wringing hands". He/she didn't know what it means! You can't win when your opponent's education stopped at nursery level. Let's agree collectively to simple ignore him/her.
.
Even the well educated left leaners like COG, Victor and ajtib are seemingly deeply embarrassed. Says it all.
Tom, Longbowman and others who are literate and sensible. Please give up. It is pointless arguing with this person. He/she patrols this site 24/7 and adds gibberish in copious quantities to any thread that hints at criticism of anything to do with Labour. Anything. . A couple of days ago he/she tried to vilify a person who used the term "wringing hands". He/she didn't know what it means! You can't win when your opponent's education stopped at nursery level. Let's agree collectively to simple ignore him/her. . Even the well educated left leaners like COG, Victor and ajtib are seemingly deeply embarrassed. Says it all. David Lacey

10:18am Tue 27 Nov 12

Adam Walker says...

I think we should allow more immigrants into Co. Durham. This will help the jobless problem as it has in many other areas around the country. And we will have the pleasure learning about other cultures and we will feel suitably enriched to boot. Its a win win.
I think we should allow more immigrants into Co. Durham. This will help the jobless problem as it has in many other areas around the country. And we will have the pleasure learning about other cultures and we will feel suitably enriched to boot. Its a win win. Adam Walker

12:04pm Tue 27 Nov 12

David Lacey says...

Is that BNP policy? I didn't think it was.
.
It certainly isn't UKIP policy!
Is that BNP policy? I didn't think it was. . It certainly isn't UKIP policy! David Lacey

1:48pm Tue 27 Nov 12

loonyleft says...

thats right David belittle someone who won't agree with you,is that your version of democracy,what is gibberish of agree with a project the council propose,just because you don't like that.Will it keep you happy if i agree with every thing you say,you tell your "intelligent"friends not to engage with me do you class them that way because they have the same opinions as you,do you class being intelligent opposing anything that might help people have a better life,i call that ignorance.
thats right David belittle someone who won't agree with you,is that your version of democracy,what is gibberish of agree with a project the council propose,just because you don't like that.Will it keep you happy if i agree with every thing you say,you tell your "intelligent"friends not to engage with me do you class them that way because they have the same opinions as you,do you class being intelligent opposing anything that might help people have a better life,i call that ignorance. loonyleft

1:51pm Tue 27 Nov 12

loonyleft says...

no David ,ukip policy is racism,and opposing gay marriage,not very "intelligent".
no David ,ukip policy is racism,and opposing gay marriage,not very "intelligent". loonyleft

1:51pm Tue 27 Nov 12

IanfromCrook says...

DCC Dim Controlling Centralists. Lets solve the unemployment problem by spending inordinate amounts of money expanding a thimble. Durham City should be the hub, the jewel. Other towns need the work though that would only work through improved transport.
From the town that Durham forgot..........Croo
k
They don't even want us to have a decent supermarket privately financed so not much chance of listening to public opinion on other matters.
DCC Dim Controlling Centralists. Lets solve the unemployment problem by spending inordinate amounts of money expanding a thimble. Durham City should be the hub, the jewel. Other towns need the work though that would only work through improved transport. From the town that Durham forgot..........Croo k They don't even want us to have a decent supermarket privately financed so not much chance of listening to public opinion on other matters. IanfromCrook

1:56pm Tue 27 Nov 12

loonyleft says...

good idea Adam,flood Durham with immigrants,confuse ukip,the the bnp comes along and saves the day!!!
good idea Adam,flood Durham with immigrants,confuse ukip,the the bnp comes along and saves the day!!! loonyleft

8:43pm Tue 27 Nov 12

David Lacey says...

God help and save us from this nutter.
God help and save us from this nutter. David Lacey

9:22pm Tue 27 Nov 12

Longbowman666 says...

You seem to have some very good points Ian. Durham City should indeed be the jewel in the crown, but if the rest of the crown is nothing but a tarnished lump of metal then what good is the jewel?

These problems didn't come about overnight, and they won't take overnight to fix either. Simply concentrating on one city in the whole county and then crossing your fingers and hoping you got it right is not going to help, not when many others are warning you that there are parts of your plan that are potentially damaging, not just to the environment, but also to the future of the very 'sustainable communities' that the DCC are suposedly attempting to secure.

Not long ago another council had a 'plan' they thought would bring prosperity and jobs to their area, despite many warnings to the contrary. They too refused to listen...and have now paid the price.

The council was Great Yarmouth, the project was the new outer harbour. The council thought that they could provide new and modern facilities to capture the container ship trade, a move that would secure employment and boost the local economy. So far so good. Roads were widened (at the cost of much disruption to both traffic and businesses) and the harbour built, with some bright and shiny new cranes to boot.

And then they waited...and nothing happened. The much anticipated trade never came, just as those who'd opposed the move had said it wouldn't, in part because of the remoteness of the location but also because Yarmouth could never hope to compete with the infrastructure that surrounds places like Tilbury.

So the result of the expensive work was failure - no new boom delivered, no new prosperity. Even the cranes ended up being sold off, never having even unloaded so much as one container.

And here we have another plan - 'better than nothing' we are told, 'a step in the right direction'

Forgetting of course, that a direction is only a good step when it is 'well advised' - a thing that this 'plan' most assuredly is not.
You seem to have some very good points Ian. Durham City should indeed be the jewel in the crown, but if the rest of the crown is nothing but a tarnished lump of metal then what good is the jewel? These problems didn't come about overnight, and they won't take overnight to fix either. Simply concentrating on one city in the whole county and then crossing your fingers and hoping you got it right is not going to help, not when many others are warning you that there are parts of your plan that are potentially damaging, not just to the environment, but also to the future of the very 'sustainable communities' that the DCC are suposedly attempting to secure. Not long ago another council had a 'plan' they thought would bring prosperity and jobs to their area, despite many warnings to the contrary. They too refused to listen...and have now paid the price. The council was Great Yarmouth, the project was the new outer harbour. The council thought that they could provide new and modern facilities to capture the container ship trade, a move that would secure employment and boost the local economy. So far so good. Roads were widened (at the cost of much disruption to both traffic and businesses) and the harbour built, with some bright and shiny new cranes to boot. And then they waited...and nothing happened. The much anticipated trade never came, just as those who'd opposed the move had said it wouldn't, in part because of the remoteness of the location but also because Yarmouth could never hope to compete with the infrastructure that surrounds places like Tilbury. So the result of the expensive work was failure - no new boom delivered, no new prosperity. Even the cranes ended up being sold off, never having even unloaded so much as one container. And here we have another plan - 'better than nothing' we are told, 'a step in the right direction' Forgetting of course, that a direction is only a good step when it is 'well advised' - a thing that this 'plan' most assuredly is not. Longbowman666

9:28pm Tue 27 Nov 12

Roger_Cornwell says...

Here's the text of a letter I emailed in on behalf of the City of Durham Trust this afternoon: it may or may not appear in Friday's paper:

Sir, -Stuart Timmiss is quoted in last week's paper as saying "I hope anyone reading the plan will see significant proposals that ensure the future prosperity and sustainability of all the settlements across the county with focus on all of our main towns." Well, I've lost count of the hours my colleagues and I from the City of Durham Trust spent studying the latest version of the County Durham Plan and the thousands of pages of background papers. We found nothing that justifies the use of such an unequivocal word as "ensure".

We invite readers to check out the City of Durham Trust's submission on our website at www.durhamcity.org. There you will see that we agree with the underlying aim of improving the well-being of people who live in the County by improving the economy of the County. But a Plan that says "If we build, it they will come" is one best left to fantasy films. It’s fine to be aspirational, but not to have over-aspirational and consequently undeliverable objectives. We are in favour of growth in Durham City, but a realistic growth that does not encroach onto the Green Belt.

The County Durham Plan proposes an extra 30,000 homes in the County by 2030, and would put 3,875 of these on Green Belt sites around Durham City. The Government's planning rules say that all alternatives must be explored before taking sites out of the Green Belt. But the background papers show that there are 10,110 empty houses in County Durham, and we also discovered as a result of a Freedom of Information request that the Council has a list of sites, none of them in the Green Belt, with room for 39,172 dwellings. That totals nearly 50,000 and while some may not be ideally situated there is surely plenty of scope here without giving up the Green Belt.

Our submission was built on our experience of seventy years championing the environment of the City of Durham. We were invited and active participants at the official Examinations in Public that tested the previous Strategic and Local Plans, and count the existing Durham Green Belt as one of our major successes. We achieved that through overwhelming public support and convincing arguments. It is a pity that, in the absence of a Town Council to speak out for the people of Durham, it is left to the Trust to make the case for the City. We believe that our case this time not only has convincing arguments, it will also meet with overwhelming public support.

Roger Cornwell
Chairman, the City of Durham Trust
Here's the text of a letter I emailed in on behalf of the City of Durham Trust this afternoon: it may or may not appear in Friday's paper: Sir, -Stuart Timmiss is quoted in last week's paper as saying "I hope anyone reading the [County Durham] plan will see significant proposals that ensure the future prosperity and sustainability of all the settlements across the county with focus on all of our main towns." Well, I've lost count of the hours my colleagues and I from the City of Durham Trust spent studying the latest version of the County Durham Plan and the thousands of pages of background papers. We found nothing that justifies the use of such an unequivocal word as "ensure". We invite readers to check out the City of Durham Trust's submission on our website at www.durhamcity.org. There you will see that we agree with the underlying aim of improving the well-being of people who live in the County by improving the economy of the County. But a Plan that says "If we build, it they will come" is one best left to fantasy films. It’s fine to be aspirational, but not to have over-aspirational and consequently undeliverable objectives. We are in favour of growth in Durham City, but a realistic growth that does not encroach onto the Green Belt. The County Durham Plan proposes an extra 30,000 homes in the County by 2030, and would put 3,875 of these on Green Belt sites around Durham City. The Government's planning rules say that all alternatives must be explored before taking sites out of the Green Belt. But the background papers show that there are 10,110 empty houses in County Durham, and we also discovered as a result of a Freedom of Information request that the Council has a list of sites, none of them in the Green Belt, with room for 39,172 dwellings. That totals nearly 50,000 and while some may not be ideally situated there is surely plenty of scope here without giving up the Green Belt. Our submission was built on our experience of seventy years championing the environment of the City of Durham. We were invited and active participants at the official Examinations in Public that tested the previous Strategic and Local Plans, and count the existing Durham Green Belt as one of our major successes. We achieved that through overwhelming public support and convincing arguments. It is a pity that, in the absence of a Town Council to speak out for the people of Durham, it is left to the Trust to make the case for the City. We believe that our case this time not only has convincing arguments, it will also meet with overwhelming public support. Roger Cornwell Chairman, the City of Durham Trust Roger_Cornwell

12:01am Wed 28 Nov 12

Longbowman666 says...

Agree 100% - objectives have to be not just aspirational, but deliverable in a balanced and sustainable way, so that communities are given the best possible chances for their future

As you say, 'Build it and they shall come' is best left to films - its been tried before and each time failed.
Agree 100% - objectives have to be not just aspirational, but deliverable in a balanced and sustainable way, so that communities are given the best possible chances for their future As you say, 'Build it and they shall come' is best left to films - its been tried before and each time failed. Longbowman666

9:37am Wed 28 Nov 12

David Lacey says...

Wonderful stuff. Perhaps a certain person will read and learn.
Wonderful stuff. Perhaps a certain person will read and learn. David Lacey

10:49am Wed 28 Nov 12

loonyleft says...

yes David, listen to me and you might learn somethink, instead of listening to right wing nutters like Farrage!!!
yes David, listen to me and you might learn somethink, instead of listening to right wing nutters like Farrage!!! loonyleft

10:49am Wed 28 Nov 12

loonyleft says...

yes David, listen to me and you might learn somethink, instead of listening to right wing nutters like Farrage!!!
yes David, listen to me and you might learn somethink, instead of listening to right wing nutters like Farrage!!! loonyleft

10:56am Wed 28 Nov 12

loonyleft says...

Roger Cornwell,i'd like to hear your thoughts about attracting work(excluding tourism) to the city of Durham, the city is very short on jobs so i think it's unviable suggesting developing other towns for people who do not have the means to travel right across the county,so lets hear your thoughts please.
Roger Cornwell,i'd like to hear your thoughts about attracting work(excluding tourism) to the city of Durham, the city is very short on jobs so i think it's unviable suggesting developing other towns for people who do not have the means to travel right across the county,so lets hear your thoughts please. loonyleft

1:28pm Wed 28 Nov 12

Height of Sanity says...

With the problems of flooding that have increased in recent years the idea of encroaching onto green belt is ridiculous. Yes there will be some sustainable drainage built into new developments but they wont be as effective as green belt for controlling surface runoff. Flooding problems can only be worsened by developing on green belt.
With the problems of flooding that have increased in recent years the idea of encroaching onto green belt is ridiculous. Yes there will be some sustainable drainage built into new developments but they wont be as effective as green belt for controlling surface runoff. Flooding problems can only be worsened by developing on green belt. Height of Sanity

1:54pm Wed 28 Nov 12

loonyleft says...

who mentioned building on flood plains?
who mentioned building on flood plains? loonyleft

2:17pm Wed 28 Nov 12

Height of Sanity says...

Not me I mentioned green belt land???
Not me I mentioned green belt land??? Height of Sanity

2:30pm Wed 28 Nov 12

Roger_Cornwell says...

Hi loonyleft. Thanks for debating these important issues. I wish the County Council would respond instead of ignoring us and hoping we would go away.

You say that the city is very short on jobs. In fact it is better than the national average. If you go to http://content.durha
m.gov.uk/PDFReposito
ry/Unemployment_Shee
t_October_2012.pdf (on the County Council website) you will see the latest unemployment figures. For the Durham AAP area 2.4% of the working-age population are on Job Seekers Allowance, the County average is 4.9% and the national average is 3.8%. For Bishop Auckland and Shildon it is nearly three times higher than Durham at 7.1%. Four more AAP areas have more than 6% on JSA. So as you are concerned about people having to travel long distances to work, can I assume you are in favour of encouraging new employers into the more deprived areas of the County, which is what the Trust is advocating?

The detail of what the Trust is proposing is on our website at http://durhamcity.or
g/cdp/ which has links to our responses.
Hi loonyleft. Thanks for debating these important issues. I wish the County Council would respond instead of ignoring us and hoping we would go away. You say that the city is very short on jobs. In fact it is better than the national average. If you go to http://content.durha m.gov.uk/PDFReposito ry/Unemployment_Shee t_October_2012.pdf (on the County Council website) you will see the latest unemployment figures. For the Durham AAP area 2.4% of the working-age population are on Job Seekers Allowance, the County average is 4.9% and the national average is 3.8%. For Bishop Auckland and Shildon it is nearly three times higher than Durham at 7.1%. Four more AAP areas have more than 6% on JSA. So as you are concerned about people having to travel long distances to work, can I assume you are in favour of encouraging new employers into the more deprived areas of the County, which is what the Trust is advocating? The detail of what the Trust is proposing is on our website at http://durhamcity.or g/cdp/ which has links to our responses. Roger_Cornwell

2:38pm Wed 28 Nov 12

Roger_Cornwell says...

PS The Durham Times website splits links to other websites across lines to discourage spammers. These links may work better:
The unemployment statistics: bit.ly/V2AcNT
The City of Durham Trust proposals: durhamcity.org/cdp/
PS The Durham Times website splits links to other websites across lines to discourage spammers. These links may work better: The unemployment statistics: bit.ly/V2AcNT The City of Durham Trust proposals: durhamcity.org/cdp/ Roger_Cornwell

2:58pm Wed 28 Nov 12

David Lacey says...

Roger, our erstwhile friend Loopy has made up his mind that Durham City is in greater need of jobs than East Durham, Newton Aycliffe, Spennymoor, Wear Valley, Chester-le-Street and Teesdale. The figures of course show exactly the opposite. Durham City is quite well off compared with the rest. But as night follows day, he will return to the site and dispute your analysis.
.
I find your information extremely useful and interesting and thank you for providing the links.
Roger, our erstwhile friend Loopy has made up his mind that Durham City is in greater need of jobs than East Durham, Newton Aycliffe, Spennymoor, Wear Valley, Chester-le-Street and Teesdale. The figures of course show exactly the opposite. Durham City is quite well off compared with the rest. But as night follows day, he will return to the site and dispute your analysis. . I find your information extremely useful and interesting and thank you for providing the links. David Lacey

3:57pm Wed 28 Nov 12

loonyleft says...

David i never said other areas of the c ounty should not get help with jobs, not having looked at the links Roger suggested yet, going by job web sites there are very few vacancies in the city ,and it's been that way for many years.As i said to Roger, with the costs of travel being what they are,new jobs on the other end of the county does not help people in Durham.
David i never said other areas of the c ounty should not get help with jobs, not having looked at the links Roger suggested yet, going by job web sites there are very few vacancies in the city ,and it's been that way for many years.As i said to Roger, with the costs of travel being what they are,new jobs on the other end of the county does not help people in Durham. loonyleft

4:44pm Wed 28 Nov 12

David Lacey says...

I despair!
I despair! David Lacey

5:15pm Wed 28 Nov 12

loonyleft says...

David give in, you want Durham to stay the way it is,fine but some people want a future, it doesn't really matter what you think,i never said Durham was in greater need for jobs, but it will help if the city is expanded, the more employment oportunities the better,that must be a good thing you enjoy your retirement because it's no concern for you anyway.
David give in, you want Durham to stay the way it is,fine but some people want a future, it doesn't really matter what you think,i never said Durham was in greater need for jobs, but it will help if the city is expanded, the more employment oportunities the better,that must be a good thing you enjoy your retirement because it's no concern for you anyway. loonyleft

7:19pm Wed 28 Nov 12

David Lacey says...

OMG!!!
OMG!!! David Lacey

8:39pm Wed 28 Nov 12

Longbowman666 says...

Why is it that people like you Loony Left seem to believe so blindly that they alone have the answer to things? Have you never grown up to see beyond what you see, that real change comes as a result not just of one person’s or group’s belief but from taking into consideration all of the factors that impinge upon the final decision?

Mr Cornwell’s answer was succinct and well thought out, likewise his arguments. He too may not hold all of the answers, but the group he represents has valid and arguable points that will require more than just trite answers. They will require discussion and reflection along with all of the other points that are made by other groups / individuals.

Yes, Durham needs jobs, but likewise you cannot simply take pieces of land away, expand a city, build your business ‘hubs’ and parks, houses etc on them and expect the world to come to you. The days when jobs were on your doorstep are long gone now, for the world is a bigger place, a global marketplace, meaning that young people are needing both the skills, the education and the willingness to travel to accomplish their aspirations. You accuse others as being shackled to the past but perhaps you should instead turn the mirror upon yourself. Do you believe that you have a monopoly on concern? That no-one else is bothered as to whether or not their kids / grandkids will have prospects and a stable future? Of course we do. But some of us have seen plans for this and plans for that come and go, have seen money wasted left right and centre on schemes that we were all promised would bring the ‘new tomorrow’, but never did. I gave you an example of one such ‘plan’ above.

Why do they fail? Not because of opposition, but simply because they were never thought out properly, took only one direction into account and failed to see the bigger picture of the global economy that we now, for better or worse, live in.

A few contributers have mentioned the problems of travel in the County for instance. Why should this be such an insurmountable problem? Why is it that DCC and others cannot look at this, find new ways to encourage and motivate travel companies and employers alike to seek new ways to help enable employees to travel from one place to another? Pie in the Sky? Or a possible idea for a solution?

But of course the will to do this must be there, and the realisation that others also might hold parts of the equation that make the whole.

Not something that so far DCC has been noted as being good at doing.
Why is it that people like you Loony Left seem to believe so blindly that they alone have the answer to things? Have you never grown up to see beyond what you see, that real change comes as a result not just of one person’s or group’s belief but from taking into consideration all of the factors that impinge upon the final decision? Mr Cornwell’s answer was succinct and well thought out, likewise his arguments. He too may not hold all of the answers, but the group he represents has valid and arguable points that will require more than just trite answers. They will require discussion and reflection along with all of the other points that are made by other groups / individuals. Yes, Durham needs jobs, but likewise you cannot simply take pieces of land away, expand a city, build your business ‘hubs’ and parks, houses etc on them and expect the world to come to you. The days when jobs were on your doorstep are long gone now, for the world is a bigger place, a global marketplace, meaning that young people are needing both the skills, the education and the willingness to travel to accomplish their aspirations. You accuse others as being shackled to the past but perhaps you should instead turn the mirror upon yourself. Do you believe that you have a monopoly on concern? That no-one else is bothered as to whether or not their kids / grandkids will have prospects and a stable future? Of course we do. But some of us have seen plans for this and plans for that come and go, have seen money wasted left right and centre on schemes that we were all promised would bring the ‘new tomorrow’, but never did. I gave you an example of one such ‘plan’ above. Why do they fail? Not because of opposition, but simply because they were never thought out properly, took only one direction into account and failed to see the bigger picture of the global economy that we now, for better or worse, live in. A few contributers have mentioned the problems of travel in the County for instance. Why should this be such an insurmountable problem? Why is it that DCC and others cannot look at this, find new ways to encourage and motivate travel companies and employers alike to seek new ways to help enable employees to travel from one place to another? Pie in the Sky? Or a possible idea for a solution? But of course the will to do this must be there, and the realisation that others also might hold parts of the equation that make the whole. Not something that so far DCC has been noted as being good at doing. Longbowman666

9:12pm Wed 28 Nov 12

loonyleft says...

Longbowman ,i agree with your point about travel costs, unless the job you get the chance of is well paid,the cost of getting to your place of enployment takes a big chunk out of your earning.What is needed is more co ordination with transport companies to overcome this problem. The Durham plan may or may not help Durham,but if it is not surely business,the council and others should be working together to find the answer.
Longbowman ,i agree with your point about travel costs, unless the job you get the chance of is well paid,the cost of getting to your place of enployment takes a big chunk out of your earning.What is needed is more co ordination with transport companies to overcome this problem. The Durham plan may or may not help Durham,but if it is not surely business,the council and others should be working together to find the answer. loonyleft

9:53pm Wed 28 Nov 12

Longbowman666 says...

And on that I think all of us would agree.
And on that I think all of us would agree. Longbowman666

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree