On the eve of the biggest council shake-up in a generation, Local Government Minister John Healey said: “The acid test will be whether these councils deliver their promises including better services, leadership and achieving more for less.” Seven months after the unitary Durham County Council came into being, we continue our series taking an in-depth look at whether the council is passing that test. Local Government Correspondent Mark Tallentire reports.

EVERYBODY knows somebody who has fallen out with their local council over a planning application.

Be it a garage conversion, conservatory in the back garden or porch out front, get the planning wrong and Labour-run Durham County Council could infuriate a lot of voters.

But officials are keen to stress that planning is about a lot more than approving or refusing applications.

Stuart Timmiss, the council’s head of planning, believes it is “the key” to economic regeneration in the county.

Certainly, a number of major schemes with potential to change County Durham for years to come are currently on the table.

David Abrahams’ £1bn Durham Green Business Park, Dalkia’s £40m combined heat and power plant for Chilton and Durham University’s £48m Gateway scheme spring to mind.

Councillor Neil Foster, the council’s cabinet member for economic regeneration, wants the county’s Gross Value Added brought up to the regional – and eventually the national – average.

Ian Thompson, director of economic regeneration, says the message must be: Durham is open for business.

However, the planning system introduced on April 1 is coming under increasing fire, with Councillor Nigel Martin, leader of the Liberal Democrat opposition, claiming that it is losing the confidence of the public.

Critics of the system say: ● More decisions are being taken by unelected officials; ● Planning committees lack local knowledge; ● Councillors are scared to go against officers’ recommendations; ● Holding meetings during working hours and out of the area affected excludes residents from attending and voicing their opinions.

Last month, Lib Dem councillor Carol Woods, who represents Sherburn, near Durham, voted on an application for Delves Lane, near Consett, at a meeting held in Chester-le-Street.

She said: “I don’t have any link with the local communities in, for example, Chester-le-Street, to have any idea of what’s going on on the ground.

“I don’t really understand the dynamics of the communities, as I would with the area I represent.”

Under the former county and district council setup, each district had its own local planning committee. A countywide committee was largely concerned with only minerals and waste issues.

Now there are three “area”

planning committees, for: the former Durham City and Easington districts, Derwentside and Chester-le- Street, and Teesdale, Wear Valley and Sedgefield, with major applications handled by a strengthened county-wide panel.

Each area committee has a mix of councillors from within the former district areas involved and elsewhere in the county.

Coun Martin said: “Councillors take into account their local knowledge. When I don’t have local knowledge, it’s very difficult for me to say to council officers: ‘I think you’ve got this wrong’.

“The public in my area are certainly saying that they do not have as much confidence in the planning system as they did in the past, because it seems more remote, less accessible and they feel that members that don’t know first-hand what the issues are in the local area are taking the decisions.”

However, Coun Foster defended the setup, saying: ● Controversial applications will always go before councillors; ● Planning committees must combine local expertise and consistency of decisions across the county; ● Councillors are being given better, more focused information and learn about applications through site visits; ● Meetings must be held at times to suit public transport arrangements.

He also insisted that if an issue was of particular importance, people “will be there” and feels confidence will come with time.

Mr Timmiss said whether objectors write to the committee or appear in person should not matter, claiming “passion doesn’t come into planning”.

However, a review of the planning system is under way and should be completed within two months.

Officials will be hoping this will resolve any criticism, allowing focus to switch to the County Durham Plan, a key planning blueprint which will set priorities for investment and regeneration until 2026.

Consultation on the Plan has begun, with strategic options set to be published early in the new year and the final draft agreed by March 2011.

The task facing officers is huge – bringing together the heavyweight Local Development Frameworks of eight now-defunct county and district councils into one countywide vision.

But Mr Timmiss said: “A single vision for somewhere like County Durham is a real appeal. We’re a big player in the region now. We need to punch our weight on that level.

“Between the districts and the county there was always a bit of a struggle. The County Durham Plan takes us out of the Conference and puts us in the Premier League of planning.”

It’s a big claim – and the consultation got off to something of a false start when it emerged a photograph in the document showed two park-and-ride buses parked in disabled bays. Red-faced, the council quickly removed the image from the online version.

But County Durham is leading the country on schemes such as the Total Place pilot; and hopes are high the council can be a stronger voice for the county, provide developers with a unified vision and attract and supply officers of high quality and experience.

Perhaps the real challenge the council faces is that it must treat with equal sincerity and care both the big picture of the county economy and the parochial dispute of the pitched-roof extension plan.

To continue Mr Timmiss’ football analogy, his authority must attack and defend simultaneously. And whether it is pushing for promotion or fighting off relegation, it will be defined by its record at both ends of the pitch.