Planners in Durham are facing a 20-year challenge to recreate a city which is worth of World Heritage Status. They acknowledge it will be a huge task but say the city has no alternative if it is to thrive as a regional centre. Majorie McIntyre looks at the task ahead.

WITH its narrow cobbled streets, winding their way up to Palace Green and the breathtaking cathedral protected on three sides by the River Wear, hundreds of feet below, Durham City can trace its roots back a 1,000 years.

The Benedictine monks who built the Cathedral as a monumental shrine for the body of St Cuthbert, were responsible for one of the most impressive construction projects ever undertaken.

The panoramic view of the cathedral, and the castle that once protected it, has been described as one of the finest architectural experiences in Europe. Together, they are designated a World Heritage Site.

But while the cathedral and castle remain undisputed gems in Durham's crown, other parts of the city are facing less favourable scrutiny.

Either by accident or design, Britain's other historic cities such as York and Bath seem to a have escaped the architectural horrors of the 1960s and 1970s.

But in Durham, planners allowed developments such as the National Savings Building, with its stark prefabricated panels dominating one of the city's prime riverside sites.

Later, the university was given permission to build an Arts Block in New Elvet, with nothing but a stark windowless brick faade taking up much of an other-wise attractive streetscape.

Both buildings remain hated by townsfolk and visitors alike - permanent blots on the landscape.

Now, developers have set themselves a 20-year deadline to upgrade the region's foremost city to a standard befitting its World Heritage Site status.

A steering group, comprising representatives of Durham City and Durham County Councils, One Northeast, the University of Durham and the Dean and Chapter, in conjunction with a specialist consultancy, set about drawing up a blueprint.

A key part of the research was a survey in which more than 30 residents, drawn from all walks of life, were asked to study the city in detail.

The residents and the expert steering group came to the same general conclusion, that the city was "beautiful but boring", prompting the decision that change must take place.

A spokesman said: "We have been content to rest on the laurels of the cathedral and castle for too long."

A report resulting from the exercise concluded that it was impossible for Durham to compete commercially with larger cities, such as Newcastle and Sunderland, but it urged planners to concentrate on redefining the city's medieval past, while aiming to meet modern expectations.

The recommendations and visions have been outlined, but their implementation is likely to throw up many hurdles along the way.

Durham University's dean of colleges and professor of geography, Tim Burt, said that in an ideal world they would like to pull down the Arts block in New Elvet.

"But the practicalities are that, unless we can secure the money to build a new facility, we are not in a position to replace it in the short term," he said.

Commenting on the recommendation that the castle should become an integral part of the tourist experience, Professor Burt reminded the steering group that the building was used by the university as a working college.

And while the university intended extending its tourism potential by creating a visitor centre, he said the castle would remain an important part of the collegiate system.

He said the university was working closely with the city council on the construction of a college and an extension to the Ustinov college, at a cost of £35m.

In conjunction with the Dean and Chapter, the university was also looking at a raft of measures, such as providing points of interest boards in the city and restoring the riverbank walks all the way around the peninsular by cutting back overhanging trees.

Urging more park and ride systems and more frequent bus services, Prof Burt said: "Ideally, we would like to see traffic kept out of the city and for the whole centre to become more pedestrian friendly."

As far as the future was concerned, he cautioned against having unreasonable expectations.

An even more cautionary note came from Professor Douglas Pocock, of the City of Durham Trust, an organisation that holds the fabric of Durham near to its heart and whose representatives were not invited to be part of the steering group.

The omission was described by Prof Pocock as unfortunate, and he reminded the group that the trust's own Visions of Durham, drawn up in the 1980s, when the city was threatened by development from all sides, would have been particularly germane to its research.

While accepting the report's findings on retailing as realistic in recognising that the topography of the city centre limits expansion, Prof Pocock said the section on proposed leisure and tourism measures gave cause for concern.

He singled out the "proposed exploitation" of the Riverbanks for criticism.

"The report is underlain with inconsistencies and, while it asserts it is not seeking a 'Disneyfied service culture', it proposes many elements akin to such a theme park.

"The most glaring inconsistency concerns the question of size. The vision is allegedly of a city that is better, not bigger - but the strategy would undoubtedly promote growth.''

Prof Pocock denied the frequently-made criticism that the trust wanted to preserve the city as a museum.

He said: "Whatever the motive or vision, we are all sojourners or stewards and have no right to erode the essential quality of Durhamness."

The vision foreseen for Durham will no doubt bring its critics and many will be asking the straightforward question of why not as an initial step get rid of unpopular and inappropriate buildings such as the National Savings and now Passport Office, the Arts Block, the former ice rink and, what appears to be growing in unpopularity, the new Gala Theatre at the bottom of Claypath.