The Economy and Enterprise Overview and Scrutiny Committee of Durham County Council met on Thursday 10 September 2026 to discuss the council's five-year housing land supply, an overview of place plans, and the regeneration, economy, and growth revenue and capital outturn for the 2025/26 financial year. The committee noted that the council currently has a housing land supply of 3.92 years, discussed the implications of this shortfall for planning decisions, and reviewed the progress and financial performance of regeneration and economic development initiatives.

Five-Year Housing Land Supply Position Statement

The committee received an update on the council's Five-Year Housing Land Supply Position Statement as at 1 April 2026. Principal Policy Officer, T Bennett, presented the findings, explaining that the annual housing requirement for County Durham had increased from 1,308 to 2,036 dwellings per annum following the fifth anniversary of the County Durham Plan. This increase, rather than a decline in housing delivery, had led to the council's assessed housing land supply falling from 6.14 years in April 2025 to 3.92 years in April 2026.

The council requires a deliverable supply of 10,689 dwellings for the period 1 April 2026 to 31 March 2031, including a 5% buffer. However, the assessment identified a deliverable supply of only 8,375 dwellings, resulting in a shortfall of 2,314 dwellings. While 12,564 homes had planning permission as of 1 April 2026, only 8,375 were expected to be delivered within the five-year period, as planning permission does not automatically guarantee deliverability. The committee was informed that large strategic sites can take considerable time to commence and build out, and a portfolio of smaller, deliverable sites offers a more resilient five-year supply. The upcoming new County Durham Plan will provide an opportunity to address the size, distribution, and deliverability of future housing allocations, with the 2026 National Planning Policy Framework¹ requiring local plans to include at least 20% of allocations on small and medium-sized sites.

During the discussion, Councillor J Campbell raised concerns about the potential for the 5% buffer to be increased and whether it was being monitored. The Principal Policy Officer confirmed the buffer was stable until March 2027 and that the government's methodology for calculating housing need had shifted from population projections to a multiplier based on existing housing stock and affordability factors. Councillor C Foote-Wood enquired about the council's enforcement powers to compel developers to build once planning permission was granted, particularly before it lapsed. The Principal Policy Officer explained that while planning permissions now typically last three years, the council was seeking to implement practices such as requesting evidence of developer interest in outline schemes and reducing the time for submitting reserved matters. He also clarified that while a material start could prevent a permission from lapsing indefinitely, councils could take enforcement action if work ceased after a substantial commencement.

Councillor J Campbell also questioned the discrepancy between the three-year planning permission implementation period and the five-year deliverability target. The Principal Policy Officer explained that the five-year period was a rolling requirement to demonstrate sufficient housing capable of being delivered, distinct from the implementation period for a specific permission. He detailed the mechanisms used to assess deliverability, including monitoring databases and proactive engagement with applicants and developers.

Councillor J Teasdale asked about the consideration of derelict buildings and the utilisation of brownfield sites. The Principal Policy Officer confirmed that the redevelopment of existing buildings and brownfield sites was examined, with the new County Durham Plan aiming to reduce the use of greenfield sites. However, viability, contamination, location, and marketability were key factors in allocating brownfield sites.

Councillor E Scott expressed concern about the implications of smaller housing developments on infrastructure, such as health and education provision, and the cost to the council if developments were deemed undeliverable. The Principal Policy Officer stated that all developments, regardless of size, undergo planning permission processes that include consultation with internal and external consultees, including education authorities. He added that larger schemes often provided significant contributions through Section 106 agreements² to support infrastructure.

Councillor B Moist raised concerns about the Council House Delivery Programme and the lack of response to previous questions. He also questioned the council's action plan to improve housing delivery and the adequacy of resources. He highlighted public concern regarding brownfield sites in Chester-le-Street due to insufficient infrastructure and asked if infrastructure was assessed when allocating brownfield sites. He also enquired about enforcing building on granted planning permissions and whether the council needed to improve its performance to meet new targets. The Principal Policy Officer agreed to follow up on the outstanding questions regarding the Council House Delivery Programme and explained that the council was reacting to changes in local housing need figures and preparing a new County Durham Plan to address the shortfall. He assured the committee that infrastructure interventions would be considered and potentially funded by developers.

Councillor B Moist also asked if local members would still be consulted on site approvals, to which the Principal Policy Officer confirmed they would be involved in the consultation process. Councillor J Campbell echoed concerns about limited land and increasing targets, fearing that unsuitable sites might be developed, and highlighted resident concerns about housing in rural areas with insufficient infrastructure.

Councillor L Taylor inquired about sanctions for local authorities failing to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. The Principal Policy Officer offered to circulate information on the Housing Delivery Test results and the interventions required for defaulting authorities, noting that Durham County Council had not previously needed to prepare an action plan. Councillor L Taylor expressed concern about the significant increase in housing delivery targets.

Councillor J Cook posed a series of questions regarding the impact of the housing land supply deficit on the preparation of the new County Durham Plan, potential approvals, the risk of the position worsening with further NPPF changes, and the pressure on officers. He also questioned how the council would integrate input from the North East Mayoral Strategic Authority³ into its plan and the implications for residents. The Principal Policy Officer explained that the new NPPF allowed for a 10-year plan, reducing the number of homes that needed to be identified. He also noted the proposed grant of call in powers to the Mayor of the North East Mayoral Strategic Authority for developments over 100 units, which could shift decision-making away from local communities. He clarified that while the absence of a five-year supply would be a material consideration favouring housing supply, it would not override other factors such as landscape, heritage, environmental, and social infrastructure impacts. He also stated that Neighbourhood Plans not meeting housing needs would struggle under the new NPPF.

Councillor S Bowron asked about the number of homes currently under construction and tenanted. The Principal Policy Officer explained that most built homes were for the open market, with a percentage of affordable housing managed through registered providers or discounted market sales. He confirmed that new developments were required to provide between 10% and 25% affordable housing, with a shift towards social rented housing being a predominant component.

Councillor S Bowron also queried whether the council could manage affordable housing on sites directly, rather than through registered providers. The Principal Policy Officer stated this would be a consideration for the Council House Delivery Programme.

Councillor L Taylor asked if bringing empty homes back into use would help meet targets. The Principal Policy Officer responded that empty properties were counted once they were brought back into use and that this would not necessarily reduce the number of new homes the council needed to build.

Councillor R Bell expressed concern about the government favouring developers and the council being left to judge the deliverability of sites. He reiterated the issue of empty properties and the distinction between them and brownfield sites. The Principal Policy Officer acknowledged that the council measured against factors outside its control and that a fairer test would be the number of consents granted. He also mentioned a dedicated team focused on bringing empty properties back into use.

Councillor L Penders shared her frustration about new housing developments in her village without adequate infrastructure, the demolition of properties that could have been regenerated, and the difficulty in attracting developers to brownfield sites surrounded by former colliery housing. She highlighted the lack of amenities such as doctor's appointments and school places, and the potential for development to encroach on the countryside. The Principal Policy Officer stated that the new NPPF had to be adhered to and that it strengthened the council's position with national development management policies.

The committee resolved to note the contents of the Five-Year Housing Land Supply Position Statement, that County Durham had an identified housing land supply equivalent to 3.92 years as at 1 April 2026, the reasons for the reduction in housing land supply, the implications of the assessment for planning decision making, and the measures being pursued by the Council to support housing delivery and improve future housing land supply.

Overview of Place Plans

G Wood, Economic Development Manager, presented an overview of County Durham's place-based planning framework, including Pride in Place Plans (PiPP), Strategic Place Plans (SPP), and Local Network Area Plans (LNAP). He explained that these plans aimed to provide a 10-year vision and investment plan for towns and cities, with LNAPs focusing on neighbourhood priorities over four years. The approach is based on co-design, co-development, and co-delivery, with coordination to align priorities and avoid duplication. Five key challenges were identified: town centre decline and regeneration; anti-social behaviour and community safety; youth activities and opportunities; public transport and connectivity; and employment, skills, and opportunities.

The Strategic Place Plan for Durham City and Spennymoor had been adopted, with visions and engagement findings for ten other towns, including Crook, Bishop Auckland, Consett, Peterlee, and Seaham, scheduled for presentation to Cabinet on 18 November 2026. Mr. Wood stressed that these plans supported the government's emphasis on place, devolution, and local decision-making, aiming to establish locally supported, long-term priorities to influence funding opportunities and coordinate investment.

Councillor R Bell questioned the link between the Strategic Place Plans and the new County Durham Plan, expressing confusion over the ongoing consultations for both. The Economic Development Manager clarified that SPPs, once adopted by Cabinet, would form local regeneration policy and be afforded weight within the planning framework, providing detailed local insight. He added that SPPs were part of a broader framework, not directly within the County Durham Plan itself.

Councillor S Bowron perceived the four Pride and Place areas as politically chosen, suggesting that other villages in County Durham also needed funding. The Economic Development Manager clarified that the four areas were identified by the government, not the council, based on specific criteria, although he agreed that the highlighted issues were replicable across the county.

Councillor J Campbell thanked the officer and asked about refreshing the strategy consultations, given the rapid pace of political change, and whether ground-level feedback from Local Network Boards would be used. The Economic Development Manager confirmed that co-design and ongoing feedback loops were integral to the process, citing Spennymoor as an example where stakeholder engagement ensured understanding and informed design programmes.

Councillor B Moist expressed a preference for delivery over plans, asking when local members would be involved in the content of Strategic Place Plans, particularly for Chester-le-Street. The Economic Development Manager assured him that local members would be involved in the process, with a report on visions and investment plans for Durham City to be presented to Cabinet on 18 November 2026. He emphasised the shift towards a co-design approach to engage communities and businesses, noting that private sector investment often outweighed public sector contributions.

Mrs R Morris suggested that realistic timeframes were needed for community engagement and expressed concern that the complexity of the plans and the number of organisations involved could confuse local communities. Councillor R Bell requested that draft reports be presented to Local Network Boards for local input before being taken to Cabinet. J Anson confirmed that consultation information was shared with Local Network Boards and that a You said, We heard element was included in the Strategic Place Plans.

The committee resolved to note the contents of the report, receive the overview of Place Plans currently operating within County Durham, and consider the opportunities and challenges identified within the report and their implications for future place-based regeneration and economic development activity across the county.

Regeneration, Economy and Growth - Revenue and Capital Outturn 2025/26

E Thompson, Finance Manager, presented the joint report detailing the final revenue and capital outturn for the Regeneration, Economy and Growth (REG) service grouping for the 2025/26 financial year. The service achieved a revenue underspend of £1.274 million (2.9%) against a budget of £43.918 million, which was £0.455 million more underspent than previously forecast. Key revenue underspends were noted in Planning and Housing (£0.641 million), Culture, Sport and Tourism (£0.397 million), REG Central budgets (£0.184 million), and Inclusive Growth and Partnerships (£52,000). Factors contributing to these underspends included staffing vacancies, interim management arrangements, additional income, and savings from The Light not opening until 2026/27, partially offset by pressures such as the Single Homelessness Accommodation Programme.

For the capital programme, the revised budget for 2025/26 was £75.568 million, with expenditure of £60.573 million, resulting in an underspend of £14.995 million. This capital underspend was primarily within Inclusive Growth and Partnerships (£8.072 million), Culture, Sport and Tourism (£3.152 million), and Planning and Housing (£3.771 million), largely due to delays and re-profiling across various projects, including Bishop Auckland Stronger Towns, Members Neighbourhood budgets, Woodhouse Close Leisure Centre, The Light, Horden Housing Phase 1A, and other housing programmes. The total capital programme across the Medium-Term Financial Plan period is £221.712 million.

The committee resolved to note the final outturn position against the 2025/26 revenue and capital budgets.

Economy and Enterprise OSC Work Programme 2026/27

The committee received a report from the Director of Legal and Democratic Services providing an opportunity to review and consider their current work programme for 2026/27. Councillor L Taylor highlighted that the work programme focused on key priorities while maintaining flexibility to address emerging issues.

The committee resolved to note its current work programme.