TO WHAT extent, if any, do the opinions of parish councillors count in planning matters?

Concerned that theirs are disregarded, members at Middleton in Teesdale invited the district council's principal planning officer, Trevor Watson, to tell them what role they had.

The chairman, Coun Diana Mahood, told him: "Occasionally we object to an application, for what we think are sound reasons, and it seems like our opinion is not valued."

Mr Watson said: "Whatever the comments, they are valued and taken into consideration. You will always be consulted on applications within your parish boundary. But planning law will not always agree with the wishes of the parish council."

Mr Watson then gave a brief overview of how things worked, saying the onus was on the district council to take decisions in accordance with the proper development plans.

Coun Bill Parmley asked if those plans were mandatory or guidelines, with Mr Watson saying they were mandatory unless there were overriding material considerations for deviating.

"What if enough people sign a petition against something?" asked Coun Mandy Harrison.

Mr Watson said planning had to be in the public interest, not private.

"A high level of objection in itself is not grounds for refusal," he added.

Coun Harrison then asked if there was a planning template which they could look to for guidance when making their recommendations. But Mr Watson felt they were addressing the right things already, such as access and impact on living conditions, which were all material considerations.

Members then asked for clarification about the proposed change of wording to Policy H4 of the Local Plan, which would remove the words "previously developed land". They feared taking out those words would open up greenfield sites in the village, with houses being squeezed in wherever they would go.

Mr Watson said although it would potentially open up sites for development, it would not necessarily mean a free-for-all. But a need for affordable housing had been identified, and with the allocated sites getting used up, this would allow the housing supply to continue.

"If we don't get any objections then we will adopt this proposed change," he said. "But if we get just one objection then there will be an appeal and the council will have to decide whether it wants to proceed with a public inquiry or whether to drop the proposal."

When Mr Watson left, members voted on whether they ought to object to the change. With three in favour and three against, Coun Mahood used her casting vote against the change.

"I am not comfortable with this until we have more information about where houses could be thrown up willy-nilly," she said.

* Round-up: see page 8