Clashing proposals to add at least 4,500 houses to North Darlington’s suburbs and also thread a busy bypass through them are building towards a crescendo. The road plans for both have been in the offing for a while, but the pace is accelerating. The Tees Valley Combined Authority (TVCA) has begun to firm up plans recently.
A river runs through it
So we’re talking, of course, about the so-called Skerningham Garden Village (SGV) scheme, which promises to offer peace and quiet through walking and cycling, rather than rush-hour commuting, versus the Darlington Northern Link Road (DNLR) which is aimed at relieving the town of heavy through-traffic. The TVCA, which has taken over road-building issues from its five constituent local councils, under the watchful eye of the Mayor, Ben Houchen, Baron of High Leven, sees no conflict in splitting one with the other.
When is a consultation not a consultation? When it’s the Darlington Bypass
The TVCA began a consultation process on the DNLR in July. North East Bylines provided an update on the consultation process only a few weeks ago, on 9 September. You can catch up on that here. But, since then, there have been lots of crazy twists and turns in the usually dull world of road planning.
Catch-22
Darlington residents began to complete online surveys as part of the consultation on 31 July 2026, but some hit a snag immediately. It asks if you are in favour of a link road, but if you say no, the survey just continues as if you said yes and asks which route you prefer. The survey results will, therefore, be rather misleading about the public’s enthusiasm.
And about that route…
The online survey contains what the TVCA calls “indicative”, broad-brush maps of the proposed routes of the DNLR. These were created by engineering consultancy Jacobs. They show two main options, dubbed “Do Minimum” and “More Ambitious”, along with slight variations of both. Here’s one of the maps.
Could do better
But the revised maps were an immediate let-down. Online survey respondents complained they are too vague, so they don’t allow people to make an informed choice about how the route may affect them.
What’s the key?
The “Do Minimum” option, in orange, is the cheapest one, £140mn. This estimate is purportedly guided by HM Treasury’s ‘Green Book’ value-for-money-guide. You can see the cheap option on the left of the table below:
Flying blind
None of the maps is sufficiently detailed, omitting even the proposed “garden village” (which some of the more seasoned campaigners reckon is the real reason for building the DNLR in the first place). Even missing is Skerningham Woods, the treasured nature reserve at the heart of the “garden village” controversy. As you’ll see in a subsequent article, a group of residents became so exasperated with the sketchy maps that they made one of their own. See below.
This can’t be correct?
But then, Darlington residents pondered the useless TVCA maps and began to notice other errors and omissions in the process. In 2022, Darlington Borough Council commissioned a Skerningham Railway Crossing Feasibility Study from Systra consultants. Systra was able to advise on ways to construct a bridge across the adjacent East Coast Main Line that wouldn’t cut through Skerningham Woods.
You’ve learned absolutely nothing
Jacobs’ 2026 “Do Minimum” DNLR route option resembles Systra’s 2022 work, except it DOES slice through the woods. That’s disappointing. Maybe time for a rethink on this part of the route?
Would Sir like an upgrade?
Okay, time for another look at Jacobs’ map: Curving around the north of the ‘Do Minimum’ route is the ‘More Ambitious’ option, shown in dark purple.
It’s going to cost you
The ‘More Ambitious’ option would be a lot more expensive than doing the minimum, due to its increased length and the need to bridge the River Skerne. Depending on which “variant” is chosen, the “More Ambitious” option will cost between £225mn and £365mn. More about the “variants” later. But, yet again, more observant local residents spotted hidden flaws.
It’s in the pipeline
This “More Ambitious” option comes into conflict with the under-construction Tees Valley Strategic Pipeline being built across the north of Darlington by Northumbrian Water. Some of it has already been built. The pipeline isn’t mentioned in Jacobs’ OAR and therefore didn’t make its way into the consultation exercise.
A civil engineer writes
In an follow-up email to local campaigners on 27 September, TVCA Director of Infrastructure Jonathan Spruce noted that “there will be conflicts between the planned alignment of the pipeline and a number of the route options, however it is not uncommon for highways and pipelines interacting. Should the preferred option cross the planned pipeline, the vertical design that will be undertaken later in the scheme design process can be used to provide sufficient cover to the crown of the pipe.”
Just admit that you forgot
This is a tacit admission that Jacobs failed to take the pipeline into account when preparing the OAR. Depending on which option is chosen, the DNLR could come into conflict with the pipeline between once and three times. At each of these locations, the road would need to be raised by several more metres than originally planned. On 27 September, local residents emailed Northumbrian Water to make them aware of the DNLR.
Variants A, B and C
Eagle-eyed Darlingtonians then carefully examined the rest of Jacobs’ selected route options. These are known as ‘Variants’ handily known as A, B and C. The variants are ways of extending the DNLR towards Junction 59 of the A1(M) via the North / South A167, The A167 can be seen on the above map with the aid of a magnifying glass.
Variant A
Variant A is a bypass to the west of the A167. But we’re off to a bad start here, as we run straight into that water pipe again.
What, another one?
By coincidence, at the same time that Jacobs published its report, Bellway Homes submitted a planning pre-application to Darlington Borough Council to build a housing estate containing 686 homes at this site, either side of the proposed ‘Variant A’. Bellway seems to be planning on the DNLR going through here, neighbouring the “garden village”. And it goes to show that, whenever you even think about building a new bypass, it attracts house builders like flies.
Variant B
“Variant B” also conflicts with the water pipeline and intrudes on Bellway’s housing plans. So some compromises would be required if the pipeline, the housing estate and Variant B of DNLR were to be situated in such close proximity.
Variant C
Surely ‘Variant C’ is plain sailing? You’re ahead of me at this stage. Of course it isn’t. But at least this time it’s a different type of clanger. Variant C’s route bisects the site of a former golf course belonging to Hall Garth Hotel. The hotel has set this land aside as a Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) project. Over the next few years, the hotel will develop the old golf course into valuable wildlife habitat. Hall Garth Hotel will be able to sell BNG “credits” to property developers who despoil the environment elsewhere. The credits could be expected to generate £1.6mn over the lifespan of the project.
Don’t count your chickens
But that profit would be much reduced if ‘Variant C’ cuts a swathe through the former golf course, or even threatens to. The hotel’s plans may need to be put on hold until the route of the DNLR is determined. Some hotel land would be lost to the west of the Hall Garth site too, as both Variant A and Variant C require a new roundabout on the A167, which runs alongside the old golf course.
They couldn’t have known
According to Jonathan Spruce “there was no formal record of (a BNG site) in the area identified”. But maybe an informal one then? Whatever the case, Jacobs didn’t identify Hall Garth Hotel’s BNG site. Mr Spruce continued “any preferred option taken forward will need planning permission, which will require a full Environmental Impact Assessment”. If it ever reaches the stage where the TVCA needs to acquire this land for the DNLR, the purchase is likely to be more expensive than that anticipated in Jacobs’ OAR.
Whoops
Neither Hall Garth Hotel, nor Natural Capital, the hotel’s Biodiversity Net Gain agent, seemed aware of the possible impact on their scheme. It’s probably time that they were told. On 27 September, local residents emailed Natural Capital to make it aware of plans for the DNLR.
Predetermination
As reported by North East Bylines on 9 September, there’s an argument that Tees Valley Mayor Ben Houchen may have prejudiced the outcome of the consultation by making two public statements that Darlington Council had already decided on the bypass route. I’ve included the link to the article again here, which includes those two public statements. Not only this, but he indicated that the chosen route for the thundering, emissions-belching bypass is, in fact, the “Do Minimum” option. And that follows the same route as has been touted for a quiet, healthy, walkable, cyclable “garden village” road.
What are the legal implications?
Predetermination makes a planning decision unlawful and liable to be quashed in court, because it breaches the legal duty to act fairly and approach applications with an open mind. Perhaps it would have been advisable for the TVCA to publish a disclaimer on the consultation page of its website, reminding Darlington residents that previous statements made by the mayor in respect of the DNLR should be discounted.
Enough is enough
As flaws in the consultation process continued to emerge, a number of residents decided that enough was enough. One of them, a member of the Skerningham Woodland Action Group (SWAG), liaised with a group of like-minded people, then contacted the TVCA to request a meeting to discuss all of the issues. The Director of Infrastructure, Jonathan Spruce, agreed to host a meeting.
To be continued…
In Part Two of this article, we’ll continue the story of the DNLR consultation exercise, picking up at that TVCA office meeting at Teesside Airport on 16 September 2026. As a taster, here’s a selfie from that meeting, taken by Richie Barlow of the Whinfield Green Party.
Thanks to Leanne Carroll for providing additional research for this article
What happens when the media itself becomes part of the problem? Who holds it to account? 14 years after the Leveson Inquiry reported its findings, has anything really changed? And how can we build something better?
Join Bylines Network on Wednesday 21 October, for a vital conversation about the media Britain needs — and what it will take to get there.
The event will conclude with a live audience Q&A.
