Mark Wilkes
Photo: Durham

Durham planning committee

Councillor Mark Wilkes

Fram & NH wardMember, Area Planning Committee (Central and East)

Seen at planning committee from September 2025 to September 2026

  • 95%attendance
  • 1recorded vote
  • 8agreed, no vote against recorded
  • 38decisions at their meetings
  • 3motions proposed

Councillor's page on the council's website

As at 17 September 2026, according to Plota’s analysis of Durham’s published minutes, Councillor Mark Wilkes attended 18 of the 19 planning committee meetings whose minutes list them, from September 2025 to September 2026. Each member's vote is recorded on 1 decision at those meetings: Wilkes voted for the resolution on it. On 1 of those votes the officers’ recommendation is known, and none went against it. On 8 other decisions the minutes record no vote against, so Wilkes is counted as agreeing; they are left out of the shares below. Wilkes proposed 3 motions the committee passed and seconded 2.

Meetings attended
18 of 1995%
Meetings whose minutes list them as present, sending apologies or absent. Minutes that list only those present cannot show an absence. 1 meeting as a substitute.
Decisions at their meetings
38
Applications decided at the meetings they sat on, as the minutes record them.
Recorded votes
1
Decisions where the minutes, the council's recorded vote or the meeting's recording give each member's vote: 1 for, 0 against, 0 abstained.
Agreed, no vote against recorded
8
Decisions the minutes record with no vote against and no count. Counted as agreeing, and left out of the shares.
Proposed or seconded
3 / 2
Motions the minutes say they proposed, then seconded, that the committee passed.
Declared interests
0
Decisions on which the minutes record them declaring an interest.

Voting record

Votes by quarter

Not drawn: 1 recorded vote in one quarter is too few to show a pattern over time.

Against officer advice

Not drawn: 1 recorded vote with a known officers’ recommendation is too few to compare.

Agreement with other members

Not drawn: the minutes record no divided vote of this councillor by name. On a unanimous vote every member agrees, so it says nothing about agreement.

Motions they proposed

3 of the 3 motions Wilkes proposed were to approve.

The outcome of each motion the minutes say Wilkes proposed and the committee passed.

Approved 3

Attendance

95%

18 of 19 meetings whose minutes list them; apologies for 1.

The typical member of this committee attended 86% (the median of 31 members listed at 5 or more meetings).

Every meeting

Each square is a meeting whose minutes list them, oldest first.

PresentAs a substituteApologies
20252026

Area Planning Committee (Central and East): 9 meetings · County Planning Committee: 8 meetings · Area Planning Committee (South and West): 1 meeting

Show as a table
Every meeting
DateCommitteeAttendance
8 Sep 2026Area Planning Committee (Central and East)Present
29 Jul 2026County Planning CommitteePresent
21 Jul 2026Area Planning Committee (Central and East)Present
16 Jul 2026Area Planning Committee (South and West)Present as a substitute
14 Jul 2026Area Planning Committee (Central and East)Present
8 Jul 2026County Planning CommitteePresent
9 Jun 2026Area Planning Committee (Central and East)Present
2 Jun 2026County Planning CommitteePresent
12 May 2026Area Planning Committee (Central and East)Present
7 Apr 2026Area Planning Committee (Central and East)Apologies
4 Mar 2026County Planning CommitteePresent
10 Feb 2026Area Planning Committee (Central and East)Present
4 Feb 2026County Planning CommitteePresent
13 Jan 2026Area Planning Committee (Central and East)Present
3 Dec 2025County Planning CommitteePresent
20 Oct 2025County Planning CommitteePresent
7 Oct 2025Area Planning Committee (Central and East)Present
9 Sep 2025Area Planning Committee (Central and East)Present
3 Sep 2025County Planning CommitteePresent

Decisions

Every application decided at a meeting they sat on, newest first, with their vote where the minutes give it.

Show
Their vote
Outcome

In the minutes

What the minutes record Wilkes moving, seconding, asking or saying on each decision, in the minutes’ own words. Passages that name more than one councillor, or a member of the public, are left out.

Subjects in what the minutes record

  • Raised concerns about trees and wildlife
    “Councillor M Wilkes was concerned that there was another hedgerow along the other side of the road which could be used as a barrier.”
    Minutes, 29 Jul 2026, Land To The North Of George Pit Lane Great Lumley
  • Raised concerns
    “Councillor M Wilkes expressed concern that the principal reason for the previous appeal dismissal related to sustainability of the location and questioned what had fundamentally changed since that decision was made apart from the reduction in the number of houses. He queried if it was the housing land supply issue to now be considered.”
    Minutes, 29 Jul 2026, Land To The North Of George Pit Lane Great Lumley
  • Spoke
    “Councillor M Wilkes also agreed with Councillor A Bell’s comments that Members were clearly looking at the same application as before with nothing changing only the number of houses. He noted there were already over 13,000 houses passed to be built in the County.”
    Minutes, 29 Jul 2026, Land To The North Of George Pit Lane Great Lumley
  • Asked about heritage
    “Councillor M Wilkes queried the evidence relating to the visual impact upon the World Heritage Site and sought clarification regarding the visualisations presented. He indicated that he was less convinced regarding the extent of the heritage impact but expressed greater concern regarding the impacts on nearby residents and the policy issue relating to turbine topple distance.”
    Minutes, 29 Jul 2026, Unit 1, Integra 61 West Bowburn, Durham
  • Spoke
    “Councillor M Wilkes thought it would have been helpful had Members had something which showed what the turbine would look like. He questioned why the applicant had not sourced alternative renewable energy options like additional rooftop solar panels, solar carports and battery storage facilities within the site.”
    Minutes, 29 Jul 2026, Unit 1, Integra 61 West Bowburn, Durham
  • Asked about heritage
    “Councillor Wilkes sought clarification regarding the potential impact upon the Heritage Coastline affecting walks and visibility of the development along with the cumulative impacts of all the different solar farms in the area. He queried how many more did there need to before the cumulative impact meant no more could be recommended for approval.”
    Minutes, 29 Jul 2026, Land To The East, South And West Of Benridge Farm, Fillpoke Lane Blackhall Rocks
  • Spoke on heritage
    “Councillor M Wilkes referred to paragraph 163 which did not give a definitive answer as to whether the development would be seen if walking along the heritage coastline.”
    Minutes, 29 Jul 2026, Land To The East, South And West Of Benridge Farm, Fillpoke Lane Blackhall Rocks
  • Asked about trees and wildlife
    “Councillor Wilkes further questioned the relationship between the so called biodiversity enhancements and sheep grazing. He added that it was fantastic seeing a farm producing wool in County Durham as he was unsure how farmers were able to manage with the government subsidies being removed.”
    Minutes, 29 Jul 2026, Land To The East, South And West Of Benridge Farm, Fillpoke Lane Blackhall Rocks
  • Spoke
    “Councillor M Wilkes requested clarity on whether the farmer owned the land or whether there was a separate landowner other than the people farming the farm.”
    Minutes, 29 Jul 2026, Land To The East, South And West Of Benridge Farm, Fillpoke Lane Blackhall Rocks
  • Spoke
    “Councillor M Wilkes advised that the committee had the choice to vote in whichever way based on the Planning merits and demerits. He felt that the cumulative impacts remained an issue which he felt was getting close to saturation.”
    Minutes, 29 Jul 2026, Land To The East, South And West Of Benridge Farm, Fillpoke Lane Blackhall Rocks
  • Asked a question
    “Councillor M Wilkes asked if the agent could explain as regards the proposed layout, with each of the two-flats having one bedroom that showed a single bed, the other bedroom showing a double bed. He asked if the Committee wished to condition that to be the other way around, would the applicant object?”
    Minutes, 21 Jul 2026, 18 Boyd Street Durham
  • Spoke on parking
    “Councillor M Wilkes noted the current position was for a three-bed house with zero parking, and the proposals were for two, two-bed flats with zero parking. He added that, for two properties, it was indisputable that there would need to be more parking than for one property, noting he felt the argument put by Highways was illogical.”
    Minutes, 21 Jul 2026, 18 Boyd Street Durham
  • Spoke on parking
    “Councillor M Wilkes noted the Parking SPD stated that two properties for 3 people each represented a greater parking need than for one property with three bedrooms.”
    Minutes, 21 Jul 2026, 18 Boyd Street Durham
  • Spoke
    “Councillor M Wilkes noted that therefore the SPD did require more, there being a proposal for two, two-bed flats.”
    Minutes, 21 Jul 2026, 18 Boyd Street Durham
  • Spoke on parking
    “Councillor M Wilkes noted that it also was not just the impact of one more property, it was the cumulative impact of those increases, and the proposals were in breach of the Parking SPD.”
    Minutes, 21 Jul 2026, 18 Boyd Street Durham
  • Spoke on parking
    “Councillor M Wilkes noted there was nowhere in the county where there was a worst place in terms of parking and students, adding that was why the Council had parking permits in that and other areas. He added he felt that the Authority and its Members were not being allowed to apply planning policy.”
    Minutes, 21 Jul 2026, 18 Boyd Street Durham
  • Spoke
    “Councillor M Wilkes did not agree with retrospective planning applications. He noted that in the conditions there were time sensitive elements and gave the example that within six months of the development being brought into use a habitat had to be created, enhancement works completed and a completion report evidencing the completion of the habitat enhancements.”
    Minutes, 16 Jul 2026, Kynren Flatts Farm Toronto Bishop Auckland
  • Asked about the conditions
    “Councillor M Wilkes asked if the condition required action to be taken within six months would the time commence from when the development was first used.”
    Minutes, 16 Jul 2026, Kynren Flatts Farm Toronto Bishop Auckland
  • Asked a question
    “Councillor M Wilkes asked if credits were purchased through Natural England and the hierarchy applied would there be any reassurance that the offsite provision would take place in County Durham and not elsewhere in the country.”
    Minutes, 16 Jul 2026, Kynren Flatts Farm Toronto Bishop Auckland
  • Spoke
    “Councillor M Wilkes reiterated that it was not great to see retrospective planning applications come to committee. He had not seen or heard anything to not support the applications.”
    Minutes, 16 Jul 2026, Kynren Flatts Farm Toronto Bishop Auckland
  • Asked a question
    “Councillor M Wilkes asked how BNG compliance would be monitored.”
    Minutes, 16 Jul 2026, Kynren Flatts Farm Toronto Bishop Auckland
  • Spoke
    “Councillor M Wilkes noted a previous similar application, approved by Committee, had included a Local Lettings Policy (LLP). He asked whether such could be in in place for this application, noting Members had previously been told that it could not be conditioned.”
    Minutes, 14 Jul 2026, Land At 40-82 Farnham Road Newton Hall Durham
  • Asked a question
    “Councillor M Wilkes asked if there could be clarification from the applicant, Believe, as regards his points.”
    Minutes, 14 Jul 2026, Land At 40-82 Farnham Road Newton Hall Durham
  • Spoke
    “Councillor M Wilkes noted that he felt it was worth saying and noting for the record that while Members often attended planning meetings and were frustrated when developers did not want to work with local communities, it was not the case in terms of this application. He noted that the applicant was to be commended for their work as regards their application, making changes, including as regards parking and LLP.”
    Minutes, 14 Jul 2026, Land At 40-82 Farnham Road Newton Hall Durham
  • Asked a question
    “Councillor M Wilkes asked as regards rent-to-buy properties, if there were not 26 people coming forward for such properties, then would those properties ‘fall back’ to being for rent by local people from the Brandon area.”
    Minutes, 14 Jul 2026, Silver Cottage, Silver Courts, Red Firs Rowman Lea And Vicarage Flats Brandon Durham
  • Asked a question
    “Councillor M Wilkes asked if they would be advertised in the local area first.”
    Minutes, 14 Jul 2026, Silver Cottage, Silver Courts, Red Firs Rowman Lea And Vicarage Flats Brandon Durham
  • Spoke on affordable housing
    “Councillor M Wilkes noted there was an element of trust with the developer, with the requirement only being 14 homes as affordable housing, though the agent noted all the proposed properties would be affordable properties. He added that other developers would only offer a fraction of the properties as affordable.”
    Minutes, 14 Jul 2026, Silver Cottage, Silver Courts, Red Firs Rowman Lea And Vicarage Flats Brandon Durham
  • Asked a question
    “Councillor Wilkes sought clarification on whether concerns relating to battery safety could provide grounds for refusal.”
    Minutes, 8 Jul 2026, Land East Of Carrs Farm South Hetton
  • Asked about highway safety
    “With regards to the concerns raised regarding the removal of a pedestrian refuge island, Councillor Wilkes asked whether it would need to be removed to facilitate construction traffic.”
    Minutes, 8 Jul 2026, Land East Of Carrs Farm South Hetton
  • Spoke
    “Councillor Wilkes acknowledged that fire safety concerns had featured heavily throughout the discussion but accepted the legal advice that such matters were principally regulated through alternative statutory regimes. He advised that the principal planning issue appeared to be the landscape and visual impact arising from the proposal.”
    Minutes, 8 Jul 2026, Land East Of Carrs Farm South Hetton

The 30 most recent of 120 are shown.

How this is worked out

Everything here is read from Durham’s published planning committee minutes, 34 meetings from September 2025 to September 2026. A councillor is matched across meetings by the council’s own member number where it has one, otherwise by full name.

Each vote shows how it is known. Named in the minutes: the minutes, or the council’s own recorded vote, list each member with their vote. From the count and the names: the minutes give the numbers and name the members in the minority, and every member present is known. All members present in favour: the minutes say every member voted for it and the members present are known. No vote against recorded: the minutes record the decision with no vote against, no abstention and no count, at a council whose minutes print a divided vote when there is one, so each member present is counted for. Unanimous vote: the minutes call the decision unanimous, or give a count with no one against and no one abstaining, and each member present is counted for. From the meeting recording: the vote was heard on the council’s recording of the meeting and closes exactly with the members present. Where none of these holds, the vote is left as “Not recorded” and is not counted.

Votes are on the resolution the committee passed, so a vote for is a vote with the majority. A vote is a decision on the application in front of the committee, not a statement of the councillor’s views. A percentage is shown only with five or more votes, decisions or meetings behind it.

Source: Plota analysis of the council’s minutes. The party is from the council’s own list of councillors.

Also on this committee

All Durham committee councillors