Plans for 265 homes refused following objections

The homes were proposed for a land off Cygnet Drive and Kingfisher Way

Plans for 265 homes have been refused as councillors raised concerns over congestion, road safety and wildlife.

Keepmoat Homes and Banks Property wanted to build the houses off Cygnet Drive and Kingfisher Way, in Stockton, Teesside.

The developers had said the houses would not impact the nearby Bowesfield nature reserve, but the proposals received 45 letters of objection, including from Stockton West MP Matt Vickers.

Councillors voted to refuse the application, although planning officers had recommended it for approval.

Principal planning officer Elaine Atkinson said the land "was always to be developed" and ecology experts had found "no adverse impact on ecology sufficient to warrant a refusal".

But Harvey McKie, one of the objectors, told the planning committee meeting on Wednesday that Bowesfield Park was "already a busy housing estate".

"If this beautiful green space gets built on, it will put the wildlife that lives in the nature reserve at huge risk," he said.

"This will force and push them out of their natural habitat."

'Badly designed'

The developers told councillors the "final phase of regeneration" for the Bowesfield brownfield site was the first viable proposal since 2015 and would deliver social, environmental and economic benefits.

But councillor Norma Stephenson said she was "really not happy" with the application.

"I think it’s badly designed, I think it’s overdeveloped," she said.

Other councillors also worried about congestion, the Local Democracy Reporting Service said.

Councillor Tony Riordan said: "There's no material benefit in putting 265 houses on top of these people. You’re going to make their lives a misery."

Councillor Lynn Hall said she had seen the roads "absolutely chock-a-block".

"The fact is this area is totally clogged with traffic," she said. "And this development would just add to that."

Councillor John Coulson said he was "appalled", adding: "Even if it’s not part of the nature reserve, it’s going to impact on nature."

Councillors voted 12-2 to refuse the plan, on the grounds of over-development, road and transport issues, though not impact on wildlife.