Plans for 340 homes on the western fringe of Stockton thrown out

A major 340-home housing development on farmland in Stockton has been rejected by councillors .

Developer Tithebarn Land was seeking permission from Stockton Council to build the scheme off Harrowgate Lane, next to Bishopsgarth School.

But the authority’s planning officers had recommended the plans be refused, saying the developer had failed to provide enough information to show the new homes would not increase the risk of flooding.

Stockton Council’s planning committee was told the scheme was on a wider area identified as suitable for 2,500 new homes.

But the approval of the scheme ahead of a ‘masterplan’ would “have some significant consequences for the proper planning of the wider Harrowgate Lane and Yarm Back Lane sites”.

The applicant Roland Firby told the planning committee the development was sustainable and would “help boost the supply” of both affordable and market housing in the borough, which is still falling short of controversial five-year housing targets.

Cynthia Firby added that the development had the potential “to add much prospect to Stockton town centre”.

But Steve Walmsley, on the planning committee, said: “I can’t imagine anyone on these new estates jumping into cars and saying ‘Let’s go visit Stockton’.”

Councillor David Wilburn said: “Generally I’m in favour of building in that area , but I take on board the idea the infrastructure must be there. I take the view of piecemeal development not being good.”

Councillor Jim Beall said it “made sense” to follow the masterplan approach for the area “so community facilities can be created alongside the houses”.

A total of 34 objections had been received against the plans with concerns including impact on road safety, loss of green space, loss of outlook/view, brownfield sites should be developed first Harrowgate Lane already suffers from flooding problems, lack of walkable amenities – increase parking problems at local shops Existing drainage and sewage systems cannot cope.

The planning committee was unanimous in its rejection of the application.