Wolviston development blocked as fears grow over village character

Stockton Council’s planning officers said the outline proposal for 11 self-build plots on a paddock near Manor Close, Wolviston, should be approved, finding “no sustainable planning reasons” to refuse it.

However, councillors on the planning committee disagreed, went against their officers’ recommendation and refused the scheme.

Applicant ELG Planning said the “comfortably sized plots” for detached homes would support jobs for about 38 people. But several residents spoke against it in a planning committee meeting on Wednesday, December 10.

Inside the Stockton Council planning committee meeting in the council chamber at Dunedin House, Thornaby. Picture: LDRS.

John Parker spoke of traffic which would turn in and out near residents.

He said: “Lights will be shining directly into their living rooms. The road is not built for that, nobody could park their car outside their house.”

Paul Dalton said there was a conflict with the council’s Local Plan, which guides planning decisions, and spoke of Wolviston being “subsumed into Billingham” and the “green wedge being eroded”.

He said: “There’s no guarantee of what will be built or when… Clearly the village of Wolviston cannot stand a lot of construction traffic through it.”

John Evans said: “The proposal constitutes overdevelopment, harming the established character of Wolviston as a village, places increased pressure on local infrastructure and sets a potentially damaging precedent.

“Allowing the development would cause lasting harm to the village. Approval would threaten the long-term character and community life of Wolviston.”

Dorothy Homer said it would worsen issues and intensify road risks, including “frequent traffic jams and sometimes total gridlock”.

She said: “Manor Close is not wide enough to sustain the level of traffic generated from more than doubling the number of properties.”

Deborah Miller urged councillors to protect the village’s integrity, saying: “The jobs are temporary, yet the infrastructure cost implications to the road, health and education systems… are multiple and enduring. It is the wrong housing in the wrong place due to the green wedge and access concerns, and very much at the wrong time.”

Andrew Blick, a resident for 31 years, said: “Wolviston appears to be under threat by many proposed developments that will undoubtedly lead to its joining with Billingham and being merely a suburb in the future.

“Once it is built upon it can never be reversed. Please protect Wolviston from disappearing as a village.”

Ward councillor Cllr Marcus Vickers said it would more than double homes on a quiet narrow cul de sac, begin to merge Wolviston with Billingham and set harmful precedents without no benefit.

He said: “This will be the starting gun for overdevelopment throughout the borough.”

Tom Boyd, vice chair of Wolviston Parish Council, said it would harm the village and its character and cause prolonged disruption.

Objectors also raised the issue of access rights from an 80-year covenant, with one referring to other proposed developments, adding: “I find myself living in a house where I now think ‘I didn’t sign up for all of this’, and it seems to have come about at a really significant pace.”

Philippa Hirst from ELG Planning said it was a “modest and sustainable development” which would bring economic and housing benefits, support Wolviston with new residents and respect the area’s character.

Landowner Diana Wood said there had been much interest in the land which “significantly increased” since the plans were submitted, showing a “clear demand”.

She said there would be easy access to the village with a new pedestrian access, and there was a “clear definition between Wolviston and Billingham” with farm and woodland in between. She added: “We feel that this proposal would enhance and benefit the village.”

Debating the plan, Councillor Norma Stephenson said she objected because of access, construction and disruption, adding: “I think it takes the biscuit. I think it’s badly thought out.

Councillor Norma Stephenson from Stockton Council. Picture: LDRS.

“That self-building could go on for years and years and years. This could go on forever, so I can’t support this.”

Cllr Barry Woodhouse said: “I have grave concerns. I wouldn’t like to think I was living in Manor Court when there was going to be self-building going on.

Councillor Barry Woodhouse, Stockton Councillor for Billingham Central ward. Credit: Stockton Council. Attribution required. Free for use by all BBC wire partners.

“What we need in Billingham and everywhere else is affordable houses and bungalows. Because it’s outside the development limits, access and all kinds of other reasons, I’m afraid can’t support the application either.

“Any developments outside the village envelopes I’m not happy with at all. I’m even less happy with this one.”

Cllr Lynn Hall said: “I’m certainly not against self-build plots but it’s very important we maintain the quality of life for the people in that direct vicinity.”

Councillor Lynn Hall. Conservative member for Hartburn ward on Stockton Council. Credit: Stockton Council. Image: Dave Charnley Photography. Attribution required. Free for use by all BBC wire partners.

Referring to a combined impact with another plan, she said: “You’ve got the fusing of the township of Billingham with the medieval village of Wolviston. It’s outside of the village limits and therefore I can’t support the application.”

Cllr Shakeel Hussain said: “We’ve got a village with a lot of heritage. If you keep adding little pockets of houses here and there, eventually it will be just an addition or extension of Billingham.”

Councillor Shakeel Hussain, Conservative member for Ropner ward on Stockton Council. Picture: Stockton Council.

Principal planning officer Elaine Atkinson said “it’s not a green wedge” and they had 60 people wanting to build their own properties in Stockton.

She said the Wolviston expanded over the years and would not “coalesce” with Billingham, the road was wide enough to pass, there was no land constraint or access restrictions, no evidence of pressure on NHS and schools which would warrant refusing the plan and construction would be managed.

She said: “This provides much-needed housing. There was no actual harm that could be demonstrated to refuse the scheme.

“At the moment all you’re considering is whether the principle is acceptable. The design and layout is likely to change.”

Councillors voted 11-1 to refuse the plan on the grounds of loss of amenity due to prolonged activity with construction traffic, access, road safety, inadequate footpaths and increased traffic in the cul de sac.