Stockton councillors to decide on homes plan for Wolviston

The two separate proposals are expected to be discussed at Stockton Council’s planning committee meeting on Wednesday, December 10. Planning officers have recommended both plans be approved with conditions.

The first plan is an outline scheme from ELG Planning for 11 self-build plots on a paddock south of Manor Close, Wolviston. It attracted 51 letters of objection from residents, and objections from ward councillors and the parish council, and a number of residents had turned up to a previous planning committee meeting where consideration of the plan was postponed.

Council officers admitted the site was outside development limits, but said the plan should not be ruled out purely on those grounds. They said the benefits had to be weighed against the harm as the council cannot show a five-year supply of housing., and they found the plan “acceptable in planning in terms”.

The developer said the “comfortably sized plots” for detached homes would support jobs for about 38 people, “appeal to a wider variety of prospective occupiers” and would be “appropriate and in-keeping with the village’s rural character”. In a planning statement, it said there would be no severe road impacts, no privacy or overbearing issues, and argues the homes would support Wolviston’s school, village hall and bus service with new residents.

Objectors said it was not a housing site, approving the plan would set a precedent for future development and it would harm the “green wedge and Wolviston’s distinct village character and heritage”, erode a green buffer between it and Billingham and go against policy protecting the countryside’s beauty. They also raised concerns about conservation, layout, safety on roads “ill-designed to take construction traffic”, access which would “more than double traffic on an unsuitable road”.

They spoke of issues with flooding risk, inadequate drainage, oversubscribed schools, pressure on medical services, biodiversity, ecology, climate, poor public transport links, a long construction period, unclear design constraints, land ownership, covenants, public consultation and the cumulative impact with a Miller Homes proposal nearby. They said previous plans had been refused for similar reasons.

Some wrote, however, that the “area is crying out for high-quality, luxury housing”, that Wolviston had grown significantly since the 1960s while its population was declining. It was said the site would be screened by trees and the additional traffic from 11 homes would be “negligible”.

Wolviston Parish Council said: “The scheme would more than double the number of properties accessing this cul-de-sac, creating unacceptable traffic and highway safety impacts for existing residents.” It argued the land fell outside the Stockton Local Plan, outside Wolviston village, and the plan would be visually intrusive, put pressure on amenities and “critically undermine the retained and protected green wedge separating Wolviston and Billingham”.

Ward councillors David Reynard and Marcus Vickers, who have already voiced concerns about “overdevelopment” in the area with other plans, said many residents had expressed worries about “serious harm to the village status, identity, heritage and overall infrastructure”. They said: “Many residents are concerned that this application (along with the Miller Homes development) will be the end of Wolviston as a village and this will be the floodgates and precedent to further development and expansion.”

They also raised “genuine concerns that what is agreed today, may change or may carry on for a significant period of time with no conclusive end date”, as well as issues with community and social value and school places. They concluded: “Overall, many of the concerns raised by residents are valid and ultimately given the land is not identified within the Local Plan and the risk of coalescing the village and the impact this will have raises serious valid reasons against the development.”

A highways, transport and design manager said access was considered suitable and did not believe the impacts on roads would be severe. Officers found it was a “sustainable location to support new development”, there were no objections from schools, doctors or dentists and “no evidence has been put forward to state the services cannot cope”.

They said there would be “some change for the residents of Manor Close whose outlook will be altered”, but this would not do enough harm to warrant refusing the plan, and there would still be a “clear gap” with Billingham. They felt it would not harm neighbouring properties or the Wolviston conservation area.

Officers said construction noise would be controlled with a management plan, flood risk and drainage could dealt with and there would be a biodiversity gain. They said in their report: “Overall, it is considered that the identified harm would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval.”

The second plan under consideration is the creation of a multi-use games area at Arlington Park Sports Centre, Adderley Street, Bowesfield, Stockton. This proposal drew no objections from neighbours or consultees including Sport England.

It would replace a existing games area on a hard surface with a slightly larger area with “a new sand dressed synthetic layer”, specific football and cricket marking, perimeter fencing and improved floodlighting. Planning officers say in their report: “The proposed development would represent an enhancement of an existing community and sporting facilities within the perimeter of a designated playing field.

“There are no technical reasons why the proposed scheme would be deemed unacceptable. In planning terms, the proposed development is considered acceptable in all other regards.”