'Significant setback' for residents after planning inspector sides with house builder over proposed new estate

House builder Taylor Wimpey has succeeded with an appeal over a controversial new development allowing planning permission to be granted for 114 homes.

A recent public inquiry conducted by an independent planning inspector concluded that the appeal should be allowed despite objections from local residents over the scheme at Cat Flatt Lane between Redcar and Marske. However it may not be the end of the matter with residents from the Silverdale Gardens estate directly to the northwest of the site, who participated in the inquiry, potentially pursuing a legal action against Taylor Wimpey over what they say are covenants in place which aim to protect green spaces and woodland for the benefit of residents.

Some councillors had been angered by a decision by Redcar and Cleveland Council monitoring officer Steve Newton to withdraw the local planning authority’s reasons for previously refusing permission given at a regulatory committee meeting in December last year amid concern over the “horrendous” single access proposed through Silverdale Gardens. As a consequence, Taylor Wimpey, which was joined by landowner the Earl of Ronaldshay in the appeal, agreed not to seek its costs.

READ MORE: Comedian Tom Houghton says 'you win, Middlesbrough' after unexpected audience interaction

READ MORE: Street robbers with 'appalling records' attacked woman in 'drugs purchase that went wrong'

The council had taken legal advice and said it could be landed with a bill of up to half-a-million pounds should it continue with a defence when there was “no prospect of success ”. But the decision was attacked as a “flagrant violation of democracy” with residents being “let down” and “abandoned”.

Inspector Chris Baxter concluded that insufficient evidence had been provided to demonstrate an adverse impact in terms of highways safety, one of the criticisms of the scheme. He said: “Given the width and layout of the proposed road and footways and the proposed low speed limit, I am satisfied that vehicles would be able to travel and manoeuvre within the proposed development without adversely compromising the safety of vehicles and pedestrians.”

He also said he was satisfied that the existing highway network, including nearby junctions and roundabouts, would not be adversely compromised as a result of the additional traffic movements that would be generated by the proposal. Mr Baxter said that the site would be “well connected” to surrounding services and facilities and the new development would not have a harmful effect on these.

He also rejected reasoning that it was not needed - the site having been included in the council’s Local Plan. The inspector said: “It has therefore been previously determined that the principle of development for residential accommodation, including the need for housing, loss of agricultural land and open green wedge space, is acceptable on this site.”

Other matters raised by residents including the potential devaluation of properties and the development being in a different local authority ward to the Silverdale Gardens estate were dismissed as not material planning considerations.

In a statement the Silverdale Residents Association said it was “deeply disappointed” by the outcome. It said: “Despite our best efforts to present a robust case, the imbalance of resources between our community and a large organisation with access to extensive professional representation and reports has proven challenging.

“This decision feels like a significant setback for our residents, who have worked tirelessly to preserve the integrity, safety and character of our area.” It said the matter of alleged “restrictive” covenants remained unsolved with Taylor Wimpey declining to participate in a “third party resolution process".

The association said any legal action resulting would involve individual residents having to share the financial burden, adding: “The association continues to stand by the community, and while we are disheartened by this outcome, we remain committed to seeking a fair resolution for all involved.”

Its representatives suggested at the inquiry that access could be provided from the nearby A174 as this would be safer, but such an access arrangement was never formally consulted over. Instead Taylor Wimpey moved to buy up an existing property on Silverdale Gardens, which is to be demolished, along with a wooded area to the side of it, to create the access required.

The association said residents had “serious concerns about the impact of this plan, particularly as it would force traffic through an already established residential area”.

When approached, Taylor Wimpey said it could not comment directly on the residents’ claims as “this is a legal case”. A spokeswoman advised that work on the new development was scheduled to start in the second quarter of 2025 and it planned to write to Silverdale Gardens residents to brief them about the exact timeline early next year.

Meanwhile, following the conclusion of the planning appeal the council has been asked why it chose to employ an “expensive” barrister at the hearing, held last month in Redcar. Marske councillor Tristan Learoyd said the presence of a barrister had been a "frivolous waste of funds”.

He said: “The barrister’s presumably handsomely rewarded employment for the day appeared to consist of needlessly reading out a pre-prepared council statement.”

The appeal notice decision said: “The council did not present any witnesses at the inquiry, although they did attend and made representations with regards to the session on planning conditions and obligations.”

A spokeswoman for the council said: “The council’s original intention was not to be represented at the hearing in light of external specialist legal advice which described the position as ‘indefensible’.

“Unfortunately, in the lead up to the inquiry, an allegation was raised that the decision not to defend the appeal was unlawful.

“Although the allegation was incorrect, it appeared this issue might well be raised within the appeal hearing and that the inspector may, therefore, require legal submissions on the council’s position and the relevant principles of administrative law, with the potential for an adjournment of the inquiry and exposure to the risk of costs.

“To protect the council’s position a decision was taken to instruct a junior barrister for the initial day of the hearing only. Council officers continued to deal with other aspects of the inquiry on the second day, without the presence of the barrister.

“The outcome was fully expected and the planning inspector’s decision reflects the external legal advice and reasons why the council did not seek to defend the appeal.”

For the latest Redcar and Cleveland news direct to your inbox, go here to sign up to our free newsletter