Plans for 135 homes in village approved after developer wins High Court appeal

Developer Cameron Hall Homes said it was pleased with the decision of a second government-appointed inspector. Objectors, meanwhile, have said they are disappointed with the outcome.

Planning permission was refused for the two to five-bedroom homes in Wynyard Village in May 2024. Residents had objected to the scheme, with 65 objections saying it was overdevelopment which would cause traffic congestion and be out of keeping with Wynyard.

Stockton Council’s planning committee turned down the proposal, saying the plans went too far. They found if the scheme and other plans for the area were approved, the number of new homes would rise by more than 50% from 500 to 767.

A planning inspector dismissed an appeal last May, finding the proposal would not be overdevelopment but would harm the nearby grade II* listed Wynyard Park and Garden and have an “urbanising influence” on a site with 18th and 19th century associations. He found there would be conflict with Stockton Local Plan policies and “would be at odds with the sense of isolation and enclosure which is a key characteristic of the parkland landscape, harming its setting”.

However the developer launched a legal challenge, arguing the planning refusal was unlawful as the inspector failed to take certain matters into account. The High Court quashed the inspector’s “inadequately reasoned” decision and ordered a new appeal, and now, a different inspector has allowed the appeal and granted planning permission for the scheme.

The inspector, Sarah Manchester, said the 135 homes “would represent a significant increase in the number of dwellings originally anticipated” in the Wynyard Village Extension given outline approval in 2017. However she said the development would still be “low density and therefore in-keeping with the established character of Wynyard”.

She said “future occupiers would have reasonable access to services and facilities” including a convenience store, hairdressers’, pharmacy, dentist, estate agents’, pub, restaurants, primary school, hotel and spa, and an approved local centre. She added: “I conclude that the proposal would not be overdevelopment, having regard to scale, housing density and the supporting infrastructure. As the proposal would be in-keeping, it would not harm the character of Wynyard Village.”

Ms Manchester said the grade II-listed park and garden was “an asset of the highest significance”, but found the harm to it would not be permanent, and revised plans showed an extended woodland buffer to screen the development. She also took into account money the developer will pay towards affordable housing and education: “The proposal would make a sizeable contribution to the council’s housing supply and there would be a large financial contribution towards affordable housing.

“Taking into account the shortfall in the council’s five-year housing land supply, these benefits carry significant weight. The financial contribution towards education and the support for local employment and local businesses collectively carry moderate positive weight.

“The harm would be relatively short-term in duration and its magnitude would decrease as the planting matured. I therefore find that the limited and temporary harm would be outweighed by the public benefits.”

She said the proposal would have a “negligible impact” on the road network and there was “little substantive evidence” that there would be an increase in crime or poor privacy for future residents. She said she was not aware of any “unusual or excessive noise” which would harm neighbours during construction, and concluded the appeal should be allowed with conditions.

Mark Antonopoulos, managing director at Cameron Hall Homes, said: “We’re pleased to have been granted planning permission for a further phase of homes in Wynyard. As a family-led business, continuing to deliver high-quality homes for the North East is central to our values, and we look forward to building on the success of Stoney Wood.”

Objectors say they feel not enough consideration has been given to their concerns. Allan Fletcher, a former Wynyard Parish Council chair, responded to the decision: “You don’t need any experience whatsoever of planning law to realise that 767 houses in an area of land approved for delivery of a maximum of 500 is overdevelopment.

“They’ve sided against public opinion. It deserves a proper public inquiry where witnesses can be called and cross-examined.”

Another objector, who did not wish to be named, said: “For me personally and I think a lot of other residents, it’s disappointing. We’ve been asking for a public inquiry because of all the issues at stake.

“The disappointing aspect is that despite all our detailed objections we put in, it’s never been examined.”

Cameron Hall Developments had argued refusal of its plan was “without any basis”. It acknowledged the scale of development “has increased from that originally envisaged”, but “the site is capable of accommodating the scale of development proposed”.

In a statement of its case, it said: “The proposed development would enhance the characteristics of Wynyard Village and will deliver a high-quality executive housing development in an attractive landscaped setting at a low density enhancing the village.”

It said the proposals included a local centre with up to eight units “which it is envisaged will include a medical centre, a restaurant/café, a community facility, a veterinary practice and other retail units”. It argued this would “further enhance the sustainability of Wynyard Village and broaden the range of shops and services available to residents”.

Several interested parties posted submissions on the appeal. One said the homes would exceed a cap of 500 homes which had already been exhausted: “This is a clear case of overdevelopment in breach of planning control.

“The local community and the council accepted the 500-home outline on the understanding that the cap and plan were binding. To exceed it now erodes trust in the planning system.” Andrew Dennis, chair of Wynyard Residents’ Association, wrote that the “original masterplan has been distorted through increased densities”.