Councillors suffer threats over Development on the edge of Marske

Councillors voted by six to four to approve so-called ‘reserved matters’ in respect of plans for 810 new homes on the outskirts of Marske, east Cleveland, along with provision for a drive through fast food restaurant, pub, hotel, convenience store, chemist, petrol station, primary school, children’s day nursery and community hall.

Councillor Stuart Smith said there had been “unacceptable bullying and underhand tactics” from some residents opposed to the plans – the application only gaining approval by six votes to four after a condition was proposed and agreed to put in place measures to reduce the development’s carbon footprint by almost a third (31%), along with enhancements in renewable energy elements.

But Cllr Smith’s claim was described as “nonsense” by former Liberal Democrat councillor Dr Tristan Learoyd, who co-founded the ‘Stop the Houses’ campaign back in 2012.

Dr Learoyd also described the outcome as a “charade” with objectors having been “hoodwinked” and said the aimed-for carbon emissions reduction was a “fag packet calculation”, which had already been included in the plans.

Read more: Jailed thief and burglar targeted well-to-do area of Newcastle

The development was refused by Redcar and Cleveland Council after plans were first lodged in 2013, but after an appeal by the applicant and land owner the West Midlands Pension Fund, which led to a public inquiry, a Government planning inspector gave outline planning permission four years later, subject to a number of conditions.

The reserved matters application considered elements such as the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of the development, the principle of development having already been established.

Some people held up signs in the packed public gallery during the council meeting in Redcar stating: “Keep Your Climate Change Promise” – a reference to the local authority’s pledge to make the borough carbon neutral by 2030 – and there were occasional cries of “shameful” during the debate.

Dr Learoyd insisted opposition to the development was not “nimbyism” and labelled the design of the homes being built by Miller Homes and Taylor Wimpey as like something from the 1980s.

He said the core argument was that the homes needed to be future-proofed and said it would cost millions to retro-fit the properties to meet climate change and energy efficiency demands, as well as put additional infrastructure in place required to meet residents’ needs.

Pensioner Peter Finlinson, a former civil engineer who lives in Marske and has been another prominent local voice against the plans, said: “This will basically overwhelm Marske and spoil its character and appearance.

Read more: North East Met Office forecast for Friday, March 10

“It is goodbye to a place that is desirable to live in.”

Work on the new development, which will be on land to the south of Marske and bounded by Longbeck Road and the A1085 and A174 roads, has to commence within two years of reserved matters being approved.

Redcar and Cleveland Council’s development services manager Claire Griffiths had told regulatory committee members that they could not “cherry pick or part approve” from the reserved matters, nor could they consider the impact on the local road network away from the development site since this was covered in the outline planning permission.

Some speakers were critical of the housing mix proposed and also pointed out that there were no bungalows, or independent living accommodation for the elderly.

Meanwhile, there were suggestions from opponents a proposed school would never be built, a potential school playing field having been removed from plans, while the GP surgery was also unlikely to be incorporated in the development due to a hefty section 106 financial estimate from the NHS.

A report recommending approval of the development included comments from a council education representative who said the school’s inclusion was purely for the purposes of reserving a site should a new primary school deemed to be required at a later stage.

A section 106 agreement with the council also made the potential school site available for a period of ten years only from the commencement of the housing development.

The representative said they understood the developers had no intention of developing or funding a new school in full and funding made available in in the section 106 to mitigate pupil place requirements in the area would not fully pay for such a project.

Although he was not present at the meeting, Redcar MP Jacob Young had been among the objectors, having expressed unhappiness about the scale of development and associated plans to reduce the A1085 to a single lane under traffic signal control, which he said would cause “traffic chaos”.

Mr Young said the decision to reduce the highway to a single lane under the A1085 railway bridge to accommodate pedestrian access to and from the development – as opposed to residents’ requests for a more expensive foot and cycle bridge over the railway line – was based on a traffic assessment from 2016 which did not stand the test of time.

Saltburn, Marske and New Marske Parish Council also objected on the grounds of the development’s appearance, layout, landscaping and scale being detrimental to the residents of Marske.

‘71 football pitches’

Dr Learoyd said the development would be 71 football pitches in size and claimed there had been a miscalculation in respect of the risk of flooding and drainage elements.

He added: “We can’t remove a petrol station [from the application], despite the fact that electric vehicles are to become compulsory, yet we can remove a school that would benefit the community.

“But there is a takeaway, which is against the council’s obesity policy, the density for takeaways in this area already being above the borough average.”

Dr Learoyd said the properties would contain no heat pumps and claimed the development relied on energy efficiency policies that were already out of date.

Mr Finlinson rejected what he said was the planning inspector’s assertion that in many respects the proposed development would be a natural extension of the existing village in Marske.

He said: “That comes as somewhat of a surprise to residents and they, as a consequence, have made over 600 objections.

“The case officer dismisses these as not being material planning considerations, but echoes the public’s general discomfort in her report by saying the site is isolated in its relationship to existing character areas and the railway line provides a buffer.”

Mr Finlinson claimed the development was counter to the council’s policy as it did not improve, or respect the existing character of Marske.

He also said the report appraising the plans acknowledged a lack of play equipment on the site, but made no comment about the disappearance of a playing field.

Mr Finlinson said a Cleveland Police consultee had expressed reservations about a proposed network of ginnels at the rear of some properties, which could lead to an increase in low level crime, and it was “unacceptable” to dismiss this in the report as something that could not be controlled by planning.

He added: “The officer says the loss of agricultural land was dealt with on the outline planning application – this is now an anachronism as in 2023 we are all supposed to eat turnips because we don’t have sufficient arable land and have problems with food security.”

If you want to read more stories, why not subscribe to your Northern Echo for as little as £1.25 a week. Click here

Another objector John Lambert, who spoke at the original public inquiry, suggested the development had previously been sold as “the future” and potentially housing people working in new green industries on Teesside.

He said: “These houses are fit for the 19th or 20th century, not 21st or 22nd.

“These properties include no reduction in fossil fuel – they are all fitted with gas boilers.”

Mr Lambert added: “The Government has made it legally binding that CO2 be reduced by 2050.

“This council in its own document has set out 2030, we cannot allow this development to go forward in its current state because that would breach everything you councillors have voted and worked for.

“This application provides for a fossil fuel-based petrol station when in a couple of years time you will not be allowed to buy a petrol or diesel car to drive in.

“There are so many features in this plan that are missing that make it unfit for 2030, 2040 or 2050.

“I ask the committee to reject this application and require it to be re-submitted so it is fit for the future, for our future and our grandchildren.”

St Germain’s ward councillors Deborah Dowson and Karen King also spoke against the application, saying they shared residents’ concerns, which had not been listened to.

Cllr King claimed the land owner’s “aspirations for financial gain had been put above the quality of life for local people”.

She said: “Network Rail, the police, public rights of way, the parish council and the NHS have all submitted concerns over the plans you are being asked to approve today.

“I implore you to listen to them, the speakers’ representing the residents, the people in the public gallery and the many others who could not be here today objecting to the plans.”

Cllr King questioned the impact of the development on local services, parking provision, the environment and biodiversity.

She described how she had endeavoured to speak to elected representatives on the board of the pension fund, which is administered by Wolverhampton City Council, with only one having the courtesy to reply.

That person had questioned the pension fund’s involvement in the development and whether the choice of site was a wise one.

Cllr King said the “large scale” housing development was on prime arable land and not needed or wanted.

She said: “We are living in the 21st century, but what you see before you is not futuristic, it is already outdated by decades.

“It does not take into consideration the demographics of the area with no provision for single storey properties to support an ageing population or residents with limited mobility.”

‘High quality and attractive’

Sandra Manson, a planning agent appearing on behalf of the applicant, said it had worked closely with the council’s officers to ensure the proposals “promote key concepts of good design and sustainability”.

She said it would be a “high quality, attractive” development with an affordable homes element over the 15% proportion required, the equivalent of about 122 properties.

The meeting heard the development would be a sustainable addition to the area which would complement Marske.

Ms Manson said: “The combination of uses on the site will help underpin the sustainability of the proposals as well as offering services and facilities for the wider community in Marske.

“Other notable benefits include job creation during construction and the generation of additional expenditure in the area from new residents which can benefit local businesses.”

Ms Manson said there was no planning requirement for bungalows to be included in the scheme, but there was a wide mix of properties that would be available including two, three, four and five bed homes.

The agent said Miller Homes and Taylor Wimpey would be working to building regulation standards published in June last year, although Dr Learoyd said these had been surpassed with a new requirement coming into force in January relating to different heating systems that now needed to be installed in homes.

There would be electric vehicle charging provision, the agent said, along with use of photovoltaic panels and renewable features.

Ms Manson said extensive, detailed work had been done in respect of drainage from the 50 plus hectare site with a relevant condition being attached to the permission being sought and there had been no objection from Northumbrian Water.

The council report said there would be SUDs ponds and storage tanks located throughout the site and a “positively drained system” would offer significant betterment to the informal existing arrangements on the land.

It also said matters relating to loss of agricultural land, drainage, flooding, ecology, contaminated land, landscape and visual impact, noise and archaeology were all dealt with in the outline application and deemed acceptable by the planning inspector with the reserved matters application raising no issues in relation to any of these matters. 

Councillor Alec Brown said he was not anti-progress and would not object without valid reason, but he could not support the plans.

Cllr Brown said: “We’re talking about the character of housing, some of the houses on Marske High Street are 250 years old built with sandstone, the character and design of some of these houses are nowhere near.

“Safety wise, we are told the roads and paths are going to be fit for purpose, but we see how across the borough we are saturated with cars – each of these houses will probably have two to three cars.”

Councillor Anne Watts pointed out that it was six years since the matter went to appeal.

She said: “The area is different, people’s habits are different, we have more traffic on the road, all sorts of things have changed that this [the development] should take account of.

“The Government over the last few years has tried to involve residents more in planning, repeatedly I am not seeing that in Redcar and Cleveland.”

Cllr Watts likened the development to a “new town” which could overshadow the surrounding area and suggested the number of properties it contained needed to be revisited.

Councillor Mike Lockwood said he had concerns about the “futureproofing” of the development.

He said: “We have been given promises about solar panels, EV charging, but there’s nothing specific.

“All we are doing is passing the cost of updating this development in the future to the residents and the council taxpayers.”

A woman stormed out of the meeting when Councillor Malcolm Head, the vice chairman of the committee, suggested there were no grounds in planning law to refuse the reserved matters, which she said was “insulting”.

Councillor Carole Morgan said she had a problem with the density of the development and “houses jammed next to each other”, and a lack of open spaces.

She also described the design of the housing as outdated – it having previously been described by one critic as “monotonous and dull”.

The council report had said the proposed layout and house types were acceptable, as was the scale and design for the location.

Councillor Neil Baldwin said the appeal outcome had granted permission for “up to a thousand houses and this is less than that”, while the inspector had decreed the site suitable for development.

He said there had been impressive speeches from those who spoke opposing the plans, but he was edging towards acceptance.

Councillor Philip Thomson said there was a moral argument to reject the application, but no planning reasons to do so.

He proposed the application be approved, but with further climate change aspects “built in” and requested a discussion between representatives of the council and the applicant’s agent.

Councillor Andrew Hixon said: “It’s a compromise to see if we can work things out.

“I would support Cllr Thomson in that.

“Let’s have a chat and see what we can get in writing to meet future planning constraints and the sustainability we are all aiming for.”

Council planning manager Mrs Griffiths said there was a condition with the outline planning permission that 10% of the site’s energy requirements would be provided by renewable energy and further detailed conditions could be added.

Before the vote, which agreed the reserved matters, committee chairman Cllr Smith, who is also the Redcar and Cleveland borough mayor, made a statement regarding “unfortunate and inappropriate behaviour” that had taken place within a consultation period.

He said: “All committee members have been contacted and lobbied by members of the public who have given their own personal views on this application.

“This is acceptable and expected within a democratic society.

“What is not acceptable is the conduct and behaviour of a few individuals who have tried to influence the decision process of this committee by threats of physical harm and misinformation and untruths given out to residents on various public platforms.

“The threats and intimidation tactics to interfere with the democratic process and to threaten interference with upcoming local elections are totally unacceptable.”

Cllr Smith added that he would not be influenced by bullying and underhand tactics and they had no bearing on his decision over the application.

He went on to add: “We have one person to thank for why we are sitting here today, that is the planning inspector which overturned in 2017 the decision of this council.”

The approval granted will mean the applicant, prior to commencement of development, has to provide an updated energy strategy, including requirements to be delivered across the site, which will have to be submitted to the council and agreed with officers.

Explaining what was agreed, Mrs Griffiths said: “I can also confirm that through enhanced building regulations all residential properties will have EV charging points.

“All Taylor Wimpey properties will include solar PV panels on the roof and some Miller properties, although because of the roof designs not all can.”

Access to the planned site will be via Longbeck Road and a connected access point on the A1085, while a mixed-use leisure area, consisting of the petrol station, fast food drive through, hotel and pub will be located in the south east corner of the site with its own vehicular access from the A1085.