Proposals to build 265 homes have been refused following hundreds of objections citing congestion and threats to road safety and wildlife.

Keepmoat Homes and Banks Property applied for planning permission to build 265 homes, including 86 affordable homes and four bungalows, off Cygnet Drive and Kingfisher Way, Bowesfield Lane, Stockton.

Managing directors Ian Worgan, for Keepmoat North-East, and Russ Hall, for Banks Property, told councillors the “final phase of regeneration” for the Bowesfield brownfield site was the first viable proposal since 2015 and would deliver social, environmental and economic benefits, high-quality open space, training and jobs at a time of acute housing need.

They argued it would not impact on the Bowesfield nature reserve.

However the plans drew 45 letters of objection, including from Stockton West MP Matt Vickers, and an online petition with 783 signatures, and objectors spoke to Stockton Council’s planning committee as it considered the plan on Wednesday (September 4).

One objector Harvey McKie said: “If this beautiful green space gets built on, it will put the wildlife that lives in the nature reserve at huge risk. This will force and push them out of their natural habitat.

“This isn’t a derelict brownfield as Keepmoat have described. This is a wonderful green space that has lots of visitors regularly. This is not an appropriate place to stick 265 houses.

“Bowefield Park is already a busy housing estate that’s massively congested with traffic on a day-to-day basis. Try getting out of the estate at peak hours – it’s carnage,” he told the meeting.

Stockton Council’s planning officers recommended approval of the proposal for the two to four-bedroom homes.

They said it was not up to the developers to solve existing parking issues, the plans should not add to them and there were no issues at the area’s roundabouts.

Principal planning officer Elaine Atkinson said the land had been allocated for housing: “This site was always to be developed. This site was always going to be built on.

“It’s outside the nature reserve and it’s outside the green wedge.” She added ecology experts found there would be “no adverse impact on ecology sufficient to warrant a refusal”.

Debating the plan, Councillor Norma Stephenson said she agreed with the objectors: “I’m not against development overall but I’m really not happy with this application. I think it’s badly designed, I think it’s overdeveloped.

“They’ll be parked on both sides. It’ll be twice as bad as it was before.”

Other councillors concurred on the congestion point, raising issues like lack of public transport, services and facilities.

Cllr Tony Riordan said: “There’s no material benefit in putting 265 houses on top of these people. You’re going to make their lives a misery.”

Cllr Lynn Hall said she had seen the roads “absolutely chockablock”: “I know there’s real traffic congestion there all of the time, every day. It’s just total gridlock. I can’t go along with it.

“The fact is this area is totally clogged with traffic. And this development would just add to that.

“Originally there was 187 properties planned for that little patch of land. It’s gone up to 265+.”

Get more content including the stories that matter to your community from The Northern Echo for just £3 for 3 months for a limited time only here.

Most read:

Cllr Shakeel Hussain added: “It might be the right application but it’s definitely the wrong place.”

Cllr John Coulson said: “I’m appalled. How much longer are we going to rape our countryside and displace our animals? Even if it’s not part of the nature reserve, it’s going to impact on nature.”

Councillors voted 12-2 to refuse the plan, on the grounds of over-development, road and transport issues, though not impact on wildlife.