A PLANNED flats development in a green area of Guisborough remains up in the air after councillors decided they needed to see the site before making a judgment

Barry Parvin, who owns the town's Graceland Nursing Home, had submitted a revised application to Redcar and Cleveland Council to build 12 flats in two blocks on land next to the home, off Enfield Chase .

This third set of plans - the original was for 18 flats, followed by another for eight flats and four town houses - provoked 60 letters of objection.

Many of the objectors were at Wednesday's planning committee meeting and were represented by members of the Belmont Residents' Association, as well as ward councillors and the Mayor of Guisborough, Coun Bill Clarke.

Mr V Peacock, from the residents' association, told the meeting that the application went against policy laid down in the local plan, in that both blocks of flats faced existing homes.

He said: "We maintain that the scale and nature of this proposal is totally alien and would amount to character assassination of the area."

Another resident, Richard Scott, questioned the planning officer's report which stated that a minimum distance of 21m from the proposed buildings to neighbouring homes had been met in all but one instance.

He said it was only 11.3m from one house and 18m from another, according to the plans.

Another main concern was the long-standing problem of surface water in Belmangate, which residents felt would only be made worse by the proposed development.

Coun Keith Pudney said: "I have never heard anything so valueless as the comments made on this application by Northumbrian Water, which is well aware of the considerable problem with surface water in this area.

"The fact that Northumbrian Water has not raised any objections to the application should be disregarded."

The chairman of the planning committee, Coun Peter Spencer, said: "I have a great deal of apprehension about this and I appreciate there are a number of councillors who do not have a great knowledge of where the site is positioned."

Coun Brian Briggs proposed refusal of the application, which was seconded by Coun Val Miller.

But an earlier proposal for a site visit was agreed by six votes to two, meaning a decision would have to be deferred.