RESIDENTS are celebrating victory over a housing developer who wanted to build an estate near their homes after the plan was rejected at the second attempt.

Last August, Wear Valley District Council refused planning permission for nine houses and associated works to the east of Woodifield Hill, in Crook.

After an appeal by neighbours, the council's development control committee refused the application because of its effect on residential amenities, including loss of privacy and light.

But the applicant, Carlton Developments North Limited, appealed against the decision and a hearing was held in April by a Government planning inspector.

Objectors were delighted to learn that the inspector refused the appeal because the proposal was deemed inappropriate.

Objectors Keith and Jean Rutter said they and neighbours who fought the application were very pleased with the outcome of the appeal.

Mrs Rutter said: "We felt the proposed buildings were completely out of character with the area and the close proximity would overshadow and dwarf our bungalow and garden, and other properties surrounding the site.

"We were also concerned about parking facilities and access as the road is very narrow.

"Our privacy and that of our neighbours would have been invaded.

"We are pleased that the Government official agreed with our concerns."

Ward member Councillor Geoff Mowbray said: "Local people feel absolute relief at the appeal decision.

"Many residents who would neighbour the site are older and retired, so want to be able to enjoy their homes and gardens.

"But they felt that if the houses were built they would not be able to do that any more.

"When the development control committee refused the application there was a spontaneous round of applause. It isn't often the council gets that response, but it proves we do consider people's opinions."

The inspector disagreed with the council's other reasons for refusal - that the development would have a detrimental impact on road safety and the area should be protected as greenfield land - leaving the site open to future applications.

A claim for costs, made by the applicant because council officers had recommended approval of the scheme, was also dismissed