WORK on a controversial £50m regeneration scheme in Stockton is expected to begin in the next few days.
More than 4,000 people objected to the proposals to regenerate the banks of the River Tees at Bowesfield, fearing the plans would lead to an over-development of the riverside.
The scheme, which incorporates residential, commercial, leisure and nature conservation areas, was referred to the Secretary of State for the Environment who announced he would not take the matter further, and a full inquiry would not be held.
It is hoped the development, carried out by The Banks Group, will create about 1,500 jobs. It is expected to take six years to complete.
The scheme will create an 11-hectare business park, housing development and 15-hectare nature conservation area between the new development and the River Tees, in a joint initiative with Tees Valley Wildlife Trust.
As part of the scheme, the developer has worked alongside residents, businesses and Stockton Borough Council to revitalise the area by enhancing the natural environment, regenerating degraded land and creating new jobs.
Bryan Moore, from local group English Environment, which opposes the plan, said: "It is beyond belief - 4,000 people objected to these plans. It was one of the biggest campaigns on Teesside, and it has been ignored.
"People now enjoy going up the River Tees on the boat at the moment, but if you go after this development it is going to be all housing and buildings. The natural beauty is going to be totally trashed."
But John Dickenson, group development director for The Banks Group, said: "The Bowesfield Scheme is a fantastic development.
"The Banks Group is committed to regeneration and building sustainable communities and will continue to work closely with the local community throughout the life of its involvement with the project," he said.
"The activity starting on site involves earthworks and the initial infrastructure for the development. The main construction work will start early next year."
Banks was allowed to apply for planning permission despite the site being a conservation area, because it had previously been built upon, so it is a designated brownfield site.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article