A CONTROVERSIAL housing development in Great Ayton could go ahead - despite serious concerns raised by planners.

Wimpey Homes wants to build 38 dwellings at the rear of California Court in Frankfield Place. The site, a former primary school, has been previously used partly by Burden Engineering and partly as a depot for Pearson and Sons haulage firm and Hambleton District Council's environmental services department.

Wimpey plans to demolish the old buildings and construct nine three-bedroom and seven two-bedroom houses along with 22 two-bedroom flats in two- and three-storey blocks.

More than 20 letters of objection from residents were submitted to Hambelton District Council development control committee. Concerns included the lack of parking in the area and that the three-storey developments would result in a loss of privacy for homeowners in the smaller surrounding houses.

A previous application in November last year for 62 flats on the site was turned down because the developers refused to provide affordable housing or a public open space in the plans.

Under planning guidelines, the development of brownfield sites into homes has to include provision for affordable housing such as rented accommodation. Figures from Broadacres housing association identified 111 householders in Great Ayton on waiting lists for rented accommodation.

But the developers have refused to earmark any of the site for affordable housing, saying it would make the estate unprofitable.

Planning officers recommended that the scheme be refused on the grounds that the plans did not provide any affordable housing and that the sum offered by developers for a play area in Great Ayton was not enough.

But the leader of the cabinet, Coun June Imeson, urged councillors to approve the scheme. She denied that the village needed more affordable housing, saying it was "absolutely inundated with them".

"In Great Ayton we have a very large number of housing association properties, both sheltered accommodation and three- and two-bedroom houses," she said.

"I think we are very well supplied for social housing, so I don't think in this case the affordable housing is appropriate or necessary. I think it would be a shame if the very attractive houses along the school site were mixed with social housing."

She suggested that Great Broughton would be a more appropriate site for rented accommodation.

The proposed site for the development is in the centre of the village. Coun Imeson feared that if the builders were forced to provide affordable housing, the deal would collapse.

"If this doesn't reach a conclusion soon then the developer may walk away," she said. "The haulier is committed to moving and there is nothing to stop him from selling to another industrial developer."

Director of planning and environmental services, Mr Steve Quartermain, suggested that as some developers gave a commuted sum for play areas rather than include an open space in their development, perhaps a commuted sum could be taken in this case in place of the affordable housing.

Coun Ian Grieve proposed that planning permission should be granted, subject to planning officers negotiating commuted sums for both affordable housing and for a play area. Members voted 11 to five in favour.