Agenda item

Consideration was given to planning application 25/1330/OUT Land East Of Holdenfields Farm, Green Lane, Yarm.

 

Planning permission was sought for Outline planning application with all matters reserved except access for up to 600 dwellings.

 

The application site was outwith the development limits, however the Council could not demonstrate a five year supply of housing and therefore the benefits of the scheme had been weighed against the harm as detailed in the report.

 

The development had received a significant number of objections which had been considered in full and there were no sustainable planning reasons to refuse the development.

 

The consultees that had been notified and the comments that had been received were detailed within the main report.

 

Neighbours were notified and the comments received were detailed within the main report.

 

The planning policies and material planning considerations that were relevant to the consideration of the application were contained within the main report.

 

The Planning Officers report concluded that In view of the considerations set out within the main report, the application be recommended for approval with conditions as detailed within the officers report.

 

Objectors attended the meeting and were given the opportunity to make representation. Their comments could be summarised as follows:

 

- Concerns were raised relating to the impact on highways and capacity overload on the local traffic network. Should this application be approved, there would be over an additional 1000 vehicles exacerbating the situation further.

 

- There were 2 roundabouts and 4 junctions on Green Lane with reports of up to 28 vehicles frequently backed up to the junction of Kirk Road.

 

- Would Kirk Road junction have traffic lights should the proposal go ahead?

 

- Questions were raised relating to when the last traffic report had been undertaken as it was believed to have been in 2016.

 

-  Where was the road safety audit within the transport assessment?

 

-  Where would the financial contributions for education and NHS be spent?

 

- Due to the lack of a 5-year housing supply developers were able to submit applications outside the limits of development.

 

- The councils 5-year housing supply estimates were called into question as there were as many as 2300 houses (2.8 years) excluded from the 5-year housing supply.

 

- The application should be refused on the grounds of adverse impact on the area outweighing the benefits.

 

- Accumulative traffic impact must be assessed in terms of historic buildings and landscape with associated noise and air pollution impacting on the ambient setting of Yarm High Street.

 

- Yarm High Street was a conservation area and the local plan protected it.

 

- Reference was made to a previous application 19/0345/OUT at Handley Cross, Leven Bank, Yarm  for the erection of up to 7 dwelling’s and which was refused by the Planning Committee and lost at appeal.  The inspectorate concluded that the proposal would appear as an incongruous form of suburban development in an important countryside gap. The site at Handley Cross was in close proximity to this application site.

 

- There was also reference made to the local Farm Shop on the proposed site which had made a previous application to extend its premises, however the application had received objections from Highways.

 

- A resident and his wife regularly walked into Yarm High Street via the Spital and would arrive in the high street before the queuing vehicles, however the last traffic study was undertaken in 2020 during a COVID year which was not representative of traffic issues during peak times.

 

- Concerns were raised relating to the lack of support in Yarm for its current residents, particularly the elderly. There was little in the way of green belt and parks. Inadequate buses and railway stations, therefore more people relied on their cars. Poor access to car parks. Only 1 chemist, 1 GP surgery and 1 dentist. Nothing got fixed such as pavements and potholes. Traffic congestion made it difficult to get to hospital. There were no leisure facilities in Yarm, the nearest facility was in Ingleby Barwick.

 

- On the 21 January 2026 a valid petition had been considered at full council to stop further developments in Yarm which had been started because of this application, yet there were 2 more applications where Northern PowerGrid had submitted that there was not enough electricity capacity for extra homes.

 

- The application should be deferred due to a lack of clarity regarding power supply.

 

- A previous application for 200 homes had been withdrawn due to traffic matters, showing a lack of consistency.

 

-  Concerns were raised relating to S106 agreements not being completed and also the upgrade to the A19 Crathorne interchange which was running into millions and needed the necessary funding to be completed.

 

- Following the comments submitted by the NHS which stated it was at full capacity and required additional funding should the development go ahead, it was suggested that the required funding should be released as soon as the first dwelling was built.

 

- The development was not needed; there were several houses on development sites within Yarm which had still not sold. In particular 6 new builds on Green Lane which had failed to sell at auction with a starting price of £2700. There were also incidents at Morely Carr development site which had seen the developer send tankers to deal with sewage issues.

 

- Reassurances were sought that the facts and figures submitted by developers relating to the requirement for school places, GP and dental surgeries, flood risk assessments, impacts on roads etc, should be independently checked prior to the development being approved.

 

- Local GP surgery was already struggling with number of patients; it was impossible to make an appointment.

 

- Reference was made to the loss of the 12-acre golf driving range, stating it could violate rural diversification for which funding had been provided. changing the land to housing was highly relevant and needed consent, representing the loss of open space and sporting amenity.

 

- This development alone would lead to approximately 900 vehicles which the current infrastructure could not support.

 

- Nearby comprehensive schools were full to capacity. Yarm did not have a police station and only had a part time operational fire station. The current infrastructure could not cope with the accumulative housing developments in Yarm and Eaglescliffe which would total 1348 houses, approximately 2700 adults, 1500 children and 2000 vehicles.

 

- One member of the public expressed he was not opposed to new housing in principle; however, it must be supported by infrastructure particularly the impact on the A1044 roundabout at Mount Leven, which Highways Officers had not highlighted within the officer’s report. Reference was made relating to the preparation of a masterplan for south-east Yarm to include a possible bypass from A1044 to A167 where he had been in discussions with the Council and was asked to secure landowners' participation which they had agreed to, however formal correspondence from the Council was never issued as agreed. The Committee were also informed that he had commissioned modelling of a link road at his own expense. The report failed to adequately address highways concerns and should this application be approved, it would prevent a relief road. In addition, a new substation would be needed on his land to supply the new homes with electricity which remained at his good will and had yet to be secured.

 

The applicant’s agent was in attendance and given the opportunity to make representation. His comments could be summarised as follows:

 

- The proposed scheme would deliver 120 much needed affordable homes at a time when Stockton was facing an acute affordable housing crisis.

 

- The Yarm traffic model had been updated and there were no outstanding issues.

 

- Northern PowerGrid were obliged to supply power, and they had committed to work to deliver supply.

 

- There were no objections from regulatory authorities / external consultees.

 

- The scheme would provide substantial material benefits, and the 600 homes would meet the councils needs.

 

- There would be green areas, bus provision, safe cycle connections and increased employment revenue, as well as S106 contributions to Crathorne interchange, GP surgeries and education.

 

Officers were given the opportunity to respond to comments/issues raised. Their responses could be summarised as follows:

 

- The Planning Services Manager explained to the Committee that officers had been working on outstanding issues, however they had to consider material planning considerations rather than the weight of public objection as well as supplying housing for future generations. The applicant had put the Councils Planning Authority on notice for non-determination in December 2025 however an extension had been agreed up until today’s meeting and should the application be refused the notice for non-determination would be triggered.

 

- In terms of concerns raised relating to power supply, there was limited capacity available which could slow down housing delivery however that was not a reason for refusal.

 

- In terms of landscaping although it was acknowledged there would be harm, this would not outweigh the overall benefits of the proposed scheme.

 

- The NHS’s response to the consultation requesting additional funding meant that additional capacity could be provided subject to a S106 agreement. Financial contribution would also be required to increase school capacity.

 

- Where concerns had been raised relating to houses not selling in the area, the council worked with national housing figures and the need for future housing. It was the role of the council and statutory consultees to check facts and figures and enter into discussions should additional information be required.

 

- Officers were not aware of tankers at the Morely Carr development site dealing with sewage issues, they could have been called for a failed pumping station.

 

- Flood risk had been considered with a small area of surface flooding, and an assessment had been done raising no significant issues. The driving range was not considered an open space, and was a "commercial entity", but it was understood that the range would be retained.

 

- The proposed site was close to local amenity, such as shops, pub, schools etc therefore was considered a sustainable site.

 

- The Yarm traffic model was updated in the summer of 2025. In terms of severe impact officers were required to consider what had been before. The last application which went to appeal showed an increase of 3-minute increase in journey time and was considered acceptable. This application was only showing an increase of 1 minute on journey times at peak times. There was also cycle link improvements , a bus service and a contribution to the Crathorne Interchange.

 

- Officers also confirmed that access would be subject to agreements, and a full road safety audit process would be done if the application was approved.

 

Members were given the opportunity to ask questions / make comments. These could be summarised as follows:

 

- The site was not originally marked for housing and was outside the limits to development. Should the application be approved this would exacerbate an already busy road network with over an additional 1000 vehicles. There would also be a substantial increase of patients at Yarm Medical Practice, and there were real issues around school places at the local secondary school. Electricity supply was also a reason for concern.

 

- Traffic concerns were real, as demonstrated by a small section of the A19 being closed recently and traffic in Stockton coming to a standstill. It was also felt officers had not fully addressed issues surrounding why 200 homes were refused due to road safety traffic capacity issues, however this application was for 600 homes with no traffic concerns.

 

- Traffic capacity in Yarm was already horrific, and it was time that the Planning Committee just said no to further developments in Yarm unless the right infrastructure was in place.

 

- Figures relating to zero queuing traffic on Kirk Road reported by Eddison’s did not stack up and needed to be checked.

 

- Comments made relating to ‘non-determination’ and the threat of an appeal would not influence Members decisions. How could a developer put the council on notice when there were numerous outstanding issues still needing to be addressed.

 

- Concerns were raised relating to fact and figures submitted by the applicant and whether these had been thoroughly checked by officers.

 

- Yarm medical Practice was already at full capacity. Should the practice be able to extend to accommodate the predicted additional patients, they would need to walk, as the current car park could not be extended

 

- In terms of the 120 affordable homes that were proposed, these would be too expensive for most people to afford.

 

- The proposed site was prime arable land and should be left alone.

 

- Future development sites had not been considered in terms of impact on traffic highway safety and infrastructure.

 

- A nearby development to the proposed site by Duchy Homes had a S106 agreement in place which highlighted that they could only allow occupancy of the first 50 homes until the Crathorne Interchange had been completed, therefore building would stop until the upgrade of the interchange.

 

- The upgrade to the Crathorne interchange would take years, and until completed local roads would take the strain.

 

- The proposed application was a sizeable extension to Yarm and needed to be part of a Masterplan.

 

- Land use and environmental issues needed to be determined.

 

- Ancient woodland and protected species must be protected and an Environmental Management Plan was required including a check for Badgers.

 

- Concerns were raised relating to flooding particularly that along Green Lane which was a major problem.

 

- There was a lack of confidence in the future 5-year housing supply until the Crathorne Interchange had been completed. Other housing developments such as Little Maltby Farm which had originally been included in the councils 5-year housing supply had now been excluded even though the application had been approved.

 

- Mitigation for wildlife was required. If habitats were to be destroyed permission for major developments should not be granted.

 

- Officers seemed to have dismissed one of the biggest concerns which was the lack of a power supply.

 

- Questions were raised asking when the Crathorne Interchange would be completed and whether it had gone out to tender.

 

Officers were given the opportunity to respond to comments/issues raised. Their responses could be summarised as follows:

 

- Where concerns had been raised relating to the lack of a masterplan, officers explained most planners would prefer a masterplan which was the intention, however their approach had to change. There were several applications which required determination, however the fact the council did not have a masterplan was not a reason for refusal.

 

- In terms of capacity issues around electricity supply, this would still need negotiation between Northen Powergrid and landowners to procure and determine where a substation would go.

 

- Regarding concerns relating to road safety, this had been considered by an appeal inspector on a different application, who did not find it a material planning consideration.

 

- The previous plan for 200 homes was withdrawn and not refused. The council also had a Local Plan in place at the time.

 

- The proposed development complied with policy in terms of affordable housing.

 

- In terms of the impact on surgeries and school places this would be addressed with a S106 agreement.

 

- Regarding the cost of affordable homes, the Planning Authority looked to ensure 20% of affordable homes would be delivered on any proposed development however had no say over the market price of those homes.

 

- In terms of the 5-year housing supply, all 600 homes could not be delivered within 5 years, and therefore not all could be included in the council 5 year housing supply however, they would be added to the 5-year rolling housing supply. There was a difficult decision which needed to be made to achieve five years' worth of housing, because of national policy.

 

- Had the council had an up-to-date Local Plan full weight could be added to some policies.

 

- Officers explained that this was the first housing application on this site therefore there were no other sites to consider in terms of cumulative impact and the increase in journey times could not be accepted as severe.

 

- Officers explained to the Planning Committee that clarification would need to be sought in terms of how far ahead the Crathorne Interchange was.

 

A vote took place and the application was refused.

 

Members clarified reasons for refusal

 

RESOLVED that planning application 25/133/OUT Land East Of Holdenfields Farm, Green Lane, Yarm be refused for the reasons as detailed below:

 

In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the proposed development is outside the defined settlement limits and would have an unacceptable impact on the character and distinctiveness of Yarm. The development would also not represent sustainable development under the terms of the National Planning Policy Framework and in accordance with paragraph 11(d,ii) of the framework, the associated benefits of the proposals would not be outweighed by the limited contribution to housing supply and the resultant harm to; the landscape character of Yarm; biodiversity, ecology and protected species; the local highway network; and there being insufficient infrastructure capacity to the support the proposed development, contrary to policies SD3(4), SD8 (1&2), TI1(6&12) and ENV5(1) of the adopted Stockton on Tees Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework 110, 129.135, 187 and 193.