Numerous residents spoke up at a meeting of Stockton Council’s decision-making planning committee after the plans for Sandy Lane West, Billingham, drew 279 letters of objection and just one in support.
People who had lived in the area for decades raised concerns including “horrific” and “incredible” traffic congestion near three schools, potential “chaos” and strain on overstretched, overwhelmed services.
![Sandy Lane West, Billingham. Picture: Google.]()
Sandy Lane West, Billingham. Picture: Google.
Tom Carr, managing director of developer TCC Land, told Wednesday’s meeting he wanted the Middlesbrough-based company to help the region grow.
He said: “I want to be able to walk into my local pub as the man who delivers good stuff for his community.”
He said he had made changes and taken on board suggestions, including traffic calming speed cushions, for the outline plan, adding: “I’ve stood in the middle of a muddy field with my boots on, I’ve stood and listened to feedback from residents.
“I want to be able to drive my family past this development and be proud to tell them we developed it.”
Objector Gemma Laycock countered: “My children are going to have to live in it. And I’ve got serious concerns.”
Samantha McHale said a community petition gathered more than 500 signatures, arguing the plan was not safe, sustainable or beneficial.
She said: “The strength of the feeling of our community is clear, our community is united and we’re saying no.
“It will only deepen existing inequalities. We should be investing in services before adding further pressure, not the other way around.
“We are facing a terrifying reality regarding road safety. This development will introduce hundreds of additional vehicles on to our roads near our schools.
“This is already a dangerous stretch of road with multiple accidents and a fatality in the past couple of years. It’s an accident waiting to happen.”
Christopher Harston said: “We often witness crashes, near misses, speeding, incidents, police pursuits, one of which became a crash right outside my front gate.
“Our beloved dog was killed at a junction. If a substantial increase in traffic is approved on these already inadequate roads, one day it may not be a pet that pays the price.”
Angela Molnar said road accidents had gone unreported, adding: “It’s a lived reality for those who live nearby. I personally witnessed a child being knocked over just outside Northfield School.
“These are the kinds of incidents that never appear in your data but are happening in real life. I was involved in a road traffic collision where my car was written off.
“This is not just about congestion, it’s about preventable harm. The risks are already too high, approving this development would make them worse.”
![Inside Stockton Council's planning committee meeting in the council chamber at Dunedin House, Thornaby on the afternoon of Wednesday, June 10. Picture: LDRS.]()
Inside Stockton Council’s planning committee meeting in the council chamber at Dunedin House, Thornaby on the afternoon of Wednesday, June 10. Picture: LDRS.
Objectors described the plans as “totally unsuitable” for the area, expressing worries about parking, spoiling an “oasis of calm”, the loss of green space, impact on wildlife, light and traffic pollution, crime, anti-social behaviour, HGVs, and noise, dust and disruption affecting residents in construction lasting up to four years.
Ward councillor Marcus Vickers argued the plans violated Stockton’s Local Plan which tried to prevent urban sprawl, saying it would destroy fields and would be “the starting gun for coalescing Wolviston Village to the rest of Billingham”.
Cllr David Reynard said the development could be “life-changing” for residents.
Neil Westwick, senior director of the developer’s agent Lichfields, said their detailed traffic surveys and transport assessment found the longest road delay would be 1.1 seconds.
He said it would be a “logical extension settlement” of much-needed homes, leaving a “clear and meaningful physical gap of approximately 260m” between Billingham and Wolviston.
The council’s planning officers recommended the plan for approval. Planning services manager Simon Grundy said they noted residents’ concerns and the site was outside development limits, but this was not enough to warrant refusal.
He said the council did not have five years’ worth of housing land supply, so the balance swung in favour of developers.
He said there would be enough space to protect Billingham and Wolviston’s distinct identities: “It’s considered to be in a sustainable location with good access to services and facilities.
“Taking all matters into account, the adverse impacts are considered to be limited and do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal.”
Highways engineer Martin Parker said assessments of four key junctions using industry software came back with no capacity issues, prompting responses of “you’re joking” from members of the public.
He said there would be “negligible delays” and officers could not object to the plan: “The impact’s simply not there.
“Yes there have been a number of accidents in the last 20 years. There have been 10 accidents on Thames Road.”
He said one serious accident involving a child “could have happened anywhere” and six less serious accidents were not in the last five years: “We could not class that road as unsafe. There will be good access for all users.”
Further reports, assessments and potential measures were to come to tackle noise for proposed homes near the A19, and a nearby old landfill last used in the 1980s.
Cllr Lynn Hall said she was not reassured, saying: “Would I like to live on this site adjacent to the A19? No.”
Cllr Barry Woodhouse said he had “grave concerns” over traffic, parking near schools, homes’ affordability, the A19 and noise.
He said: “If you put another 179, possibly 300 cars coming in and out of that estate and all the schools, I think it’s going to be a nightmare. I think it’s just the wrong place to put it.”
Cllrs Stephen Dodds said the plan was “not a natural fit” for the area and there was a “disconnect between modelling and reality, people’s real-life experiences”. Cllr Shakeel Hussain said: “It just doesn’t fit right. It would just ruin the identity of Wolviston.”
Councillors voted 10-2 to reject the plan on the grounds of traffic, A19 noise, loss of agricultural land, development limits, biodiversity and mixing Billingham and Wolviston.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login