IT was a case of third time unlucky for housing developers looking to build on an overgrown village plot as councillors rejected the plans for a third time.

An application to turn land at the rear of Hill Garth, in Cockerton, into four apartments within a two-storey building had been recommended for approval by planning officers at Darlington Borough Council.

However, the authority’s planning applications committee rejected the plans on the grounds that the development would have an overbearing impact on neighbouring properties.

In 2006, residents strongly opposed plans for three dwellings on the site, which were later revised and re-submitted last year to include a two and 1.5 storey development housing five dwellings.

Both applications were rejected by the authority’s planning committee, and the decision was upheld by the Planning Inspectorate who dismissed subsequent appeals.

The latest application had been scaled down to a two-storey building containing four one-bedroom flats.

But objectors, many of whom attended the town hall to witness the debate, said the initial concerns surrounding car parking, flooding and the overbearing nature of the development still remained.

Speaking at the meeting, Councillor Bill Stenson, suggested that a bungalow would have been less overbearing and more suitable for the site.

“This site does want a tidy up - it has been in a terrible state over the years. I have looked at it myself as a builder but I wouldn’t touch it with a bargepole,” he said.

“Wouldn’t it be better if it had a bungalow? It will be much better in my view - that is the only way they are going to get planning permission.

“A bungalow is smaller, that means less money. That is what it is with all developers, they are always looking for that money but we have got to think about the people who live around it.”

Tessa Fletcher, who spoke on behalf of the agent, said the site was in a conservation area and that a bungalow would not be in keeping with the surrounding buildings.

“We had quite extensive pre-application discussions before we put in the planning application,” she said.

“The conservation officer was quite clear that a bungalow on that plot would be out of character with the other area.”

Chairman of the committee, Councillor Paul Baldwin, raised concerns that young children attending the nearby school would be put at risk by building work.

He also said that if planning permission was granted, then care would have to be taken to protect the nearby beck from becoming contaminated with building materials.