campaigners battling to keep a plot of land as community open space have beaten developers for a second time.

But the battle may not be over yet because the developers of the Eston housing scheme have lodged an appeal with Government inspectors.

For the second time, councillors on Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council's planning committee were this week asked to consider an application to build houses on land at the back of Church Lane and Fabian Road, in Eston, near Middlesbrough.

The Tees Valley Housing Group wants to build 26 houses on land at the back of Eston Town Hall.

An outline application went before the committee in January, but was turned down on the grounds of loss of open space.

But the developers resubmitted the application in an attempt to change the committee's mind.

It was hoped the development would aid the council's bid to improve housing in the Greater Eston area.

The council has supported Tees Valley Housing Group since 2005 in its bid to the Housing Corporation for capital funding to deliver the development - a bid which was successful in securing more than £3m from the Housing Corporation and the private sector.

But despite a risk of that funding being lost by refusing the scheme, councillors felt the location was not right.

Councillor Sheelagh Clarke said: "The proposals are exactly the same as they were before and that area is a valuable amenity. It is a small gem of an area which has evolved naturally as an amenity chosen by the local people.

"It is quite disgraceful that the plan has come back again and I am very very concerned. I think that is absolutely scandalous."

But Martin Hawthorne, speaking on behalf of the Tees Valley Housing Group, said the need for housing and to bring people into the area was more important.

He said: "We never do this normally, but we felt this was a trade-off worth having. The site is worth that issue. I feel passionate about my job and wanted to give us all an opportunity to discuss this again and think we need to have another go at this."

Planning officer Doreen Meling told the committee there were no legal grounds to refuse the application and an appeal had already been lodged against the decision on the previous application.

Councillors were divided in their decision to the scheme but a majority rule meant the application was turned down on the grounds of the loss of open space.