DEVELOPERS trying for a second time to build a housing estate on a greenfield site on the edge of a village are facing objections that it would lead to services becoming overwhelmed.

A year after a proposal to build 25 properties on a three-acre site beside the play park on the eastern fringe of Sadberge, near Darlington, was refused, leading developers to launch an appeal over the decision, a similar scheme has been lodged with Darlington Borough Council.

Amidst strong opposition from numerous Sadberge villagers, the previous plan was rejected on the grounds that it was outside development limits set by the borough council to safeguard countryside and define settlement boundaries.

It was also refused because councillors said it would harm the setting of the conservation area of Sadberge and over the proposed property designs not reflecting the historic character of the area.

However, the developers appear intent on challenging those findings and state in their application documents that they aim “to create a high-quality design solution that is appropriate to its locale and the proposed dwellings respond to both the needs and aspirations of current and future residents of the area”.

The developers have also highlighted how limits to development within the council’s Local Plan were defined more than 21 years ago, to accommodate housing development up to 2006.

The application papers state: “They have not been subsequently reviewed and there is no expectation that these development limits should remain in perpetuity beyond that date. As such, the policy is out of date.”

The latest proposal for the site has been submitted alongside claims that the completion of approved housing schemes in the borough has been below 60 per cent during the last three years and the council has failed to meet its housing delivery target since 2008.

The developers have proposed providing 20 per cent affordable housing on the site and financial contributions towards off-site open and play space and education.

However, Sadberge residents have expressed frustration that they are having to battle such a similar scheme just a year after the last one was rejected. They say the village has no bus service, no shops or a school, and houses should be build where there are these services.

One objector wrote: “The local GP surgeries can not cope with more patients. The field floods regularly, is that pond supposed to take the extra water? How likely is it to overflow onto Stockton Road?”

An Tees Valley NHS CCG spokeswoman said the proposed increase in residents “should not have a material effect on the local GP surgeries and their abilities to provide care”.

She added: “Local surgeries are part of CCG wide plans to improve GP access and would be the likely beneficiaries of any developers funds secured.”