A RESIDENTS' action group was celebrating on Wednesday after convincing councillors that the design and density of 57 proposed homes was unsuitable for the neighbourhood.

Teesdale District Council planning south committee debated the latest submission by Wimpey Homes for Montalbo Road and Woodside in Barnard Castle, featuring 30 flats and 27 houses. The site is already the subject of an appeal by Wimpey, to be heard at a public inquiry in October, after an earlier application was rejected.

In a report, planning officer Trevor Watson said Wimpey had stated that the application had been submitted "to avoid the need of going through the current appeal process".

But Dr Pam Grunwell, who addressed the committee on behalf of residents, said the density of housing for the site was incorrectly calculated, as the frontage between 10 and 12 Woodside was specifically excluded from residential development and designated an informal public open space.

"We acknowledge these calculations are disputed," added Dr Grunwell. "But it is rather a coincidence that having seen the documentary evidence that residents have presented to the appeal, Wimpey quickly lodged this new application and included in their letter the two thinly disguised threats quoted in the officer's report."

Couns Margaret Hamilton and Richard Betton also saw the quotes as threats. Coun Hamilton was not happy with the wording in Mr Watson's report, and there was no doubt in Coun Betton's mind that it was a threat.

"We are meant to consider applications on planning grounds only, not the cost of appeal," he added. "Half an hour's debate here and this town has to live with this in perpetuity. We have to say this calculation is wrong. The maximum recommended density is not suitable for a market town."

However, Mr Watson was keen to point out that it was his decision, not Wimpey's request, to include their comments and he was disappointed if they were taken as a threat.

"The recommendation before you is my interpretation of the planning merits and nothing to do with the appeal," he added, warning of "catastrophic consequences" if the plan was refused on density grounds.

However, refuse it they did, in a 4-3 named vote, with one abstention.

Dr Grunwell told the D&S Times she was delighted by the decision. "It has not been our aim to prevent development, but to have something more in keeping with a rural town," she added