BUILDING company executives say they will appeal against a council's rejection of plans for more than 50 homes in Barnard Castle.

Wimpey construction company managers say they have "bent over backwards" to meet recommendations set down by Teesdale District Council as part of their proposals to create 57 homes in the Montalbo Road and Woodside area of the town.

The developer had applied to the district council to build 33 flats and 24 houses next to Montalbo Road and Woodside, but councillors voted against the plans earlier this month.

Council planning officers had recommended to councillors that the plans be approved after Wimpey had been advised to withdraw and amend previous applications.

However, councillors were still unhappy with the plans, saying they were not suitable for the site.

Dozens of people living close to the site had written to the council objecting to the proposals. Many said they would lose privacy and that they had not been sufficiently consulted about the plans.

At the last meeting of the council''s development control committee, a spokesman for local residents, Ian Graystone, said the number of homes planned was too dense for the area.

"Rather than achieving a site with different styles they are creating an area with housing of the same characteristics which is inappropriate to this part of town," he said.

Despite the objections, executives at Wimpey have said they will appeal against the council's decision.

Company spokesman Alistair Farrant said: "There were various stipulations that the council laid down and we did everything we could to meet them.

"We have bent over backwards to meet the council's wishes regarding the planned development, and although council officers felt the proposals were fine, members of the council have voted otherwise.We will now appeal and we will do everything required to meet the recommendations, but we are confident that we will be successful in appeal."

Teesdale council's senior planning officer, Trevor Watson, said: "I would welcome further discussions with Wimpey to avoid them appealing against members' decision to reject the application.

"It is Wimpey's right to appeal, but we would wish to avoid that if possible and I would rather we sat down and discussed the proposals further with the company."