A controversial housing plan which was approved by the government after being rejected locally has seen objections aired once again in a council meeting.
Redcar and Cleveland Council heard the concerns of numerous residents who believed Miller Homes and Taylor Wimpey’s scheme for more than 800 homes would “shut down” Marske. Attention focused on a 19th Century railway bridge on Marske High Street where pedestrians were said to be “taking their lives in their hands”.
The outline plan for 821 homes with a neighbourhood centre, petrol station, drive-thru restaurant, pub and restaurant, 60-bed hotel and car parking was originally rejected by the council in 2015. But it was approved by the government after an appeal in 2017, and more detailed plans were approved in March 2023.
The scheme – expected to be built by 2032 – came back to the council’s regulatory committee over changes on roads including the A174, A1085, A1042 and B1269, and most contentiously, a footway for pedestrians under the A0185 railway bridge. This would reduce two-lane traffic to a one-way system controlled by traffic lights.
The council received 41 objections saying it would isolate Marske with restricted traffic on a narrow road, worsen congestion and air pollution and pose a safety hazard with no pedestrian barrier. All three St Germain’s ward councillors objected, along with Redcar MP Anna Turley and Saltburn, Marske and New Marske Parish Council.
Anna Turley said the proposal to narrow the road to a single traffic light-controlled lane under the railway bridge could cause “significant bottlenecks”, adding to delays and pressure on the road. She also raised concerns over the impact on people’s health, the environment, emergency services and historical preservation, and called on the council to re-examine the proposals.
Councillor Kendra Evans said she remained “vehemently in opposition to the entire development”. She argued it would be “unthinkable” to have permanent traffic lights and spoke of the dangers of a pedestrian being injured or killed by a speeding motorist on one of the main roads in and out of the village.
She told the meeting: “There’s nobody, I don’t think, in Marske that doesn’t disagree with the changes made to the bridge and the layout. It’ll have such a detrimental effect on the community.”
Cllr Karen King said the proposal had caused “major upset and worry for residents” of Marske and surrounding villages, a “vibrant caring community” which had been harmed by major works before: “But this time, as it will not be short-term, there would not be the chance we’ve had to try and reverse any damage.”
Cllr Tristan Learoyd said the plans contained “child-standard drawings for major road revisions”. He added: “The danger in the pedestrian access under the bridge will lead to the death of a new or existing resident. The bridge is a gauntlet and will be even more of a gauntlet.”
Objector and chartered engineer Paul Cawthorne, who said he had over 40 years’ experience of council highways and transport, said there were no barrier rails, vehicles would block houses and people would have to cross between waiting vehicles. He said: “Without the missing details, the scheme will be unsafe for pedestrians.
“The pedestrians in the main need to be segregated from the traffic, particularly under the bridge, so they don’t inadvertently step in the carriageway. There needs to be quite a considerable amount of barrier rail.”
Cllr Peter Finlinson from Saltburn, Marske and New Marske Parish Council said it was “an unworkable scheme which will cause real harm to the people of Marske”. He said traffic surveys had shown there would be tailbacks “which would effectively shut down the village”.
“At the moment to my eyes it is not a viable scheme,” he added. He and others asked for the matter to be postponed for discussions with councillors, residents and stakeholders.
He said he had launched a campaign in 2017 and set up a steering group which agreed a workable scheme: “Nobody from the council took me up on it. It just sort of vanished into thin air. We had the solution in own hands and it would have worked.”
Chris Martin for Pegasus Group, the developer’s agent, said: “The scope and type of highway works have already been set. The application simply seeks to provide information. The drawings are, to my mind, accurate.”
He said a safety audit was underway but no concerns raised so far and barriers not seen as required under the bridge: “There’s clear space and sight lines to allow pedestrians to wait.”
Asked if they would consider a delay for a round-table discussion, he said: “At the moment there is no funding for any alternative arrangements in place.
“This is the solution that’s on the table, it’s the solution the Secretary of State has asked us to do. We would like to start occupation of some of these properties,” he added, saying it could be looked at again if a funded solution came up later.
Council highways engineer Michael Lawton said: “There is a need for the footway under the bridge, both for existing residents and new residents.” He said the “intuitive” lights system would detect and let through traffic backlogs quickly. He said “efficiencies have been created”, with over 900 vehicles estimated to pass through at peak times.
Debating the matter, Cllr Malcolm Head said: “This has been going on for the last seven or eight years. We can’t alter the bridge, it’s there to stay.
“Many times people going down that road walking have taken their lives in their hands. It’s only going to get worse with the new housing estate. I can’t see any alternative but the traffic lights.”
Cllr Lynn Pallister said: “We should in time look at changing the bridge. It’s not fit for purpose.”
Cllr Philip Thomson said it was not acceptable to let pedestrians walk underneath the arch, but the solution was “equally questionable”. He suggested options could be investigated over the next few years.
The changes were recommended for approval. Development services manager Claire Griffiths said it was not possible to reconsider the road changes as the planning appeal had already dealt with this: “We’re here looking at the technical details of a scheme that’s been agreed by the inspector.”
Committee chair Cllr Stuart Smith said it was very difficult to go against a planning inspector’s decision.
The committee passed the road changes by a six to one vote with one abstention.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here