93 homes at Land North of Marske Road Saltburn

Summary of planning committee decision

Decided by Redcar And Cleveland Regulatory Committee on 11 Jun 2026.

R/2025/0584/FFMApproved

What was proposed

The application sought up to 93 homes, including affordable housing, with access, landscaping, drainage, infrastructure and walking and cycling connections.

“Permission is sought for the erection of up to 93 No. dwellings (Use Class C3) and associated access, landscaping, engineering and infrastructure works.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The site comprises two agricultural fields beside a railway, homes, Marske Road and a public right of way, about 0.8 miles from Saltburn centre.

“To the north, the site is bounded by a railway line and to the west by a Public Right of Way (PROW). To the east the site adjoins the rear gardens of residential properties along Marton Gill, while the south is Marske Road with newly developed housing opposite accessed via Corngrave Road.”

“The site is located approximately 0.8 miles west of Saltburn town centre, and is proposed to be accessed via Marske Road.”

Officer report

Planning history

There was no relevant planning history for the site or proposed development.

“No relevant history relating to the application site and the proposed development…”

Officer report

What people objected to

Fifty-four representations objected over development scale, green space, traffic, flooding, sewage, services, schools, ecology, landscape, character and highway safety.

“Development is spoiling the look of the area • More affordable houses are required majority of new houses are expensive • Lack of doctors and dentists already • Lack of local services • Sewage is an issue in Saltburn already this will make things worse • Impacts on drainage as a result of the development • Lack of school and nursery spaces for children • Parking in Saltburn is already an issue before more new houses • Impact of the development on the character of Saltburn…”

“Impact on the green belt • Development may set a precedent for such developments in future • Development is not considered to be sustainable • Impacts on highway safety as a result of the development and proximity to other sites • Development mix is not appropriate for the location…”

Officer report

What members debated

Members questioned the agreement, school capacity, cycle route details, footway width, strategic gap and inconsistencies in highway information.

“Clarification was requested on why the Section 106 agreement is not a matter over which Members have influence, given that discussions have taken place throughout the lifetime of the application and the figures have been provided by statutory consultees. • Members queried how school infrastructure capacity would be assessed and sought assurance that adequate provision would be scrutinised when further information is received.”

“Officers advised that the drawings had been submitted with the planning application and were available online, with Condition 18 setting out the relevant requirements. Officers agreed to circulate the information to Members. • A point of clarification was raised regarding the width of the footway, with one Member stating it was 2 metres rather than 3 metres.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee authorised the agreement securing affordable homes and financial contributions, then delegated permission subject to the listed conditions.

“A. That the Director of Growth, Economy and Environment be authorised to enter into an agreement under section 106 of the Planning Act (as amended) to secure the following planning obligations;”

“B. That on completion of the agreement the Director exercises delegated authority to grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the Committee report.”

Minutes

The members' reasons

“Members requested a diagram showing how the route, stated to be 3 metres wide, would be delivered in practice. • It was noted that the approved site plan (Condition 2) requires development to be carried out in accordance with the submitted plans, but Members felt there was insufficient detailed evidence demonstrating how the cycle route would be constructed on the ground. • A request was made for detailed drawings to be circulated to Members.”

Minutes

Source: the council's minutes, quoted word for word.

Sources

  • Redcar And Cleveland Regulatory Committee minutes, 11 June 2026
  • Agenda and papers (council website)

Source: Plota analysis of Redcar And Cleveland's committee minutes and officer report. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.

Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API

The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.

See the API →

At the meeting

Date
Thursday 11 June 2026
Recommendation
Officers recommended approval
Committee decided
Approved
Minutes
The council's minutes
Meeting
Agenda and papers (council website)
Application
The application (council website)

This committee's year

28 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 1 against officer advice.

Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.

Every decision by this council's committees →