Shared-use pathway at Land South of Stokesley Road West of Bilsdale Gardens, Guisborough

Summary of planning committee decision

Decided by Redcar And Cleveland Regulatory Committee on 19 Feb 2026.

R/2025/0824/FFApproved

What was proposed

The application proposed a shared-use pathway with earthworks, vegetation removal, a relocated fence, highway verge, filter drains and an earthwork bund.

“Permission is sought for creation of a shared-use pathway, earthworks cutting, vegetation removal, re-location of fence line, proposed highway verge and filter drains and creation of earthworks bund…”

Officer report

The site

The site comprised existing highway verge and agricultural land south of Stokesley Road, covering 0.19 hectares.

“The application relates to land south of Stokesley Road, Opposite Bilsdale Road, Guisborough.”

“The application Site comprises of existing highway verge and an area of agricultural land to the immediate south of Stokesley Road, Guisborough. The Site extends to an area of 0.19Ha.”

Officer report

Planning history

No planning history was relevant to the application.

“None relevant to the current application.”

Officer report

Officers’ assessment

Officers considered the proposal acceptable because it supported active travel, respected the area, protected neighbour amenity and raised no highways safety concerns.

“Given the nature of the development the proposal raises no issues in terms of neighbour amenity. There are no residential properties in close proximity to the site who would be adversely impacted by the proposal. No issues are raised in terms of overlooking, loss of privacy or overbearing impacts.”

“The scheme will improve connectivity, provide better travel opportunities to residents of the area, and make it easier for visitors and commuters to access the local area. The highways authority has been regularly consulted by the project team as they have progressed scheme designs, the scheme must accord with LTN 1/20, relating to cycle infrastructure design standards.”

Officer report

Ecology and biodiversity

The works would cause habitat and hedgerow losses, with biodiversity gain to be secured through off-site units or land enhancement and conditions.

“The ecological assessment confirms that no statutory or non-statutory designated areas would be impacted by the development. The report also confirms that the site supports a single hedgerow (in poor condition), modified grassland (associated with the adjacent filed) and neutral grassland (associated with the road verge). Based on the habitats and site location, amphibians and reptiles are considered to be absent from the site.”

“The report sets out a number of options to achieve the mandatory level of 10% gain in BNG. The enhancement will be achieved through the purchase of 0.19 off-site habitat units and 0.9 off site hedgerow units or the enhance of land in the applicants ownership. The BNG enhancement will be secured by…”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Guisborough Town Council did not object, and development engineers raised no objection because the route would improve connectivity and provide safer active travel facilities.

“The application forms part of an identified route for Active Travel upgrades from Guisborough to Nunthorpe. The Active Travel upgrades to highway infrastructure include the creation of shared-use pathways for pedestrians, wheelers and cyclists to provide a safer travel route and to address existing connectivity issues along the route.”

Officer report

Public views

One representation supported the wider route, while one objection raised traffic, environmental, infrastructure, countryside and housing expansion concerns.

“Very much in favour of the wider active travel route plans. • Welcome the prospect of a safe walking and cycling route linking residential areas with Guisborough Forest.”

“Traffic impact and highways safety. • Environmental damage and loss of habitat. • Pressure on Local Services and Infrastructure. School places, GP places. • Loss of local character and countryside. • Continued expansion of large housing estates.”

Officer report

The decision

The committee granted deemed consent subject to four conditions covering the commencement period, approved plans, biodiversity gain and habitat management.

“3.Development may not be begun unless: a biodiversity gain plan has been submitted to the planning authority; and the planning authority has approved the plan. The biodiversity gain plan must include : - information about the steps taken or to be taken to minimise the adverse effect of the development on the biodiversity of the onsite habitat and any other habitat; - the pre-development biodiversity value of the onsite habitat; - the post-development biodiversity value of…”

“(c) the planned habitat creation and enhancement works to create or improve habitat to achieve the biodiversity net gain in accordance with the approved Biodiversity Gain Plan;”

Minutes

Sources

  • Redcar And Cleveland Regulatory Committee minutes, 19 February 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 19 February 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

15 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting.

Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.

Every decision by this council's committees →