A revised plan to build 215 homes in Yarm has started to attract objections once again.

Mandale Homes has put in a revised planning application for the homes – as well an appeal against councillors’ refusal of a previous version of the same plans.

It proposes to build the two to four-bedroom homes on fields at Mount Leven Farm, Leven Bank Road, Yarm.

The earlier plan was controversial as it drew more than 100 objections and 23 letters of support. It prompted a debate over control of planning decisions as Stockton Council planning officers recommended the scheme for approval, but councillors on the planning committee which makes the final decision went against this and rejected it.

They voted 5-4 to refuse the plan in December last year. Councillors believed the plan did not meet the needs of the ageing population, a roundabout was unsafe and unsuitable, and the proposal would harm green space and the area’s character and appearance.

Now the developer has put in new plans for the same number of homes on the 12.6-hectare site. Chartered surveyor Michael Brazell objects, saying: “We want an appeal. I’m quite happy to go to an appeal because I think we have a valid case.”

He argues the latest plans do not address the reasons given for refusing the original scheme, and threatened to make a farce of the planning system. He said: “There’s absolutely no change to the original application.

“It’s completely wrong from what I can see. It was refused by a democratic vote.

“As far as I can see the so-called ‘revised’ application in this instance is identical to the original application with no material modifications to the plans or proposals. I question why and on what basis the (council) officers have accepted this revised application when the proposals have not changed.

“This process in my view wrongly allows the interested parties to have another go… with what is effectively the same substandard application, but more importantly if successful negates the need to go to appeal.

“It cannot be right that planning democracy in Stockton effectively allows the applicant to make the same application ad infinitum until they get the decision they want. Therefore, the original application must now be allowed to follow the correct appeal process.

“I think the only fair process here is to go to an appeal. That’s the only form of redress against a refusal, to go to an independent Planning Inspectorate. That’s the way we see it as objectors.

“It’s an impartial decision based on planning grounds. I’m pretty sure that we would win.”

Another objector said in a written submission: “You cannot keep going back to a committee advised by the same officers who were overruled by democratically elected local councillors until you finally achieve your desired outcome.

“On this basis the planning system appears nothing but contrived and is unfit for purpose… This revised application should be withdrawn forthwith to allow the appeal process to proceed accordingly.”

The proposals were also raised at a Yarm Town Council meeting. Councillor Peter Monck said: “It was refused.

“They’ve put a revised application in, which is a slight change to the layout and a slight change to the makeup of the buildings. They’ve put more bungalows in than were originally going to go in.

“I still feel the objections that we put in originally should still go back in.” Councillors agreed to object to the plans.

The appeal from Richard Harriman of Mandale Homes states: “The reasons for refusal as drafted are very difficult to follow. The scheme was refused against officer recommendation and our client wishes to make the case in respect of all the reasons given by the planning committee.

“This is not possible without further discussion about the scheme and detailed evidence from both parties with specialists present to represent our client.”

Jeremy Good, director of ELG Planning, agent for Mandale Homes, said: “The scheme has been amended to include an over-55 element to the proposed units. The true measure of accessible and adaptable housing, in the form of enhanced building standards, has been retained throughout. In addition, each of the reasons for refusal has been addressed further in the planning resubmission with additional information addressing landscaping, highways and character.

“The appeal against the decision has been submitted and costs against the council will be sought in line with advice received from our barrister at Kings Chambers. This remains a site allocated for residential development within the recently adopted Local Plan, the same Local Plan endorsed by many of the members who refused this scheme.

“In the event that both the appeal and the resubmission are successful, it will be for the applicant to decide which one to implement. It is regrettable that this process is likely to cost the taxpayer for an unjustified decision, but we must follow the process as dictated by legislation.”

Stockton Council have been contacted for comment.