The development would be located on vacant land between the A1053 Greystone Road /A1085 Trunk Road roundabout and the Lackenby steelworks site.
Members of Redcar and Cleveland Council’s regulatory committee were told they were only considering the principle of development with a detailed scheme yet to be fully drawn up and likely to be considered later as part of so-called ‘reserved matters’.
The plans were first announced more than two years ago with Tees Valley Mayor Ben Houchen describing how the scheme would “serve thousands of workers coming to Teesworks, while also offering a welcome boost for nearby Grangetown and Teesville through stores and restaurants”.
But while there was broad agreement that a development was welcomed, some councillors appeared perplexed by what was being asked of them, repeatedly asking questions of the council’s development services manager Claire Griffiths and bemoaning a lack of information.
An indicative site layout plan suggested the development would comprise a mid-sized hotel with about 160 bedrooms, two drive-through restaurants/coffee shops, a family pub/restaurant, two separate terraces of retail/leisure units and a petrol filling station with associated shop.
But a “level of flexibility” was being retained in order to help meet the potential requirements of commercial operators.
Other elements would include service yards, car parking and cycle storage, internal roads and landscaping.
The application, lodged by South Tees Developments Limited with planning consultancy Lichfields acting as an agent, said while vehicle access and exit would be taken from the A1053 and A1085, the exact location and junction designs were not known at this stage.
The meeting heard from a council highways officer who said more than a dozen access arrangements had been proposed and deemed unsuitable, with two options remaining which were under consideration.
Councillor Philip Thomson said it was “quite incredible” that this element had not been resolved.
The councillor also said he did not understand why the application included a petrol station “because we are meant to be heading towards a carbon neutral environment”.
Councillor Carl Quartermain said the approach being taken was a “bit like cart before the horse”.
He said he feared that existing infrastructure would not adequately cope with an increase in traffic and the local road network may require a potential upgrade with question marks over how it would be paid for.
It was estimated that 439 additional vehicle journeys could be generated in the morning and another 551 in the evening as a result of the development.
Councillor Neil Bendelow expressed concern about the impact on smaller businesses in his South Bank ward.
Another committee member, Councillor Lynn Pallister said she was all for investment, but said the proposed development was “exactly what we have got everywhere else”.
She said: “It is a boring proposal, we could have so much more.”
Cllr Pallister said local town centres were struggling and also criticised the level of community engagement that had so far gone into the plans, although she was told there was still the opportunity for people to make comments and shape the development.
Phil McCarthy, an associate director at Lichfields, said it was a Teesworks-funded project which was intended to support the growth of the site, but also had a “dual” use and was likely to attract passing trade, not being just for the exclusive use of workers on the site.
Mr McCarthy said a transport assessment had concluded the site would not give rise to unacceptable impacts.
Meanwhile, external consultants used by the council had also determined that there would be no significant impact on existing nearby retail centres.
Mr McCarthy said: “This development will help support the delivery of the wider Teesworks project and the significant benefits that will grow from that.
“There are no outstanding issues that would preclude from the application being granted.
“All matters are reserved for future consideration – there are no matters raised by statutory consultees, including National Highways and Natural England, that cannot be dealt with through planning conditions and/or section 106 agreement.”
A number of councillors said there were no reasons to object and welcomed the development.
Councillor Stephen Martin said: “This is just ‘Do we want to build on this land?’ – it’s yes or no, it’s as simple as that.”
The chairman of the committee, Councillor Stuart Smith said: “It is clear that there are some challenges ahead and some concerns have been raised with this application.
“But it is just outline and I cannot see any reason at this present moment in time to reject it.
“Good luck, it will be challenging for it to be acceptable and we shall wait and see.”
A report for councillors had recommended outline approval be given subject to conditions, but it also revealed the thoughts of the council’s development engineers who said a proposed exit “pushes all vehicles leaving the site north bound on the A1085 Trunk Road”.
They said: “As with other Teesworks applications the predominant movements link to the A174 and A66, therefore there will likely be a high demand for southbound movements which will require u-turns facilitated by Lackenby roundabout, the likely result of which will have a severe detrimental impact on the operation of the highway network.”
The impact on traffic flows associated with Lackenby, Westgate and Tees Dock roundabouts would require consideration and mitigation as part of any reserved matters.
Speaking in 2023, Teesworks development director Matt Johnson said the aim was for a successful and sustainable development and there had been “strong expressions of interest” in the site from the commercial sector.
