A VILLAGE cricket club’s plan to fund vital improvements to its ground through a housing development has been hit for six.

The scheme at Shotley Bridge, near Consett, has been turned down by councillors amid concerns about the impact on wildlife and an ancient woodland.

Shotley Bridge Cricket Club and Anvil Homes were seeking outline approval to build 25 detached houses and two blocks of 30 apartments on the club’s ground, where the former England captain Paul Collingwood once played.

A new clubhouse, pitch and practice nets on the site were part of the plan, along with the restoration of Spa Well.

The club says it badly needs to bring its facilities up to modern standards so that it can grow and that the development is the only way of funding it.

The scheme dates back to 2008 when plans were first submitted to the former Derwentside District Council, which supported it.

But Durham County Council’s county planning committee heard today (Tuesday, March 3) that residents, local conservation groups and wildlife organisations objected to it.

They fear the impact it would have on wildlife. including bats, birds, otters and badgers, and the ancient woodland through which a new access would be built.

They also questioned the location as it is outside the village boundary.

The committee heard that there was also support for the scheme from people who felt that better club facilities would benefit the village.

Club chairman Paul Nesbitt told councillors that umpires and junior teams had to change in a shed and that girls teams used toilets for changing.

He said the club, which did a lot off work with young people, could not get funding because it did not have a long lease on the ground, and he added that the plan had “massive social benefits.”

Former Derwentside council leader Alex Watson, now a county councillor, said the scheme would be a boost for the area and should be supported.

Cllr Grenville Holland also urged support saying the club made an important contribution to the community and that sport was important for youngsters.

Objector Phil Jones told the committee that the development was “unnecessary urban sprawl” and that it was unsustainable. He described the woodland access as “a travesty”.

Planning case officer Andrew Farnie said that he and his colleagues thought permission should be refused.

Development would mean the loss of officially-designated ancient woodland and the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats.

He added in his report to the committee: “Any public benefit in the scheme does not outweigh the irreplaceable loss of ancient woodland and the harm it would cause to legally protected species and their habitat.”