LAKE District planners have narrowly given the go-ahead to a controversial scheme to build ten homes for locals on a green field site in the village of Staveley.

Nether Staveley Parish Council, the Friends of the Lake District and residents all strongly opposed revised plans by Two Castles Housing Association, arguing they should be thrown out for a number of reasons.

But the national park authority's development control committee voted 8-7 to approve the houses for rent at Stock Bridge Farm, although they imposed 18 planning conditions covering issues from floor levels and slate roofs to road improvements and landscaping.

Ian Elleray, head of housing strategy at South Lakeland District Council, welcomed the decision, saying: "It's excellent news for people needing affordable housing in Staveley."

SLDC backed the planning application, saying a total of 58 families were on the waiting list for houses in Staveley.

Work on the £833,000 development could start later this year if, as expected, Two Castles secures a Housing Corporation grant.

But residents fear the scheme could pave the way for more houses on nearby land.

Mike Houston, of Kendal Road, Staveley, criticised the layout and design of the houses, saying it would harm the appearance of the village.

He claimed there were more suitable sites for affordable housing in Staveley, and said the development was a "prime example of nibbling at the national park."

Marjorie Hooson, of Kendal Road, was concerned about access to the site and said parents with young children would have to walk in the road because there were no footpaths on the new housing estate.

Residents also questioned the need for more housing in Staveley and feared the development could increase flooding problems on the site.

But planning officer Norman Atkins said the Environment Agency was "content" with the proposals, while highways officers had largely withdrawn earlier objections.

Recommending approval of the scheme, he said layout changes meant the houses would not be unneighbourly, although nearby householders would lose some views from the back of their properties.