Residents of a hamlet are furious that outline planning permission has been granted for nine houses, which they say will dramatically change the nature of the hamlet without bringing any benefits.

Brunstock resident Tom Odell, Mike Fox, of Stanwix Rural parish council and Councillor James Bainbridge all raised objections to the application and put forward several reasons why councillors should refuse it.

Mr Odell told councillors at a development and control planning meeting: "The site plan indicates some nine buildings though some appear to be semi-detached, which would suggest 11 households or more.

"I would suggest the number of dwellings on this site should be zero. It is farmland and should remain so...

"The planning department seems to want something that is not within the criteria of the District Plan."

Mr Fox backed up Mr Odell, saying the application did nothing to enhance the hamlet, access to the site was hazardous and the houses would bring s dangerous increase in traffic. Furthermore he said there was no evidence that the development was compatible with the hamlet.

Mr Bainbridge said: "Until my dying day I will always maintain that this committee had the perfect rights to reject this application."

Carlisle city councillors voted to approve the application with seven for and one abstention. Not one councillor voted against it, much to the amazement of Mr Odell, who shook his head in disappointment as the vote was passed.

Mr Odell has lived in the hamlet for 11 years. He is particularly concerned about road safety as he and his family were involved in a very serious accident a number of years ago turning off the notoriously dangerous A689 into Brunstock.

Speaking after the meeting, he said: "I need to take a deep breath because that was just unbelievable.

"They keep saying that it will give us benefits but it doesn't-there's absolutely nothing."

He argued there was no need for new houses as those already on the market take years to sell.

He added: "You live in a hamlet because of that quality of life. It's good agricultural land and it seems a shame to destroy it."

Mr Fox said: "As far as the rules which the council sets for itself, they are so flexible and elastic [the councillors] can do whatever they want to with no regard really to the need of Brunstock as it is and the impact of the changes."