Planning appeal decision
The Grey Horse, Front Street, Camperdown, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE12 5UT
conversion of pub (A4) into 4no retail units plus 6no apartments (C3) with 8no new build apartments to rear – 4no retail and 14no apartments in total with associated parking. Update to Application No: 20/01572/FUL”
- Authority
- North Tyneside Council
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Other minor developments
- Inspector
- Caines A
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- The effect of the development on a designated area of open space, having regard to local policies
- The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area, including the effect on the significance of the Grey Horse, a non-designated heritage asset
- Whether the development would provide its occupiers with acceptable living conditions, having regard to outlook, headroom, noise, servicing and garden space
- The effect on highway safety, having regard to servicing arrangements
- The effect on protected species
- The effect on a designated wildlife corridor and biodiversity
- Whether sufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that surface water drainage can be appropriately managed
- Whether the necessary planning obligations have been secured to mitigate the impacts of the development
What decided it
The cumulative effect of substantial harms—loss of designated open space, considerable harm to a non-designated heritage asset, substandard living conditions, unacceptable highway safety risks, inadequate protected species mitigation, and absence of a completed planning obligation—significantly and demonstrably outweighed the moderate benefits of housing delivery, such that the presumption in favour of sustainable development did not apply.
The moderate benefits of delivering 14 dwellings and introducing retail units, in the context of a substantial housing land supply shortfall of 3.37 years, were significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the cumulative substantial harms to heritage, open space, living conditions, highway safety, biodiversity and the absence of mitigation through planning obligations, such that the presumption in favour of sustainable development did not apply and the proposal conflicted with the development plan as a whole.
Framework references: 11, 57, 115, 135, 182, 187, 192, 193, 216
Plan policies cited: Policy DM5.2, Policy DM5.3, Policy DM6.1, Policy DM4.9, Policy DM7.4, Policy DM5.5, Policy DM5.7, Policy DM5.14, Policy S5.4, Policy S7.1, Policy DM4.7, Policy DM5.6
The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.
®