Appeal 6002800

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by Gorham & Co. & A & K Gorham Ltd. against Northumberland County Council. This application is the subject of a separate

During the appeal process, the appellant indicated a willingness to accept conditions restricting the consent to self-build and custom-build housing, as defined by section 1(A1) of the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015, should the appeal be allowed.

However, the planning application form submitted with the application states that planning permission is sought for two dwellings categorised as affordable home ownership. The application does not seek permission for self-build or custom-build housing.

This distinction has implications for the delivery of biodiversity net gain (BNG). Development proposed as self-build or custom-build housing is exempt from BNG requirements, whereas dwellings categorised as affordable home ownership are not exempt.

The Procedural Guide: Planning Appeals – England (2025) makes clear that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme, and there is no provision for the submission of amendments. It is important that the proposal considered by the Inspector at appeal is essentially the same as that considered by the Local Planning Authority and interested parties at the application stage.

Accepting a fundamental revision to the type of housing proposed could deprive those entitled to be consulted of the opportunity to make representations during the appeal process, which, in light of the issues raised, they may have wished to do. For this reason, I will determine the appeal on the basis of the application as submitted, namely seeking permission for dwellings categorised as affordable home ownership.

I will address whether a planning condition would be an appropriate mechanism to restrict the type of housing to self-build and custom-build development as part of my consideration of the main issue relating to BNG below.

The main issues in this appeal are • the effect of the proposed development on highway safety with particular regard to potential displacement of car parking from the appeal site to the surrounding area; and • whether the proposal would make suitable provision for [name] (BNG).

The appeal site, although in the appellant’s ownership, is currently in use as a public car park operated by Northumberland County Council under a lease agreement. The Council’s first reason for refusal relates to the loss of car parking that would arise from the proposed development of two dwellings. It contends that this would displace parking demand into the surrounding area, to the detriment of the local transport network. The Council also indicates that the site regularly operates close to capacity and performs an important role in supporting the adjacent leisure centre, functioning as an overflow facility due to its proximity, convenience and accessibility.

The appellant states that, irrespective of the outcome of this appeal, the arrangement allowing use of the site as a car park will cease. In support, correspondence dated 4 September 2025 has been submitted which refers to the cessation of occupation and reinstatement of the site. I have also been provided with a copy of an unsigned and therefore incomplete and non-executable ‘[name] a Business Tenancy with Proposal for a [name] under Section 25 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. Whilst this indicates an intention for the current lease, and therefore potentially the car park use, to cease on 12 April 2026, it does not provide certainty as to when this would occur, nor does it demonstrate that the use would cease in all circumstances.. I also note that this document includes a proposal for a new three-year tenancy commencing on 12 April 2026.

I am required to determine the appeal on the basis of the evidence before me. In the absence of clear and conclusive evidence that the existing use would cease irrespective of the appeal outcome, I attach significant weight to the fallback position, namely the continued use of the site as a public car park. On that basis, the proposed development would result in the loss of parking currently available, with the likelihood that demand would be displaced into the surrounding area.

Policy TRA2 of the Northumberland Local Plan 2022 (the Local Plan) requires, under criterion 1(b), that development proposals include appropriate measures to avoid, mitigate or manage significant impacts on highway capacity, congestion and highway safety, including cumulative impacts.

No substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate how the displacement of parking demand would be avoided, mitigated or managed. I therefore find that the proposal would give rise to harm to the operation of the local transport network and would conflict with Policy TRA2 in this regard. I am satisfied that the proposal could provide adequate on-site parking provision associated with two dwellings, and therefore I find no conflict with Local Plan Policy TRA4.

I have had regard to application ref. 24/02715/OUT, which related to a similar form of development on the site. No objection was raised in that case on parking grounds; it was determined on its own merits. Whilst it may have been reasonable for the appellant to assume, based on the earlier decision, that parking displacement would not be a determinative issue in the current application, the matter was raised during the application process by the Council. Notwithstanding this, the appellant did not provide substantive evidence to address the concern, instead relying on the assertion that the car park use would cease at some future point. The fact that a reason for refusal has been advanced in this case which was not included in relation to the previous proposal does not demonstrate inconsistency in decision-making.

Drawing these matters together, I conclude that the proposal would result in the unjustified loss of an existing car park, leading to the displacement of parking demand and consequent harm to highway capacity and the operation of the local transport network. This would be contrary to the requirements of Local Plan Policy TRA2.

Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) establishes the statutory framework for BNG. This applies to all non-major development submitted on or after 2 April 2024. Subject to limited exceptions, every grant of planning permission is deemed to be subject to the [name] (BGC), which requires a minimum 10% increase in biodiversity value.

The Council’s Ecology Team advised that the application should have been invalidated pending clarification of the claimed de minimis exemption, or alternatively the submission of a full BNG assessment. No such assessment has been provided. [name] note this position, I have proceeded on the basis that the Council has determined the application and that, given the scale and nature of the development, the de minimis exemption does not apply, having regard to the stated site area of 0.2 hectares and the evident presence of habitat on site.

The Planning Practice Guidance indicates that it would generally be inappropriate to refuse planning permission solely because the biodiversity gain objective would not be met. However, it also makes clear that decision-makers must consider whether the BGC is capable of being discharged.

The Framework seeks to secure net gains for biodiversity (paragraph 187(d)), and Local Plan Policy ENV2 requires development to conserve and enhance biodiversity and, where appropriate, secure net gains. The statutory requirement is for a minimum 10% gain. Schedule 7A provides that this objective is met where the post-development biodiversity value exceeds the pre-development value by at least this amount.

In this case, no information has been provided to establish the baseline biodiversity value of the site. In the absence of such evidence, I cannot be satisfied that the BGC could be discharged. The matter has not been adequately addressed and, consequently, I cannot conclude that the proposal would deliver the required net gain.

The appellant has indicated a willingness to accept a condition restricting the development to self-build and custom-build housing, which would fall within an exemption from BNG. However, no detailed suggested condition has been provided, and in any event, I am not satisfied that a planning condition would meet the tests set out in paragraph 56 of the Framework. In these circumstances, a planning obligation would be the appropriate mechanism to secure such a restriction, but no such obligation has been submitted. In the absence of a robust and enforceable mechanism, I am not satisfied that the development would be delivered as self-build or custom-build housing. The proposal must therefore be assessed on the basis that it is subject to the general BGC.

In conclusion, I find that the proposal fails to demonstrate that it would deliver biodiversity net gain as required by Local Plan Policy ENV2 and the Framework. Given that this is a statutory requirement, I attach very substantial weight to this conflict. I do not find conflict with Local Plan Policy ENV1.

The principle of residential development on the site has not been challenged by the Council and is therefore not disputed. This consideration does not overcome the harm identified with regard to highway safety and BNG identified above.

The proposal is in conflict with the development plan as a whole, and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.