- Decision
- allowed, 23 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: F Harrison
- Authority
- North Tyneside (North East)
- Appeal reference
- 6006322
- Application reference
- 24/00172/FULM
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Demolition of existing buildings and construction of 37 dwellings (9 affordable) with roads, parking, gardens and landscaping
- Homes
- 37
- Site context
- inside settlement, PDL, listed building setting
- Green Belt
- No
- Housing land supply
- 2.82 years
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S4(1), S4(2)(a)(ii), N6(1)(c), N2(2), HO7
- Development plan policies
- North Tyneside Local Plan 2017 DM5.2, DM5.5, S5.4, DM5.7, DM5.9, S7.1, DM7.2, DM7.5, DM4.7
- Main issues
- biodiversity (green infrastructure; local wildlife site; wildlife corridor and priority species)
Summary
Thirty-seven homes on allocated brownfield land at Backworth, partly within a local wildlife site and wildlife corridor, were allowed. The inspector found moderate, localised harm to biodiversity and conflict with five local plan policies, which statutory biodiversity net gain did not cure. But under S4 the harm was not a substantial adverse impact on an N6 site, nor significant harm under N2(2), and substantial weight to housing at a 2.82-year supply meant the benefits were not substantially outweighed.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "The main parties have had the opportunity to comment on its relevance to the case which I have taken into account" (DL ¶2).
- Overlapping permissions. "It is perfectly valid for overlapping permissions to be granted" (DL ¶3).
- Local plan, green infrastructure: CONFLICT. "Even if the appeal site no longer meets the criteria for a LWS, there is no compelling evidence that the second part of criterion b is satisfied and that the site does not provide important biodiversity value" (DL ¶9).
- Net gain does not answer the plan policies. "Compliance with the statutory BNG framework does not indicate that the proposal would accord with the development plan requirements outlined above" (DL ¶15).
- Degree of harm. The proposal "would, nevertheless, cause some moderate localised harm to biodiversity, with particular regard to the extension LWS, the wildlife corridor, priority species and GI" (DL ¶23).
- N2(2): not significant harm. "the adverse effects of the proposal on biodiversity do not amount to significant harm that Policy N2 paragraph 2 seeks to avoid" (DL ¶33).
- N6(1)(c) and S4(2)(a)(ii). "As a site of local importance, the appeal site is an area of particular importance for biodiversity and geodiversity for the purposes of Framework Policy N6 paragraph 1 c" (DL ¶36). "there is no substantive evidence that the proposal would have a significant adverse effect on the integrity of the LWS" (DL ¶37). "It therefore follows that for the purposes of Framework Policy S4 paragraph 2 a. ii. the proposal would not have a substantial adverse impact in relation to the application of polices in the Framework for areas of particular importance for biodiversity and geodiversity" (DL ¶37).
- Housing: substantial weight. "Taking account of the extent of the shortfall, the scale of the proposal and the delivery of housing for specific groups I give these benefits substantial positive weight" (DL ¶27).
- Permitted development rights. "there is no clear justification for restricting future occupiers permitted development rights and so I have not imposed a condition on this matter" (DL ¶45; the quote follows a page break).
Planning balance
The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole, with that conflict given moderate negative weight (DL ¶33). S4(1) then applies because the site is within a settlement: "the benefits of approving the proposal would not be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the Framework taken as a whole and having particular regard to the circumstances listed in Framework Policy S4 paragraph 2 a. ii." (DL ¶38). Benefits: housing including affordable (substantial) and economic (moderate). The Framework presumption is the material consideration that outweighs the plan conflict (DL ¶46).
What made the difference
The Framework sets a higher bar for refusal than the local plan. The local policies protected the wildlife site and corridor with no allowance for mitigation, and the scheme breached them. The Framework asks whether there is significant harm (N2(2)), a significant adverse effect on the integrity of the local site (N6(1)(c)(i)), or a substantial adverse impact (S4(2)(a)(ii)); moderate, localised harm with net gain on adjoining land met none of those. Had the harm reached the integrity of the wildlife site, S4(2)(a)(ii) would have pointed to refusal.
Transferable points
- A local wildlife site is a "site of local importance" under N6(1)(c), and so an area that can engage S4(2)(a)(ii) (DL ¶36).
- Moderate, localised biodiversity harm with statutory net gain nearby is not "significant harm" under N2(2) (DL ¶33).
- Meeting statutory biodiversity net gain does not show compliance with local plan policies that protect habitats and wildlife corridors on the site itself (DL ¶15).
- Conflict with the development plan as a whole can be outweighed by the S4 presumption where no S4(2) circumstance applies and housing carries substantial weight (DL ¶38, ¶46).
- Overlapping permissions can validly be granted; the effect on an earlier permission's mitigation land is not a reason to refuse (DL ¶3-4).
- A condition removing permitted development rights needs clear justification under the Framework (DL ¶45).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| LP DM5.2, DM5.5, S5.4, DM5.7, DM5.9 (local) | conflict | moderate | loss of part of a designated local wildlife site and wildlife corridor of important biodiversity value; habitats fragmented; a small district-value population of Dingy Skipper butterfly lost; "moderate localised harm"; conflict given moderate negative weight after allowing for net gain on adjacent land (DL 9, 11-16, 23, 33) |
| N6(1)(c) | pass | local wildlife site treated as a site of local importance; no substantive evidence of a significant adverse effect on the integrity of the site; limb (ii), benefits clearly outweighing the impact, also noted; the letter writes "N6 paragraph 1 c" (DL 36-37) | |
| S4(2)(a)(ii) | not-engaged | no substantial adverse impact in relation to the N6 policies, so the presumption applies; the letter writes "S4 paragraph 2 a. ii." (DL 36-37) | |
| N2(2) | pass | adverse effects on biodiversity "do not amount to significant harm that Policy N2 paragraph 2 seeks to avoid", given the net gain and the nearby off-site mitigation (DL 33) | |
| N2 | benefit | some positive contributions to the natural environment and nature's recovery (DL 33) | |
| S4(1) | pass | site within a settlement; benefits not substantially outweighed; decision made otherwise than in accordance with the development plan (DL 35, 38, 46) | |
| HO7 | benefit | substantial | 37 homes including 9 affordable (affordable rent and discount for sale) on vacant, allocated brownfield land; 2.82 years supply and a delivery shortfall (DL 27, 34) |
| E2 | benefit | moderate | mapped: E2 not cited; construction, council tax and occupier spending, unquantified (DL 28, 34) |
| BNG (Sch 7A TCPA) | pass | 11.51% overall net gain and 35.01% for hedgerows, mostly on land next to the site; baseline accepted; delivery is for the biodiversity gain plan after permission; compliance with the statutory scheme did not show compliance with the local plan (DL 15, 17-22) | |
| N6(1)(a) | pass | mapped: N6(1)(a) not cited; coastal buffer zone of the Northumbria Coast SPA and Ramsar site and Durham Coast SAC; appropriate assessment carried out; coastal mitigation tariff secured (DL 24-26) | |
| HE5(2)(c) | neutral | mapped: Framework heritage policy not cited; neutral effect on the significance and setting of Grade II Dairy Cottage; s66(1) duty applied (DL 29-30) | |
| DM6(2)(c) | pass | no clear justification for removing permitted development rights, so the condition was not imposed; policy not cited by code (DL 45) |
Key facts
- The site includes land identified as on-site ecological mitigation for a separate approved scheme (APP/W4515/W/23/3327828); overlapping permissions are lawful, and the consequences for the other permission are the landowner's risk (DL 3-4)
- Part of the site is in the Eccles Colliery Extension Local Wildlife Site and the Local Plan wildlife corridor; recent surveys show the grassland has declined and may no longer meet the designation criteria (15 species per square metre) (DL 7-8)
- The principle of housing was not disputed; the land is allocated for development in the Local Plan (DL 6, 27)
- Housing land supply 2.82 years, with a Housing Delivery Test shortfall (figure not stated) (DL 27)
- Unilateral undertaking executed 10 March 2026 covers coastal mitigation, open space, play, sport, employment and training, primary education, biodiversity land and monitoring, and travel plan monitoring (DL 2, 40)
- Planning Practice Guidance cited that it is generally inappropriate to refuse because the biodiversity gain objective will not be met (DL 20)
- Policy compliance on design, highways, flood risk and other technical matters treated as neutral (DL 31)
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.