# Percy Wood Golf Club and Country Retreat, Swarland (180 caravans and lodges, leisure hub)

- **Decision:** allowed, 24 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Chris Baxter
- **Authority:** Northumberland (North East)
- **Appeal reference:** 6010440
- **Application reference:** 25/04076/FUL
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Reconfiguration of a golf course and change of use of its 7 northernmost holes for up to 180 additional static caravans or lodges, with a new leisure hub building, access, parking, drainage ponds and landscaping
- **Site context:** settlement-edge, open-countryside
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** DM6
- **Development plan policies:** Northumberland Local Plan ECN 12, INF 6, ENV 2, Newton on the Moor and Swarland Neighbourhood Plan 1, 2, 5
- **Main issues:** character and appearance of the area and landscape
- **Tags:** tier-2, limited-nppf-engagement, no-s4-s5-analysis, rural-tourism, caravans, plan-led, habitats-mitigation, heritage-no-harm, drafting-slip, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## Summary
An extension of a holiday park at Swarland onto seven holes of its golf course, with up to 180 more static caravans or lodges and a leisure hub, was allowed. The inspector found no harm to landscape or character because the site is enclosed by woodland, and decided the appeal on the development plan. The Framework appears only in the switch paragraph, the conditions tests and the conclusion.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** "In light of this I have sought the views of the main parties in writing and comments received have been taken into consideration when determining this appeal" (DL ¶2).
- **Landscape: no harm.** "the proposal would not be an overly obtrusive feature in the landscape and would be read as an extension to the existing rural tourism development" (DL ¶6).
- **Location.** "it is not unusual for developments of this type to be in rural locations which are not heavily supported by local services" (DL ¶12).
- **Conclusion.** "The proposed development would not conflict with the development plan as a whole, including the NP, and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, which outweighs this finding" (DL ¶22).

## What made the difference
Enclosure. Mature woodland on most sides meant 180 lodges would not be seen from wider viewpoints, and the scheme read as part of the existing park. With no plan conflict found, the inspector did not go on to test the proposal against S5 or TR3, so the letter gives no guidance on how S5(1)(b) applies to rural tourism.

## Policy findings
- **DM6: pass.** agreed conditions edited having regard to the DM6 tests; planning obligations tested against CIL Regulation 122 (DL 16-21)
- **N6(1)(a): pass.** mapped: N6 not cited; within 10 km of the coast; appropriate assessment agreed with Natural England; Coastal Mitigation Service contribution secured by legal agreement (DL 21)
- **TR3: neutral.** mapped: TR3 not cited; residents raised the lack of services and public transport; answered by a travel plan and the comment that such developments are often in rural locations (DL 12)
- **HE6: neutral.** mapped: Framework heritage policy not cited; nearby heritage assets and their settings preserved; s66(1) and s72(1) duties cited (DL 15)

## Key facts
- Framework not applied to the main issue; decided on Local Plan Policy ECN 12 and Neighbourhood Plan Policies 1, 2 and 5, with the neighbourhood plan given full weight after a status update (DL 3, 9, 22)
- No S5 analysis, although the site adjoins the village of Swarland and the existing holiday park (DL 5)
- Site is flat and enclosed by mature woodland; visible only in fleeting close views; a drainage pond separates the lodges from houses to the east (DL 5-8)
- Access only through the existing holiday park from Leamington Lane, with a road-widening scheme required by condition 8; no vehicle access from Coast View (conditions 8, 28)
- Holiday occupancy condition; lodges not to be a sole or main residence (condition 24)
- Legal agreement secures a Biodiversity Gain Plan, coastal mitigation, and habitat monitoring and maintenance (DL 19-21)
- Condition 22 refers to noise levels in "Condition 13", but condition 13 concerns landscaping; the noise limits are in condition 27 (schedule)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010440

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010440.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. Source and data: https://github.com/planningdistilled/research.