Failed appeal ends saga over controversial Northumberland housing plans
and live on Freeview channel 276
The third resulted in refusal, which was subsequently appealed by the applicant, Mick Clippingdale, but this has now been dismissed by planning inspector David Cross.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdIn his decision letter, dated Wednesday, October 14, he concluded that ‘the proposal would be inappropriate development within the green belt’ and ‘would lead to limited harm to the openness of the green belt’.
He added: ‘I acknowledge that the proposal would have some benefits, including housing supply, economic benefits and biodiversity improvements. However, considered individually and as a whole these benefits are of only limited weight.
‘The substantial weight to be given to green-belt harm, as well as the significant weight given to harm in respect of the sustainable location of development and character and appearance, are not clearly outweighed by the other considerations sufficient to demonstrate very special circumstances.’
The application first went before the Castle Morpeth Local Area Council in November 2018, where it was recommended for refusal.
But members approved the scheme by six votes to three, with one abstention, after being persuaded by the argument of the applicant’s agents that the proposals would bring a redundant site back into use, get rid of derelict buildings and create houses which reflect the local character.
The new homes would not have been the only properties in the area as Benridge Moor is a small hamlet of five dwellings and agricultural buildings, less than one kilometre away from the landmark Heighley Gate garden centre site.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdAt this meeting, the committee went into a behind-closed-doors session for well over half-an-hour to hear about legal advice received by the council before the scheme was turned down by four votes to three, with three abstentions.
However, this decision was subsequently quashed at judicial review, as the local authority had not given the applicant five clear working days’ notice of the meeting.
A fresh decision was therefore required, but the application was rejected again, this time by four votes to two, with one abstention, at the March 2020 meeting of the local area council.