Morpeth service station, hotel, and business units approved as Planning Inspectorate overrules councillors

The planning application received 138 public objections before Northumberland County Council’s strategic planning committee rejected it in November 2022, against the advice of council officers.

Cllr David Bawn described it as “depressingly ordinary and dreary” during the committee meeting, and Cllr Gordon Stewart claimed his nine-year-old granddaughter could have designed something better.

Government agency the Planning Inspectorate has now overruled councillors following an appeal by Euro Garages, the proprietor of the project, and told the council it must cover the costs of the appeal.

The plans, which consist of a fuel station, an amenity building including food outlets, parking facilities, a 40-room hotel and adjoining restaurant-cum-bar, and seven commercial units, can now go ahead at the site east of the junction of the Morpeth Northern Bypass and the A1.

The council argued that the proposal was not visually attractive, sustainably designed, or made with high quality materials, and that it “fails to preserve or make a positive contribution” to the surrounding area.

It was also claimed that the proposal was “substantially altered” from an outline plan for the site that was approved in November 2016.

But the inspector deciding the appeal’s outcome said: “The council confirmed that external materials could be appropriately and necessarily managed through a planning condition.

“In doing so, the participating officers readily accepted that they had no criticism of the appearance of the proposed units. From the evidence before me, the hearing discussion on that matter, and my site observations, I have no cause to disagree with that stance.”

The inspector also agreed with Euro Garages’ argument that it was “unreasonable” to refuse permission on the grounds that the proposal differed from the outline plans, as no condition was attached to the outline permission preventing the alterations the developer made.

It is possible, the inspector said, that councillors were motivated by “perception, dissatisfaction, and disappointment that the application fell short of what was anticipated at the outline stage,” and had delayed an “abundantly acceptable” development.

They added: “Unreasonable behaviour of the members of the planning committee, which resulted in unnecessary and wasted expense, has occurred and a full award of costs is therefore warranted in this instance.”