40-apartment building at Royal British Legion Club, Newcastle upon Tyne

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing the existing club and building 40 apartments with a residents’ gym, access, infrastructure and landscaping.

“Proposal: Demolition of existing club building and erection of 4-5 storey apartment building comprising 40 No. residential units (Class C3) (2 x 1-bedroom flats, 2 x 1 bedroom maisonettes, 26 x 2-bedroom flats, and 10 x 2-bedroom maisonettes) with ancillary residents gym at ground floor, and associated infrastructure and landscaping (as amended by plans received 1 June 2026)”

“The proposal, as amended, is for the demolition of the existing club building and the erection of an apartment building comprising 40 residential units. The proposed building would have a linear form extending from 4 to 5 storeys, with the taller element positioned towards the northern part of the site.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The 0.17-hectare site lies beside the Metro, near residential properties and the Grade II listed St Hilda’s Church and Church Hall.

“The site covers 0.17 hectares and is located to the west of West Jesmond Avenue and east of the Metro lines. To the north of the application site are residential flats in Lonsdale Court. To the south are residential properties at Jesmond Place. There are residential properties to the east on Thornleigh Road. The Grade II listed St. Hilda's Church and Church Hall are also located to the east of the application site.”

“The application site includes the existing club building to the north and hard standing to the remainder of this wedge-shaped site. There are a number of self-seeded trees to the perimeter of the site, especially along the metro line boundary.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

A 2023 residential application was withdrawn, while a 2021 student accommodation proposal was refused for concerns including concentration, design, bats and noise.

“Application 2021/0204/01/DET for – Conversion of first floor of social club to 1x8 bedroom student house in multiple occupation (HMO) (Sui Generis) and 1x3 bedroom flat for ground floor club manager (C3); erection of second floor extension to accommodate 1x10 bedroom student HMO (Sui Generis); all with associated alterations to elevations including provision of first floor covered walkway and ground floor raised terrace to social club function room on south elevation, and…”

“- The proposal would contribute to an over concentration of shared student accommodation in an area where this has been identifies as being problematic to the character of the area. The proposal would result in increased issues of noise and disturbance to occupiers of neighbouring residential properties.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the proposal sustainable because it would deliver housing on allocated brownfield land near public transport, with no adverse effects substantially outweighing its benefits.

“The principle of redeveloping this vacant brownfield site, which is allocated for housing development under DM5 of the Development and Allocations Plan, is acceptable and would deliver 40 new homes in a highly sustainable location close to public transport, services and facilities.”

“The site lies within the urban area of Newcastle upon Tyne and constitutes a sustainable location for residential development. The proposal would redevelop a vacant brownfield site to provide 40 dwellings together with associated landscaping and infrastructure.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Transport, flood, environmental health, police, water, economic development and Metro consultees raised no objection subject to conditions or secured measures.

“Flood Management (acting as local lead flood authority) has no objections subject to conditions for: the development to be carried out in accordance with the submitted Flood Risk Statement & Drainage Strategy, details of drainage components to be submitted, detailed drawings and maintenance details of the green roof to be submitted, measures to control polluting the surface water and ground water during construction as well as control measures to prevent surface water…”

“Public Safety and Regulation (Environmental Health) raised no objection to the proposal subject to conditions. They have advised that, due to the proximity of surrounding residential properties, details of demolition and construction management will be required to control noise, dust and general disturbance during the construction phase, including details of working hours and deliveries.”

Officer report

Objections and support

Objections addressed amenity, design, parking, infrastructure, ecology, landscaping, noise and housing mix, while two groups supported the principle with design concerns.

“The building would cause overshadowing of nearby homes and streets, reducing residential amenity. • The development would result in a loss of daylight and obstruct existing skyline views. • The height and proximity of the building would harm privacy of neighbouring properties. • The proposal represents overdevelopment, excessive scale and massing, and the resulting sense of enclosure. • The scheme fails to meet parking standards.”

“The site currently supports wildlife. • The development would negatively impact local ecology. • Limited provision for landscaping is proposed. • The proposed dwellings are likely to be occupied by students, increasing issues of noise and litter. • Potential impacts on residential amenity from the proposed shared amenity space. • The size of some units in relation to nationally described space standards.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A planning service manager introduced the proposal, and the applicant’s architect spoke about the design, sustainability, consultation and balconies.

Committee discussion

Members recognised the work and regulatory compliance but regretted that the scheme did not provide affordable housing.

“Discussion and further questions During discussion by Committee other matters raised included the following:”

“Committee Members took on board all of the work that had gone into the design of the scheme, and how it complied with all the regulations, but observed that it was a pity that it did not allow for any affordable housing.”

Minutes

The vote

Members unanimously agreed the recommendations, amended to include an overage clause concerning affordable housing viability.

“As an update on the information set out in the report, it was noted that the section 106 agreement would include Overage Clause regarding the lack of viability for affordable housing.”

“Committee members voted on the recommendations, as set out in the report and amended at the meeting regarding the Overage Clause condition. It was unanimously agreed.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee was minded to grant permission subject to a section 106 agreement, conditions and delegated authority, with refusal possible if the agreement was not received by 18 March 2027.

“Committee was minded to grant planning permission for application reference 2025/0826/01/DET: (i) Subject to a section 106 agreement to secure: - £10,000 lump sum for the monitoring of the SuDS maintenance; - £5,436 allotments; - £34,696 parks and recreation (outdoor sport); - £9,036 amenity and natural green space; - Training employment plan; - £26,964 replacement trees; - Overage Clause - Associated monitoring costs arising from the above planning obligations (ii) Subject…”

“(iii) It was also agreed that delegated authority be given to the Service Manager Development Management, in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chairs of the Planning Committee, to amend, add or omit conditions where appropriate to ensure the application complies with relevant development plan policies and national planning guidance.”

Minutes