Planners forced to stump up cash for bad behaviour over South Shields marina boats mooring scheme

Back in June, 2024, the council’s Planning Committee delayed making a decision on plans to allow “educational and safety” boats to use a pontoon structure at a marina development in South Shields amid concerns over the expanded use of the site.

Proposals were initially approved by the council panel in 2021 for a development at the former Brigham and Cowan Dock 4 Entrance, off Long Row.

This included a floating pontoon and wave break, with access ladder, for the storage of small boats and to open up opportunities for watersports and community groups.

However, a subsequent application was submitted seeking to change one of the conditions attached to the initial planning approval, which stated the development “shall be used solely for the mooring of recreational leisure boats and for no other purpose”.

The new proposals, submitted by Mark Turnbull, sought to allow the pontoon to be used by “no more than” two safety boats and two boats engaged in educational use, with each allowed to be occupied by up to 10 people.

The application went before South Tyneside Council’s Planning Committee on June 17, 2024, after around 23 objections were submitted by residents, with concerns including parking congestion, highway safety, noise, anti-social behaviour and more.

During discussion by councillors, worries were also raised about the proposals impacting a Definitive Map Modification Order [DMMO] bid, which was pending a decision by the council at the time.

A report from council planners had recommended the application for a wider range of boats at the site be approved “as such a change would not give rise to material harm to residential amenity”.

Get the latest updates - follow us on our Facebook page

However, a majority of councillors ultimately voted to defer the application and the applicant later lodged an appeal on the grounds of ‘non-determination’, as the local authority had not decided the application within a statutory timescale.

The application was then taken out of the council’s hands and reviewed by the national Planning Inspectorate, with a planning inspector appointed by the Secretary of State to rule on the matter.

As the Planning Committee had not decided the application before the appeal was lodged, councillors on the Planning Committee were asked to indicate retrospectively what decision they would have made on the application.

At a meeting at South Shields Town Hall in August, 2024, councillors voted by a majority to say they would have been minded to refuse the application on the grounds it would “give rise to harm to the residential amenities of nearby residents”, according to official council minutes.

An appeal decision published on February 3, 2025, confirms that the Government-appointed planning inspector has allowed the appeal, meaning the planning application is approved.

The appellant’s case was that the plans would “broaden the scope of use by allowing the mooring of safety vessels or vessels engaged in educational use, in addition to the mooring of recreational leisure boats already permitted.”

The planning inspector, in an appeal decision report, was “satisfied that restrictions on the number of people occupying the safety boats andthe educational boats, in accordance with the Marine Coding Authority, would address concerns relating to increased activity and additional parking congestion”.

The appeal decision report noted that the proposed moorings would be “in the region of once per month” and that the “quantum of vehicular trips to access the mooring would be low”, as well as boating activities being “undertaken during the working day and conducted, controlled and supervised so as not to create unacceptable levels of noise and disruption”.

It was also concluded that the proposal would “prevent the development from being used for non-recreational leisure activities such as pleasure tour excursions and commercial fishing, in the interests of safeguarding the residential amenities of the area from undue noise and general disturbance.”

Under Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), costs may be awarded against a party who is said to have “behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying for costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process”, according to a Planning Inspectorate report.

An application of costs against South Tyneside Council for the Brigham and Cowan Dock site appeal was considered by the planning inspector, who concluded that “full costs” should be awarded.

Appeal documents said the claimant’s grounds were that the “council’s decision to defer the application, and ultimately to defend the appeal, was unjustified and ill-founded” and that the move had caused developers “unnecessary or wasted expense in pursuing the appeal, which constitutes unreasonable behaviour”.

Go beyond the story - sign up for our Shields Gazette newsletters

The costs report from the planning inspector said while impacts on residential amenity were a “valid concern”, “no substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the inclusion of safety and educational boats would have a greater impact upon residential amenity compared with the permitted mooring of recreational leisure boats”.

The planning inspector added South Tyneside Council had “offered no evidence to rebut the applicant’s claim” and “did not determine the planning application within the time limit”, as well as “giving the applicant no explanation to justify the delay, and giving no substantive reason for the delay in response to this application for costs”.

The planning inspector’s report added: “There is no evidence of any unreasonable behaviour on the part of the applicant in causing or adding to the delay.

“It is clear that better communication with the applicant may have enabled the appeal to have been avoided altogether. This was unreasonable behaviour.

“Unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in the PPG, has been demonstrated and a full award of costs is therefore justified.”

The report noted that the applicant is”invited to submit to South Tyneside Council […] details of those costs with a view to reaching agreement as to the amount” and it is understood that the council has received costs from the appellant and that the matter will be considered.

The appeal decision report and costs decision was discussed by South Tyneside Council’s Planning Committee at South Shields Town Hall on Monday (February 10, 2025).

Councillor Geraldine Kilgour told the meeting the appeal ruling would “cost the local authority £14,000” and described the planning inspector’s costs report as “absolutely scathing”.

The councillor also said there was “legal advice and constructive advice given with regards to the way that that decision should have been taken” and referenced the financial cost and “emotional cost” on parties involved.

“I think we need to be really mindful of that in future, of not just looking for a particular reason not to grant [planning permission] but to understand that planning law is in the favour of development and in that regard, we need to have looked at that really carefully,” Cllr Kilgour added.

“I just think it’s extremely disappointing that that report is so scathing on that decision that was arrived at and I think that really gives us food for thought.”

South Tyneside Council was contacted for comment following the publication of the appeal decision report and costs report this month.

A council spokesperson said: “The council participated fully in the planning appeal process which included providing written representations to the Planning Inspectorate regarding its handling of the planning application.

“The council notes that after due consideration, the Inspectorate has chosen to allow the appeal and will be liaising with the appellant regarding the award of costs against the council.”

Full appeal documents can be viewed by visiting the Planning Inspectorate’s website.