The former Sage headquarters in Newcastle Great Park, alongside an Illustration of new homes. Avant Homes is seeking outline planning permission for up to 320 homes on the site. Editorial composite for Great Park Gazette
Gazette comment
Before May’s local elections, Jamie Robinson told Great Park voters: “No surgery, no sign-off on the next 100 houses.” On 2 October, Newcastle City Council’s Planning Committee backed plans for 155 homes north of Brunton Lane without requiring a new GP surgery. Robinson, by then a vice-chair of the committee, was absent with apologies. The Evening Chronicle’s latest report quotes him on the infrastructure pressures facing Great Park and his duty to keep an open mind on the former Sage headquarters application. It leaves out his election pledge and his absence from the vote that had already put it to the test. Great Park Gazette’s campaign and attendance investigation · Evening Chronicle’s Sage report
The 155 homes were already a test of the pledge
Taylor Wimpey and Persimmon Homes sought permission for 155 homes on land north of Brunton Lane under application 2025/1264/01/DET. On 2 October 2026, the committee resolved that it was minded to grant permission, subject to a Section 106 agreement and planning conditions. The Gazette’s report that day described the scheme as approved. The committee had backed it, and the application record checked on 13 November still showed the formal decision notice as outstanding. The Gazette’s original Brunton Lane report · Committee decision record · Brunton Lane application record
The committee’s resolution sought £181,216 towards healthcare provision, subject to indexation, alongside contributions for education and other local infrastructure. It included no obligation to deliver a new GP surgery. For voters who understood Robinson’s pledge to mean the next homes would be held up until a surgery was secured, the Brunton Lane resolution fell short of what they had been led to expect. The outcome of the Sage application is still to come. The October vote gives residents a decision against which to judge the pledge today. Committee decision record
Where was Robinson when the committee considered the scheme?
The Gazette’s earlier investigation examined five Planning Committee meetings between June and October. Robinson attended on 19 June. Apologies were recorded on 10 July, 4 September, 18 September and 2 October. He therefore took no part in the vote on the Brunton Lane application. The Gazette’s committee attendance investigation
Robinson knew the proposals well. In June 2025, while chairing the Great Park Neighbourhood Association, he publicly opposed the original plans for about 160 homes on the Brunton Lane site and called for the council to hold developers to their commitments. The scheme later came before the committee as a 155-home application. That history makes his absence from the October vote particularly relevant. It also makes his actions outside the meeting worth examining. Did he lodge an objection, ask officers to seek a surgery, or challenge the proposed healthcare contribution before the committee met? The attendance record leaves those questions open. The developers’ June 2025 consultation notice · The Gazette’s follow-up on Robinson’s earlier opposition
What the Evening Chronicle left out
The Chronicle’s 13 November report says the council had approved proposals for more than 200 additional homes around Great Park that year. It links to its earlier Brunton Lane story, but gives readers no account of Robinson’s absence when the 155 homes came before the committee. It also leaves out his surgery pledge and his campaign commitment to block further development until developers delivered what they had promised. Read Daniel Holland’s report on ChronicleLive
Robinson told the Chronicle he had to “maintain a strictly open mind” on live applications. He raised pressures on school places, roads, buses and GP access and said the assessment should establish “what mitigation or developer contributions are required”. Those are legitimate planning questions. Readers also deserved the context to ask why the councillor now calling for scrutiny had missed the meeting on a major housing scheme he had previously opposed, and what he had done to pursue the pledge he made to voters. The Chronicle’s report leaves both questions unanswered. ChronicleLive’s Sage report
Why did Robinson explain the limits of his pledge only after the election?
Before asking Great Park residents for their votes, Jamie Robinson said, “No surgery, no sign-off on the next 100 houses.” He also said, “We will continue to block development” until developers honoured their commitments, and spoke about challenging changes to planning permissions and pressing for Section 106 agreements to be enforced. In the campaign statements previously reported by the Gazette, voters were given a firm assurance about the next homes. They were given no explanation of how Robinson intended to deliver it within the limits of a councillor’s powers. Great Park Gazette’s campaign and attendance investigation
Now, speaking to the Evening Chronicle as Planning Committee vice-chair, Robinson says he must “maintain a strictly open mind” on live applications. That is a duty he must take seriously. A councillor can campaign for a surgery and still weigh the evidence on an application. Section 106 can secure binding obligations where the legal tests are met, and decisions rest with the planning authority. If those limits matter enough to explain now, why were they missing from the pledge voters were asked to rely on? Evening Chronicle’s Sage report · Localism Act 2011, section 25 · Government guidance on planning obligations
Brunton Lane has already put that pledge to the test. On 2 October, the committee backed 155 homes subject to a legal agreement and conditions. It sought £181,216 towards healthcare, with no requirement in its resolution to deliver a surgery. Robinson was absent with apologies. The record of that meeting leaves open what he did beforehand to press for the surgery. He can answer that by publishing any objections or representations he made. Planning Committee decision record · The Gazette’s reporting on Robinson’s attendance
What had Robinson checked before making that promise? If he believed an existing Section 106 agreement could hold up further housing until a surgery was delivered, he should identify the agreement, the clause and the action he took to enforce it. If he already understood that the outcome would depend on the evidence and the committee’s decision, he should explain why he gave voters such a categorical assurance. Either question goes directly to how candid he was when campaigning for votes.
That is the question the Chronicle’s report should have put to him. Great Park residents already have the October vote to judge the pledge against.
Great Park has heard promises about infrastructure before
The Gazette’s road adoption reporting shows why residents want specifics. In October, Newcastle North MP Catherine McKinnell reported progress on funding for future maintenance of a Spine Road bridge and a council review of proposed safety improvements on Roseden Way. Her update gave no firm date for either road to be adopted. When a politician says infrastructure will come first, residents have good reason to ask what has been agreed, who will deliver it and by when. Great Park Gazette’s road adoption investigation
Four questions for Councillor Robinson
What did you check before making the pledge? Which Section 106 agreement or other planning mechanism did you believe could hold up the next homes until a surgery was delivered?
What did you do before the 2 October vote? Did you submit written representations, seek a surgery obligation or challenge the proposed healthcare contribution? Will you publish any representations you made?
How do you reconcile the Brunton Lane outcome with what you told voters? The committee backed 155 homes and sought a healthcare payment without requiring a surgery. What did you do to secure the outcome you promised?
Why did the campaign statements reported by the Gazette leave out the duty to keep an open mind? You told the Evening Chronicle that, as Planning Committee vice-chair, you must “maintain a strictly open mind” on live applications. When you told voters “No surgery, no sign-off on the next 100 houses”, what did you understand about that duty, and why didn’t you explain how it would affect what you could promise?
Where the former Sage application stands
Avant Homes bought the former Sage headquarters after the building had stood empty for years. Its proposed Skyline Quarter development would replace the offices with up to 320 homes, alongside public open space and walking and cycling links. Avant told the Chronicle that it considered the building difficult to adapt and argued that its marketing showed insufficient demand for it as employment space. That case will form part of the council’s assessment. The Gazette’s report on the sale · The Gazette’s original coverage of the 320-home plans · ChronicleLive’s report on Avant’s case
The outline application is 2026/1424/01/OUT. The site notice gives Thursday 26 November 2026 as the deadline for comments. Residents can view the documents and submit comments through Newcastle City Council’s planning portal. The Gazette’s guide to the planning notice · Newcastle City Council planning search
Have your say
What did you understand by “no surgery, no sign-off”? What would you want Councillor Robinson to explain about the Brunton Lane decision? Join the discussion in the Great Park Residents Group on Facebook.
Further reading on the wider accountability debate
The Gazette’s explainer on Wales’s election honesty reforms and what they mean for England
