61 Brackley Square, Woodford Green

Decision

dismissed, 27 August 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: Jane Smith

Authority

Redbridge (London)

Appeal reference

6005325

Application reference

3187/25

Procedure

written representations

Development

Outline (access only) for garden subdivision and a two-storey detached 3-bed house to the rear

Homes

1

Site context

inside settlement, TPO

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S4(2)(c), DP3(3), TR4

Development plan policies

Redbridge Local Plan LP7, LP26, LP38, LP39, London Plan D3, G7, T2, T6.1

Main issues

safe and inclusive access; character and appearance / tree loss

Summary

Outline proposal for one backland house in the rear garden of an end-terrace on Brackley Square, reached via the side garage space. Dismissed. Shared, cramped pedestrian/vehicle access, no demonstrated emergency access and the unavoidable loss of a prominent TPO oak breached DP3 principles without clear justification, so DP3(3) directed refusal; that engaged S4(2)(c) and the small benefits were substantially outweighed.

Issues and findings

• Transition. "it has not been necessary to seek further representations from the main parties on its contents. However, the Framework 2026 is a material consideration from the date of publication, and I have taken it into account" (DL ¶4).
• Access — DP3 / TR4: FAIL. "it does not appear feasible to provide a path for pedestrians, clear of the area required for vehicular access … That raises the risk of conflict" (DL ¶9); would not provide for "future occupiers with mobility challenges, using pushchairs, wheeling bicycles … or carrying furniture or heavy shopping" (DL ¶10); emergency access not demonstrated (DL ¶11). "contrary to Framework Policy TR4, which includes that the arrangement of streets and other routes should create places that are safe, inclusive and attractive for all users, minimising scope for conflict between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles" (DL ¶15).
• Tree loss / character — DP3: FAIL. The oak "makes a highly positive contribution to the character and appearance of the street scene" (DL ¶18); "no realistic prospect that its removal could be avoided, regardless of the exact siting and scale" (DL ¶19); replacement planting "would not provide adequate compensation" (DL ¶20); "contrary to the key principles in Policy DP3 of the Framework 2026, which include maintaining and enhancing tree cover" (DL ¶23).
• S4 and S4(2)(c). "the circumstances in which the benefits … are likely to be substantially outweighed … are now more specifically defined within Policy S4. They include where the development would fail to comply with one of the national decision-making policies which state that development proposals should be refused in specific circumstances (Policy S4, paragraph 2c)" (DL ¶25).

Planning balance

S4 balance. Benefits: one family home in an area with a delivery shortfall, small site delivered quickly, effective use of plot, accessible urban location near an Underground station, statutory BNG ("modest"), but "inherently limited by its very small scale" (DL ¶¶26–29). Against: DP3 conflict with no clear justification so "Policy DP3 paragraph 3 states that development proposals should be refused", plus TR4 (DL ¶30). "Having had regard to the circumstances listed in Policy S4 paragraph 2 … the benefits of approving the development would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶31). s38(6) conclusion (DL ¶34).

What made the difference

Physical constraints of the access: the only route to the rear plot was the narrow former-garage gap shared by cars and people, with level changes and no fire-appliance access. Separately, the TPO oak's canopy covered most of the plot so no reserved-matters layout could save it. Either on its own engaged DP3(3). A scheme with a separate pedestrian route (e.g. from the rear footpath) and a layout retaining the oak would have had a different S4 balance.

Transferable points

• DP3(3) "should be refused" is a refusal direction that triggers S4(2)(c), turning a within-settlement S4 balance against a small scheme (DL ¶¶25, 30–31).
• TR4 applies to on-site access routes, not just streets: shared narrow pedestrian/vehicle access fails "minimising scope for conflict" (DL ¶15).
• Where access is the only matter for approval in an outline scheme, inclusive-access failures (pushchairs, wheelchairs, cycles, deliveries, emergency access) can be decisive at outline stage (DL ¶¶8–11).
• Loss of a prominent Category B TPO tree offends DP3's tree-cover principle; replacement planting in the same area gives "little net benefit" (DL ¶¶20, 23).
• The inspector noted the 2026 S4 test reaches the same place as the 2024 tilted balance but its triggers are "more specifically defined" (DL ¶25).
• Inspectors do not always consult on the 2026 Framework where the issues are design-led (DL ¶4).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Only access to the rear plot is through the space occupied by an attached garage between terraced houses on an outer corner; pedestrians, cycles and cars share it
• Change of ground level from front to rear; long narrow route; bins would be dragged a considerable distance
• Fire Statement acknowledged no clear unobstructed route for emergency vehicles within the site
• Semi-mature oak T001 about 25 m, Category B, TPO served before determination and confirmed; AIA says removal necessary
• Council acknowledged a housing delivery shortfall (HDT figure not stated); parties agreed 2024 NPPF para 11d would have applied
• Epping Forest SAC UU based on out-of-date figures; not pursued as appeal dismissed on other grounds
• No further representations sought on the 2026 Framework
• Separate costs decision issued (not read here)

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.