1 Kingswood Close, Boldon Colliery

Decision

dismissed, 18 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: Chris Mayes

Authority

South Tyneside (North East)

Appeal reference

6006846

Application reference

250347

Procedure

written representations

Development

One detached three-bedroom two-storey house in a side garden with a new vehicular access onto Cotswold Lane (resubmission with revised parking/turning)

Homes

1

Site context

inside settlement

Green Belt

No

Housing land supply

4.1 years

Housing Delivery Test

53%

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S4(1), S4(2)(c), TR6(4), TR4(1)(c)(i)

Development plan policies

South Tyneside Local Plan 2023-2040 (adopted July 2026) Policies 13, 47

Main issues

highway safety

Summary

One detached house in the garden of a corner property in Boldon Colliery, with a new direct access onto Cotswold Lane, a 30 mph local distributor road. It was a resubmission that added on-site turning. The appeal was dismissed on highway safety grounds alone. The access would add another conflict point where a junction, a zebra crossing, bus stops and hatched markings were already close together. That failed TR6(4), and because TR6(4) is a refusal policy, S4(2)(c) applied and outweighed substantial HO7 weight for one home in an area with a 4.1-year supply and 53% HDT.

Issues and findings

• Transition. A new local plan was adopted and the new Framework published during the appeal; parties were invited to comment on both (DL ¶¶2–3).
• Highway safety — TR6(4) / TR4(1)(c)(i): FAIL. "Although visibility at the proposed access is shown to be acceptable, the suitability of an access in this location is not determined by visibility alone" (DL ¶8). Manual for Streets principles "are context-dependent" and fit streets with active frontages, not a distributor road (DL ¶10). "the absence of recorded accidents in the vicinity does not, in itself, demonstrate that the proposed arrangement would be safe" (DL ¶13). The idea that drivers would slow down near the access was not a benefit: "at best, would leave the overall effect neutral" (DL ¶14).
• Effective use of land. "that is an ordinary policy objective rather than a benefit of such significance as to attract additional weight … the existing garden is not inherently vacant or under-utilised simply because further development could occur" (DL ¶23).

Planning balance

S4 balance. Benefits: one windfall dwelling, HO7 substantial weight but "modest in scale"; limited economic benefit (DL ¶¶20–23). "Policy TR6(4) of the Framework is one such national decision-making policy … this is a circumstance to which Policy S4(2)(c) applies" (DL ¶25). "I find that the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by its adverse effects. Consequently, the proposal conflicts with Policy S4 of the Framework and the development plan when read as a whole" (DL ¶26).

What made the difference

Where the access was. The highway objection did not depend on visibility, speed or trip numbers. It was that a new private access would add to a short stretch of distributor road where drivers were already dealing with a junction, a zebra crossing, two bus stops and hatching. Once that was found "unacceptable" under TR6(4), S4(2)(c) settled the result regardless of the housing shortfall. The same house served from Kingswood Close, or an access away from that cluster of features, would probably have been allowed.

Transferable points

• A TR6(4) "unacceptable impact on highway safety" finding engages S4(2)(c) and can on its own outweigh substantial HO7 weight inside a settlement, even with a 4.1-year supply and 53% HDT (DL ¶¶22, 25–26).
• Acceptable visibility splays do not decide access safety; how many conflict points are already clustered nearby (junction, zebra, bus stops) is relevant (DL ¶¶7–8).
• Manual for Streets support for direct frontage access depends on context and does not apply to a distributor road without frontage development (DL ¶10).
• No accident record reflects existing conditions and does not show a new access would be safe (DL ¶13).
• Drivers slowing because of added hazards is not a safety benefit (DL ¶14).
• Effective use of an urban garden plot is not a separate benefit beyond the dwelling itself (DL ¶23).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• SHLAA shows 4.1-year supply; HDT 53%; council says the newly adopted local plan restores a five-year supply (DL 21)
• Cotswold Lane is a 30 mph local distributor road with speed humps and no direct residential frontages
• Access close to the Cinderford Close junction, a zebra crossing, bus stops on both sides and hatched centre markings
• Visibility splays were acceptable; the objection was the number of competing conflict points, not sightlines (DL 8)
• No recorded accidents; Manual for Streets arguments rejected (DL 10-13)
• Local plan adopted during the appeal and parties consulted on it and on the 2026 Framework

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• 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.