- Decision
- dismissed, 29 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: John Morrison (on recommendation of Appeal Planning Officer E Street)
- Authority
- Camden (London)
- Appeal reference
- 6008940
- Application reference
- 2025/5066/P
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Use of an existing hardstanding in front of a basement flat as one off-street car parking space, with a vehicle crossover onto Finchley Road
- Site context
- inside settlement
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S4(1), TR6(4)
- Development plan policies
- Camden Local Plan 2017 T1, T2, A1
- Main issues
- highway safety
Summary
A proposal to use a front hardstanding at a basement flat on Finchley Road as a parking space, with a new crossover, was dismissed on the recommendation of an appeal planning officer. A car would have to reverse across a narrow footway and a bus lane beside a bus stop on a six-lane Red Route. That highway safety harm was given significant weight, and under S4 it substantially outweighed the limited benefit of one off-street space.
Issues and findings
- Transition. The inspector was satisfied that the revised Framework "does not affect the substantive matters of the appeal or the outcome thereof and proceeding without further consultation with the main parties would not be prejudicial to their respective cases" (DL ¶2).
- Lawfulness not decided. "Within the context of an appeal under S78 of the Act it is not within my remit to formally determine whether the proposed development requires planning permission as claimed by the appellant" (DL ¶6).
- Highway safety: HARM. "Any vehicle parked in the space when exiting would need to immediately enter the pedestrian pathway to join the highway. Visibility would be limited by the height of the flanking wall" (DL ¶9).
- Accident record. "Any assessment has to be based on the theoretical basis of what a hazard could pose for highway users" (DL ¶10).
Planning balance
S4(1), stated in terms. The off-street space "would be worthy of limited weight given that it would be to the power of one vehicle only" (DL ¶13). The harm "relates to the safe use of the highway for users and, in some cases, could be impactive to life. I therefore give it significant weight" (DL ¶13). The conclusion: "the benefits of granting planning permission for the proposals would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects when assessed against the decision making policies of the Framework" (DL ¶13).
What made the difference
The location of the space: at the back of a narrow footway, next to a bus stop and bus lane on a Red Route, with no room to turn. The claim that the use was already lawful could not be resolved in a planning appeal, so the proposal was judged as new development. A lawful development certificate would be the route to test that claim.
Transferable points
- Highway safety harm can substantially outweigh a small private benefit under S4(1) without TR6(4) or S4(2)(c) being named (DL ¶13).
- A clean accident record for the existing situation says little about a new access; the hazard is assessed on what could happen (DL ¶10).
- A section 78 appeal does not decide whether permission is needed; that is for a section 192 application (DL ¶6-7).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| TR6(4) | fail | significant | mapped: TR6(4) not cited; the letter refers to "section 15" of the Framework and the safe use of transport and highway networks; reversing across a narrow footway and a bus lane beside a bus stop, with visibility limited by a flanking wall (DL 9-10, 13) |
| S4(1) | fail | benefit of one off-street space given limited weight; highway safety harm given significant weight; benefits substantially outweighed (DL 13) |
Key facts
- Finchley Road here has six lanes including two bus lanes and is a Red Route; the site is next to a bus stop served by two routes (DL 8, 10)
- The kerb outside No 226 has not been formally dropped; a bollard blocked the hardstanding at the site visit (DL 5, 8)
- The appellant argued the parking use and crossover were already lawful; no lawful development certificate; the inspector declined to determine lawfulness in a section 78 appeal and pointed to section 192 (DL 4-7)
- Absence of accident data given little significance because it relates to the existing situation, not the proposal (DL 10)
- A 1979 permission for a crossover at No 224 was not treated as a precedent (DL 11)
- Decided on the recommendation of an appeal planning officer; revised Framework applied without further consultation (DL 2, 15)
Sources
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.