- Decision
- dismissed, 4 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: Barry John Lomax
- Authority
- Croydon (London)
- Appeal reference
- 6009886
- Application reference
- 25/04001/FUL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Three-storey block of flats and two detached houses (net gain 6 dwellings), access, parking and landscaping
- Homes
- 6
- Site context
- inside settlement
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- TR6(4), S4(2)(c), S4
- Development plan policies
- Croydon Local Plan 2021 SP8, DM10, DM29, DM30, London Plan 2021 D3, D4, T4
- Main issues
- character and appearance; safe and inclusive layout and access; planning obligations
Summary
Flats and two backland houses (net +6) in South Croydon were dismissed. The design and density were acceptable. But the shared-surface layout gave no pedestrian segregation, and the access splays depended on unsecured third-party land. That was an unacceptable highway safety impact under TR6, a "should be refused" policy. Under S4(2)(c), the substantial housing benefit was "substantially outweighed" (DL ¶42).
Issues and findings
- Character: no harm. Backland development "is a feature of the locality" and has limited public visibility (DL ¶8-17).
- Layout and inclusive design: FAIL. Swept paths showed vans overrunning the pedestrian path, and flat entrances opened onto the shared surface. This was a particular problem for residents with visual impairments (DL ¶20-24, MfS 7.2.10).
- Access: FAIL. No evidence of control over the splay land. "the absence of recorded accidents and the historic operation of the access are not, in themselves, determinative" (DL ¶28-30).
Planning balance
"Given that Policy TR6 of the Framework directs that development should be refused where it would have such an impact, this matter attracts substantial weight against the proposal and leads me to conclude that the benefits of the development would be substantially outweighed" (DL ¶42). The benefits were six family-sized homes (substantial weight) and economic, accessibility and biodiversity gains (moderate) (DL ¶43).
What made the difference
Third-party land for visibility splays and a shared-surface design that could not be fixed by condition without knock-on effects. The inspector used TR6(4) to trigger S4(2)(c), even though the council itself saw no demonstrable safety impact from the splay uncertainty.
Transferable points
- TR6(4) is a "should be refused" policy, so an unacceptable safety impact engages S4(2)(c) and carries substantial weight (DL ¶42).
- An unevidenced agreement over third-party land for splays does not secure access, and a condition requiring the splays fails for lack of control (DL ¶26, 30).
- A shared surface without segregation can fail on inclusive-design grounds (DL ¶22-24).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| DP3 | pass | L-shaped rear wing and backland houses not overdevelopment; backland is part of local character (DL 7-19) | |
| TR6(4) | fail | substantial | 1.5 x 1.5 m pedestrian splays need third-party land with no evidence of control; 34 two-way movements a day; shared surface overrun by vans with no pedestrian segregation (inclusive design) (DL 20-33, 42) |
| HO7 | benefit | substantial | net six family-sized homes in a well-connected location (DL 43) |
| S4 | fail | TR6 "should be refused" limb - substantially outweighed; presumption not engaged (DL 40-42) |
Key facts
- Council itself did not think the visibility uncertainty caused a demonstrable safety impact; inspector disagreed
- UU for GBP 10,500 sustainable transport contribution; costs application decided separately
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.