- Decision
- allowed, 18 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: J Somers
- Authority
- Bromsgrove (West Midlands)
- Appeal reference
- 6011097
- Application reference
- 25/00803/FUL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 3 dwellings with 6 frontage parking spaces
- Homes
- 3
- Site context
- inside settlement
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- TR6(4), TR3, TR4
- Development plan policies
- Bromsgrove District Plan BDP16, BDP19
- Main issues
- highway safety for pedestrians
Summary
Three houses replaced existing buildings at the end of a narrow Bromsgrove cul-de-sac where pedestrians walk in the road. The only refusal reason was pedestrian safety. The appeal was allowed: the extra traffic from 3 dwellings would not reach the Framework's "severe adverse impacts" threshold (DL ¶12). The inspector did not consult on the 2026 Framework, saying the relevant policies were "largely unchanged" (DL ¶4).
What made the difference
The highway authority supported the scheme, which the inspector gave substantial weight, against only anecdotal objection (DL ¶12). Very low vehicle speeds also counted. A lack of footways on the final stretch did not make the scheme unsafe where traffic is local and slow. The S4 presumption was not mentioned. The letter also applies the TR6 "severe" test to pedestrian-safety concerns without separately considering TR6(4)'s "unacceptable impact on highway safety" limb.
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) | pass | no "severe adverse impacts"; slow local traffic on a 30 mph cul-de-sac; highway officer support given substantial weight over anecdotal objections (DL 9-14) | |
| TR3 | pass | complies; described as a "highly sustainable location" (DL 14, 17) |
Key facts
- Churchfields Road narrows to a cul-de-sac with no footways near the site, so pedestrians walk in the carriageway; street lit; vehicles well below 30 mph (DL 7)
- Only reason for refusal was pedestrian safety; no transport evidence from objectors (DL 3, 12)
- Costs application by appellant decided separately (DL 2)
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.