# 79 Rushdene Crescent, Northolt (vehicle crossover across green)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 30 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R C Shrimplin
- **Authority:** Ealing (London)
- **Appeal reference:** 6012788
- **Application reference:** 254364FUL
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** New vehicle crossover and ECOGrid driveway across a grassed open space in front of a terraced house
- **Site context:** inside-settlement
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** DP3
- **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 D3, D4, D8, T4, Ealing Development Management DPD 2013 7.4, 7B
- **Main issues:** character and appearance, highway safety
- **Tags:** householder, design-refusal, limited-nppf-engagement, transitional-no-consultation, drafting-slip, tier-2

## Summary
A vehicle crossover and driveway across a grassed open space in front of a Northolt terrace was refused on appeal. The route was safe, but the regular use of a drive across the green would scar it and damage the suburb's character. The private benefit of off-street parking and EV charging did not outweigh that harm. The Framework is cited only generally, and TR3 is cited for highway safety.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** "the issues most relevant to the appeal remain unaffected by the revisions that have been made to it. I am therefore satisfied that there is no requirement to seek further submissions on the revised Framework" (DL ¶2).
- **Character: HARM.** "the grassy nature of the space would be significantly eroded by the drive, which would scar the open grass" (DL ¶11).
- **Highway safety: no harm.** "it would not be materially harmful to pedestrian or vehicular safety by comparison with a more typical crossover" (DL ¶13). The letter says "Policy TR3 in the revised version of the 'National Planning Policy Framework' is also concerned with highway safety" (DL ¶9); the safety test is TR6(4).
- **Balance.** "the harm that would be done to the character and appearance of the surroundings would very clearly outweigh the benefits of the project" (DL ¶14).

## Planning balance
Plan-led with a simple harm-benefit comparison (DL ¶14–15). No S4 or DP3(3) step.

## What made the difference
The communal green in front of the house is part of the estate's open character. Houses nearer the road already had access, but that did not justify cutting across the open space.

## Transferable points
- A driveway across a communal grass verge or green can be refused for character harm even where it is safe and spares the tree (DL ¶11, ¶13).
- Private convenience, including EV charging, is a limited benefit against townscape harm (DL ¶14).

## Policy findings
- **DP3: conflict.** mapped - Framework cited only generically ("achieving well-designed places"); drive would scar the grassed open space and significantly damage the area's attractiveness; harm "very clearly" outweighs private EV-charging convenience (DL 8, 11, 14-15)
- **TR6(4): pass.** letter cites TR3 as "concerned with highway safety"; good intervisibility, no material harm despite non-standard dimensions (DL 9, 13)

## Key facts
- Open space with a mature tree in front of a set-back terrace; nearest houses already have car access (DL 5)
- Council's 2021 Dropped Kerb pack given less weight than the plan (DL 10)
- Tree would not be harmed (DL 11)
- Parties not consulted on the 2026 Framework (DL 2)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012788

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012788.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.