Appeal 6001833

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of a rear roof extension with one front roof window and a single storey rear extension following the demolition of the existing conservatory to create three self-contained residential units at [site address] , Chiswick, Hounslow, London [postcode] in accordance with the application [name]/2025/2183, without compliance with condition number 6 previously imposed on planning permission Ref 01121/40/P2 dated 20 June 2023 and subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The Council has indicated that there is an ongoing Local Plan review. I am not aware of the exact stage it has reached, the extent of unresolved objections or whether the policies concerned will be considered consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Consequently, in accordance with Paragraph 48 of the Framework, I give it limited weight.

Planning permission has been granted for the erection of a rear roof extension with one front roof window and a single storey rear extension following the demolition of the existing conservatory to create three self-contained residential units, subject to conditions (the original permission). Subsequently, an application was made by the appellant under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act) for the development of land without complying with a condition subject to which a previous planning permission was granted.

In this case, the disputed condition of the original permission is [name] 6 which requires that “before the development hereby permitted is first occupied or brought into use, the Local Planning Authority shall be informed of the agreed naming and numbering of the proposed dwellings so that arrangements can be put in place to ensure that, with the exception of a person eligible for a disabled person's badge issued pursuant to section 21 of the [name] and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (or similar legislation), no resident of the development shall obtain a resident's parking permit. Any occupiers of the approved development shall surrender any such permit wrongly issued or held”. The reason given for imposing the condition was to protect the free flow and safety of traffic on nearby highways and to support sustainable transport objectives.

The appeal is against the Council’s failure to reach a decision on this application within the relevant statutory timeframe. However, the Council have provided a report at appeal that makes clear that had they been in a position to do so, they would have refused the application.

Consequently, the main issue is whether [name] 6 is reasonable and necessary in the interests of the free flow and safety of traffic on nearby highways and to support sustainable transport objectives.

Paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that planning conditions should be kept to a minimum and only imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects. The appellant states that the disputed condition does not meet these tests and is neither reasonable nor necessary.

Policy T6 of the London Plan 2021 states that car-free development should be the starting point for all development proposals in places that are (or are planned to be) well-connected by public transport, with developments elsewhere designed to provide the minimum necessary parking (‘car-lite’).

Policy EC2 of the Hounslow Local Plan 2015-2030 (the HLP) promotes zero or low-car development where appropriate and promoting the active management of car parking and travel demand in the borough, particularly through the implementation of [name] (CPZs) and restricting access to these zones to existing dwellings. The supporting text to Policy EC2 of the HLP states that car-free’ and ‘low car’ development will be encouraged in locations of high public transport accessibility and locations where there are [name] (CPZs).

The appeal site is located within the [name] (the CPZ), which places restrictions on on-street parking between the hours of 9am and 5pm on weekdays and 9am and 12pm on Saturdays. The site has a PTAL rating of 3, which indicates a medium level of accessibility.

The original planning permission was granted for the sub-division of a dwelling to provide a 2 bedroom/4 person flat on the ground floor, a 1 bedroom/2 person flat on the first floor and a two-person studio on the second floor. The planning permission was subject to a condition which sought to restrict future occupiers of the approved dwellings from being able to obtain a parking permit. There is no off-street parking provision. The Council state that the condition was imposed to prevent an unacceptable increase in demand for parking bays within the highway. They further state that no evidence of parking demand or stress was provided with the original application.

The appellant states that three small residential units would not create significant parking pressure in comparison to the former use of the appeal property as a single, family dwelling. Furthermore, they state that the Council has not provided any evidence of harm and on this basis, the appellant states that the disputed condition is disproportionate and unreasonable.

In seeking removal of the disputed condition, the appellant prepared a [name] which provides an assessment of the demand for parking in the local area1 on three specific dates, Friday 21 June 2025, Monday 23 June 2025 and Wednesday 25 June 2025. The survey data was collected between the hours of 12pm and 1pm and 11pm and midnight on each of the three days. The data collected indicates that the level of parking stress on [address] was between 77.4% and 88.7% during the survey. However, if the assessment includes neighbouring streets2, this figure is between 64.02% and 73.63%. Although only a snapshot in time this data indicates that there is capacity for additional on-street parking within the immediate local area.

The Council has not raised any specific concerns in relation to the accuracy of data provided by the appellant but disputes the evidence on the basis of the methodology used. They state that this does not accord with the Lambeth Council Parking Survey Guidance Note (referred to by the Council as the ‘[name]), which sets out that the survey should be undertaken when the highest number of residents are at home, generally late at night during the week. [name] have not been provided with a copy of this document, the [name] indicates that the guidance sets out that the survey should be undertaken between the hours of 00:30am and 5:30am on two separate days.

However, this is the Council’s preferred approach, I have not been directed to any specific Local Plan policy or adopted guidance which states that only this methodology should be used. The survey undertaken by the appellant is fit-for purpose and whilst not following the ‘[name] precisely, does assess parking demand at a range of times and days, including at a time when it would be reasonable to expect that most residents would be at home. This also appears to align with the aims of the [name]. Therefore, given that the Council has no adopted local methodology and has not demonstrated that the Lambeth approach is required, I find that the appellant’s survey is proportionate and sufficiently robust.

The Council state that the maximum occupancy threshold for [name] is 90%. The submitted evidence demonstrates that even with the additional demand generated by the development, the threshold would not be exceeded. Therefore, 1 Within 200 metres walking distance of the appeal site. [address], [address] and [address] North whilst I accept that the existence of a CPZ generally indicates high demand for on-street parking which needs to be controlled, based on the evidence before me I am satisfied that the proposed development would not result in excessive parking stress that would exceed the Council’s threshold of 90%. Furthermore, there is little substantive evidence before me to indicate that the proposed development would generate a harmful level of parking demand when compared to the existing use of the appeal property as a family dwelling.

Accordingly, I find that the disputed condition is not reasonable or necessary and should therefore be removed. Thus, I find no conflict with Policy T6 of the London Plan 2021 and Policy EC2 of the HLP, which seek amongst other things, to prioritise car-free or low-car development in areas with good public transport accessibility, and to actively manage parking demand.

The appeal site is located within the Thorney Hedge Conservation Area (the CA). Its significance lies in its strong historic character, rooted in ancient routes that later evolved into [address], and for its well‐preserved Victorian architectural identity. It includes the distinctive horseshoe‐shaped residential enclave extending from [address] and [address], which showcases high‐quality late‐19th‐ and early‐20th‐century domestic architecture. As this appeal seeks the removal of a condition relating to on-street parking provision only and no concerns have been raised in relation to the effect of this on the CA, I am satisfied that there would be no harm to the character, appearance or significance of the CA.

By allowing this appeal, a new planning permission is created. The Planning Practice Guidance sets out that decision notices for the grant of planning permission under section 73 should restate the conditions imposed on the earlier permission that continue to have effect unless they have already been discharged.

I have not been presented with the Council’s confirmation that conditions of the planning permission have been discharged. I have therefore imposed all of the non-disputed conditions from the original planning permission as I consider that they remain relevant. If some have in fact been discharged, that is a matter which can be addressed by the parties.

For the reasons given above, the appeal proposal would accord with the development plan read as a whole and there are no material considerations that indicate otherwise. Therefore, the disputed condition is not necessary or reasonable and should be removed.

Accordingly, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of the original decision (26 June 2023).

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: • KKC/40/2022/A; • KKC/40/2023/C; • KKC/40/2022/D; • Design and [name]; and • [name]

The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling, unless otherwise shown on the approved plans.

Secure, covered cycle parking facilities for the occupants of, and visitors to, the development shall be installed as shown in the approved plan Ref: KKC/40/2023/[name] approved facilities shall conform with the design and layout requirements of the current [name] (or such other guidance as shall supersede it), be fully implemented and made available for use prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted and be permanently retained as such without obstruction.

The approved waste and recycling store as shown in the approved plan Ref: KKC/40/2023/C shall be completed, made available for use prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted and be permanently retained as such without obstruction. All bins shall be stored within the waste and recycling store at all times and not on the public highway.

Before the three flats hereby permitted are first occupied, a planting scheme shall be implemented within the site’s front garden. The proposed planting details shall be designed in accordance with BS specifications and be submitted for the approval of the Local Planning Authority. The front garden shall be permanently retained thereafter in accordance with the approved drawings and details. END OF SCHEDULE