Appeal 6002158

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey side extension; associated internal and external alterations including alterations to access to ground floor flat from communal corridor and insertion of front window; installation of rear staircase and associated alterations to rear patio area including landscaping at [site address] , [site address] , Acton, Ealing [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 251459FUL, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawing no’s: PL-4001 Revision 03 ([name]); PL- 2000 Revision 04 (Proposed Floor Plan); PL-2030 Revision 02 (Proposed Floor Plan - Fire Strategy Plan); PL-4000 Revision 03 ([name]); PL-2001 Revision 04 (Proposed Roof Plan); PL-3000 Revision 04 ([name]); and PL-2010 Revision 04 (Proposed Site Plan.

All external materials to be used in the development shall match those on the existing building, unless otherwise stated in the submitted application form or approved drawings.

An application for costs has been made by [name] of [name] against the Council of the London Borough of Ealing, which is the subject of a separate decision.

It is understood that Ealing’s draft new Local Plan (Regulation 22) (DLP) is at an advanced stage, albeit it is not formally adopted and thus it does not form part of the statutory development plan. Consequently, I only afford its relevant policies weight as material considerations insofar as they are consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

The appeal relates to a planning application that was not determined by the Council within the prescribed period. Therefore, no formal decision on the application was made, and the jurisdiction for making a decision was taken away from the Council when the appeal was lodged.

The Council has confirmed in its statement that the proposed development addresses its reason for refusal on an earlier application1 at the appeal site for a similar proposed development, and that this appeal proposal should be granted planning permission subject to conditions. In doing so, it has identified no harmful effects from the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, nor did it find the proposed accommodation would be harmful to the living conditions of future occupiers. The Council did not receive any objections to the planning application, and no interested parties have commented on the appeal. In addition, the Council has not raised any conflict with relevant policies of Ealing’s Development Management, Development Plan Document, adopted December 2013 (DPD), The London Plan, The Spatial Development Strategy for [name], dated March 2021 (LP), nor with DLP Policy DAA and the objectives of the submitted extract of Ealing’s Design Guidance, dated November 2022. From my own observations, I see no reason to disagree.

However, the Council has said that a legal agreement would be required to ensure future occupiers are prevented from obtaining parking permits to park a vehicle on the street and make the development car-free. No legal agreement has been provided to prevent future occupiers obtaining parking permits. In light of this, I need to assess whether such an obligation is required.

Accordingly, the main issue is whether a planning obligation to make the proposed development car-free would be reasonable and necessary to make the development acceptable.

This appeal relates to an existing flat within the host property, which is said to contain 7 no. flats in total. It is within an area that has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) rating of 3, indicative of it having a reasonably good access to public transport. I also saw that the appeal site is within a [name] (CPZ), and that parking was restricted to those with permits at certain times. I am not aware that occupiers of the existing flat, the subject of this appeal, are prevented from obtaining parking permits to park a vehicle within the CPZ. 1 Ref. 244622FUL

LP Policy T6 says that car-free development is the starting point for all new development in well-connected areas. However, in this case the proposal relates to extensions to an existing flat and it would not result in a net increase in the number of flats within the appeal property. Notwithstanding that there would be an increase in the number of bedrooms within the flat itself, I am not convinced it would be reasonable or necessary in light of the tests set out within Regulation 122(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations ([name].) and paragraph 58 of the Framework, to insist that occupiers of the extended flat be prevented from obtaining a parking permit in order to make the development acceptable.

Moreover, although only a snapshot in time, I saw on my site inspection that there were available on-street parking spaces in the immediate area, and I have no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that there is unacceptable parking stress in the immediate area.

I therefore conclude that it is not reasonable and necessary for an obligation to be provided requiring that the proposed development be car free development, in order to make the development acceptable and to comply with LP Policy T6.

The Council referred to DPD Policy 6.13 in regard to parking requirements. However, the extract of that policy, provided by the Council, mainly relates to disabled parking requirements and was not directly determinative on this main issue.

A standard implementation condition (1) has been imposed, along with a condition (2) listing the approved plans to provide certainty over what has been approved. Condition 3 is imposed to ensure the appearance of the proposed development harmonises with that of the host property and the area.

The Council suggested conditions in respect of new cycle parking and a refuse storage area. As set out above, the proposed development relates to the extension to an existing flat and there would be no increase in the number of such flats at the appeal property, I am therefore not persuaded that the submitted policy justification would make it reasonable and necessary to impose these suggested conditions in this case.

The proposed development accords with the development plan when taken as a whole and there are no other material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, which outweigh this finding. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.