Appeal 6002488

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the change of use from private to public car parking at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/1228, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

I have amended the description in the heading above to reflect that the appellant seeks the change of use for a temporary period of up to 3 years.

The appellant has submitted an amended proposed spacing and signage layout plan as part of the appeal. This plan is numbered 001 as per the previous drawing. The difference between the plans is that the amended plan references the site area, bay dimensions, and number of spaces.

I have considered the plans in response to the Holborn Studios Ltd v The Council of the London Borough of Hackney [2017] EWHC 2823 judgement. As the amended plans do not involve a substantial difference to the appeal, I have considered whether accepting the information would cause procedural unfairness to interested parties. Two site notices were posted on site, and no comments were received by the Council. No comments have been received following notification of the appeal. The Council has acknowledged the amended plan within their evidence and further comments from the Highway Authority are provided within appendix C of the Council’s evidence.

As the plans do not amend the proposed parking layout from that seen within the application, the acceptance of the amended plan would not unfairly deprive those entitled to be consulted on the application, the opportunity to make a representation. My decision is therefore based on the revised drawing 001.

The main issues are: • whether the proposal would preserve a [name] listed building and its setting; and • the effect of the proposed development on highway safety, with regard to the size of car parking and manoeuvring spaces and overspill parking.

The appeal site relates to an area of land to the rear of [address] (No 81), a [name] listed building where I have a duty under Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the LBCA Act) to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or their settings or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess.

No 81 is a townhouse that was built in the early 19th Century and was significantly enlarged to the rear in the late 20th Century. Its significance relates to its contribution to the character of an architecturally varied historic streetscape within part of the urban development of Reading’s ancient core and its proximity to many listed buildings which form part of a strong historic grouping.

The proposed change of use relates to an existing private car park of 13 spaces located to the rear of No [address]. The access is shared with a further car park that is located to the rear of [address]. [name] 81 is currently vacant, the car park remains associated with the building and 2 spaces are required as part of the planning permission PL/23/1535 for the change of use of the third floor from offices to two flats.

The Council’s concerns stem from the severance of the car park from the listed building and its possible effects on the future viability and sustainability of the listed building. It speculates that the future use of the building is likely to be residential accommodation which would require on-site private parking or if the building were reoccupied as offices, the lack of private parking would limit prospective tenants and directly prejudice the potential for a productive use. However, no evidence is provided to corroborate its concerns and speculations regarding the future of the listed building, marketing evidence regarding potential future uses or whether a car park is required for any future use of the building to be viable.

The appellant has also provided no evidence regarding the effect of the loss of the private car park on the future of the listed building. However, the appellant advises that the parking area would remain in the ownership and control of the landlord for No 81. I acknowledge that a planning permission runs with the land and ownership can change, however this could occur with or without the appeal proposal. A temporary 3-year consent is sought and following this, the use of the land would return to its current use without further consent. I find that a temporary consent would enable the use to proceed without permanently severing the parcel of land, which would mitigate any adverse effects of the proposal.

A copy of the agreement with the car park operator is not before me. However, the appellant acknowledges that the agreement can be terminated at any point during the 3-year temporary use period and nothing is before me that would lead me to dispute this assertion. The appellant’s evidence also acknowledges that only 10 of the 12 spaces would be available for public use as 2 spaces would be retained by the landlord.

Consequently, no evidence is before me to confirm that the public use of the existing private car park for a period of 3 years would harm the preservation of the listed building and its setting. Aside from car park signage, no further works are proposed to the appeal site, and the land is currently used for car parking.

For the reasons given above, and in the exercise of the statutory duty, I find that the proposal would preserve the listed building and its setting, the significance of which would not be harmed. Accordingly, the proposed development would comply with Policies EN1 and EN6 of the Reading Borough Local Plan (RLP). These policies, amongst other things, seek to protect and where possible enhance the significance of heritage assets and their settings and ensure that development makes a positive contribution and is sensitive to the existing historic townscape. Policy EN3 is also referenced within the reason for refusal however, this policy relates to the enhancement of conservation areas. Whilst the appeal site is located within the [address]/[address] Conservation Area, it did not form a reason for refusal and therefore weighs neither for nor against the proposal. Highway safety

The amended plan submitted with the appeal indicates that the car parking spaces would measure 5m in length with a reversing/manoeuvring space of 5.2m. The Council suggests that the existing spaces measure 4.8m in length with a manoeuvring space of 5.2m. Both the existing and the proposed car park layout would fall below the combined requirement of 11m identified within the [name] and Design Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).

On my site visit, I observed several cars, of varying sizes, parked on the appeal site. These did not appear to overhang the existing laid out parking spaces. The manoeuvring space did however appear slightly compressed. Nonetheless, cars were parked opposite each other within both the appeal site and the car park relating to the neighbouring property. As the car park was being used and despite the constrained reversing area, vehicles appear to be able to manoeuvre safely even where they were unable to enter and exit the parking spaces in a single manoeuvre.

The change from a private to public car park would likely intensify the use of the appeal site and the shared access due to a wider number of comings and goings. It may also lead to vehicles that have parked close to the access and/or for delivery purposes reversing onto [address]. However, the number of spaces proposed is limited. Given the limited speed of approaching vehicles and that on-street parking is restricted, other road users would have ample opportunity to react to a vehicle reversing on or off the appeal site. Furthermore, the street includes various points of access and other street features. As such, it is likely that pedestrians and drivers would be alert to potential conflict around the appeal site if applying due care and attention.

No substantive evidence has been provided in relation to traffic flows and speeds, nor have any records of accidents been provided to show where reversing onto the highway was found to have been a contributing factor. As a result, it has not been demonstrated that the intensification of the car park access or its non-compliant layout would increase the risk of collision with pedestrians, cyclists, and other motorists.

Consequently, in view of the above, it is unlikely that the proposed use of the car park from private to public would cause an unacceptable further impact on highway safety. Therefore, I am satisfied that the proposal would not cause harmful conflict to pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles.

With regards to the effect of the proposal on the surrounding road network, the existing car park has 13 spaces whilst the proposed development would reduce this to 12, of which 10 would be available to the public. These spaces would remain available on the appeal site but would now require payment to secure. I also acknowledge that the appellant has advised that the temporary use would only be in operation while the building is vacant at which point, and in any event after three years, the use would revert to a private car park in association with No 81. As such, for the temporary 3-year period, users could potentially overspill onto adjacent roads which could impact on highway safety.

However, on-street parking on the adjacent surrounding roads is restricted due to double-yellow lines and this section of [address] is one-way and a single carriageway. Any overspill parking from the site would need to find a different and appropriate alternative parking solution. Consequently, the limited overspill requirements would be unlikely to lead to a harmful effect on the surrounding road network.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal would not materially affect highway safety with regard to the size of car parking and manoeuvring spaces and overspill parking. Accordingly, I find no conflict with Policies TR1, TR3 and TR5 of the RLP. These policies require, amongst other things, development that would not have a material detrimental impact on the network nor be detrimental to the safety of the network users and car and cycle parking that is appropriate to the accessibility of locations to sustainable transport facilities.

The appeal site is within the [address]/[address] Conservation Area (CA) wherein I have a statutory duty under Section 72(1) of the LBCA Act to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area. The CA is linear in form and characterised by its mix of medieval churches, timber framed 16th and 17th Century buildings, Georgian townhouses, 19th Century municipal and commercial buildings, green open spaces, and the [name]. As such, its significance derives from its historic and architectural interest within a historic town setting. No 81, by virtue of its historic interest and prominence contributes positively to the significance of the CA.

The appeal site is located to the rear of the building at No 81 and is already in use as a car park. Significant alterations and extensions have also been undertaken to the rear of the building. The appeal proposal would see limited alterations to the site in the form of signage and lighting, which would require further permissions. Consequently, the proposal would not alter the building or its setting to a degree where it would no longer contribute positively to the significance of the CA. For the reasons given above, and in the exercise of the statutory duty, I find that the proposed development would preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the CA.

The Framework states that 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 aspects. I have considered the conditions put forward by the Council against the Framework and where necessary I have amended the wording in the interests of clarity and enforceability.

To ensure certainty and clarity, I have imposed conditions relating to the temporary use of the site for a maximum of 3 years [1] because a permanent consent would be inappropriate based on the severance of the car park from its associated building, which is [name] listed and approved plans [2]. I have also imposed a condition that requires details of a parking space for drivers with accessibility requirements to ensure that the car park is accessible to all users in accordance with the Council’s parking standards [3].

Details of lighting [4], electric vehicle charging [5], security measures and payment methods [6] are also required to ensure that the car park would be safe and secure for its users and meets the Council’s SPD.

The Council suggested several conditions that I have not imposed as they are not necessary and do not meet the required tests. The condition relating to the maximum number of parking spaces has not been imposed as the use is required to be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans and a further condition is not necessary. With regards to the hours of use, I have not imposed this condition as whilst [address] has several residential properties, these also have parking areas alongside those for the other adjacent uses which appear to be unregulated. It is not therefore necessary to restrict the hours of use to ensure that nearby residents are not the subject of late-night noise and disturbance as this could occur from the adjacent car parking areas in any event.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed, subject to conditions.

The use hereby permitted shall be for a limited period of 3 years from the date of this decision. The use hereby permitted shall be discontinued with all structures, plant, materials, and all other equipment related to the use hereby permitted removed from the land and the land restored to its former condition on or before 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawings: Location Plan (amended) as received 11 December 2025 and [name]:001 – [name] and [name] dated 17/09/2025.

Notwithstanding condition 2, details of the provision of 1 parking space for drivers with accessibility requirements within the car park shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the use commencing. The parking space shall be provided in accordance with the approved details prior to the use commencing and thereafter maintained for the life of the development.

Details of any lighting for the car park hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the use commencing. The lighting shall be provided in accordance with the approved details prior to the use commencing and thereafter maintained for the life of the development.

Details of an electric vehicle charging point including its location on site and its specification shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the use commencing. The electric vehicle charging point shall be provided on site in accordance with the approved details prior to the use commencing and thereafter maintained for the life of the development.

Details of security measures including CCTV and payment methods including a pay station if required, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the use commencing. The security measures and any necessary pay station shall be provided on site in accordance with the approved details prior to the use commencing and thereafter maintained for the life of the development. End of conditions