Appeal 6002608

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant has been granted planning permission to convert the existing maisonette into two self-contained flats1 . Condition number 4 imposed to the permission states that ‘You must not start work on the site until we have approved in writing appropriate arrangements to secure measures to mitigate the potential increased demand for on-street residents car parking in the vicinity of the site. You must carry out the development according to the approved arrangements.’

The appellant has challenged this condition by way of appeal to have the condition removed as they consider it to be too onerous.

The main issue is the effect of the removal of the planning condition on parking demand within the local area.

The appellant currently has access to two parking permits associated with their two bed maisonette. The Council have granted planning permission for the conversion 1 Application reference 25/03478/FULL of the maisonette into two separate self-contained flats. Consequently, this increases the number of units by one. As the proposal must be considered against the policies in the up to date local plan, and within an on-street parking-controlled area, the Council saw fit to impose Condition 4.

The Council include in this condition the City of Westminster Plan adopted Policy 27 which encourages car-free living and the use of more sustainable modes of transport, which is necessary to reduce the number of cars, reduce congestion levels and improve air quality and road safety. Moreover, the site is located within an area with a PTAL of 6a and therefore has excellent access to public transport options.

The appellant has received planning permission for the conversion, and this is in accordance with local policy, and despite the fact the current situation permits two parking permits for one single household, the granting of planning permission with its relevant policies must apply. I am aware from the Council’s delegated report that the appellant was fully informed of the change in circumstances at the point of approval.

Given the six tests of paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) as well as the Planning Practice Guidance on the Control of Planning Conditions, I consider condition 4 to be necessary, relevant to planning and to the development permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects.

Whilst the appellant argues that the two flats would be occupied by the same family members, with no increased occupancy levels who already have two parking permits, there is nothing before me to explain how these flats would not be ‘independently occupied’ by persons beyond their family unit, or that this would remain in perpetuity.

Without sufficient details to ensure there would be no undue strain to on-street parking that the Council seeks to address by way of this condition, I am not persuaded that their personal circumstances as a family unit would give rise to justifying removing condition number 4.

This is an extant permission for a residential conversion. It was deemed to be satisfactory to the Council and therefore not within my remit to comment on this matter further.

I have considered all matters that have been raised and conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other material considerations which lead me to determine the appeal otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed.