The Hampton Hill appeal has failed after a planning inspector rejected an attempt to remove six parking spaces from a completed office-to-flats conversion in south-west London. The decision, issued on 20 October 2026, demonstrates why a survey suggesting that local streets have spare overnight capacity may still fall well short of the evidence needed to vary an existing planning condition.
The proposal concerned Garrick House, 163 High Street, Hampton Hill, where the former office accommodation had already been converted into 21 flats. The owner was not seeking permission for the conversion itself. The appeal arose from a separate application under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to change a parking condition attached to the earlier permission.
Inspector K Townend dismissed appeal 6010388 against the decision of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames. The practical effect is that the existing condition requiring 21 on-site parking spaces remains in place. I would treat it as a useful lesson for anyone advising on office conversions, parking standards or attempts to revise conditions long after homes have been occupied.
What the Hampton Hill appeal was trying to change
Planning permission for the change of use from Class B1(a) offices to Class C3 residential had been granted on 4 July 2016, under reference 16/1935/GPD15. The scheme provided for 21 flats, 21 parking spaces and associated cycle and refuse storage. It originated from the former Class O permitted development route, rather than a conventional application for a newly constructed residential building. Current office-to-residential changes can fall under Class MA, but that is a different right and does not remove obligations imposed under earlier permissions.
Condition U07607 required the on-site parking shown on approved plans to be ready before first occupation, with each flat allocated one space, and required the spaces to remain available for that purpose unless the council agreed otherwise in writing. Its stated purpose was to protect highway and pedestrian safety and avoid extra on-street parking.
By the time the inspector visited, the conversion had been carried out and the spaces were visibly being used. The latest application sought to reduce the number of spaces within the site by six. The inspector therefore assessed whether the original condition was still reasonable and necessary, rather than reopening the principle of residential use.
That distinction matters. A completed scheme can have established parking demand that an applicant must address with evidence. It is not enough to compare today’s general parking policy with what might have been permitted had the conversion been proposed from scratch.
Why the Hampton Hill appeal parking survey fell short
The appellant relied on a parking stress survey concluding that the use of local roads was below 85 per cent. At first glance that suggested capacity to absorb the cars that might be displaced by removing six dedicated spaces. However, the inspector examined when nearby spaces could actually be used and whether the survey covered demand from surrounding commercial premises.
High Street includes loading-only restrictions between 07:00 and 18:30. The survey treated vehicles as though they could remain in those spaces until 08:00. The difference of an hour was material: an overnight space is not necessarily an available space when residents need to leave for work or when daytime activity begins.
There was also a gap in the survey’s coverage. Its own advice recognised that in mixed commercial locations, particularly streets with restaurants, surveys should consider mornings and early evenings. Yet the submitted evidence contained no equivalent assessment beyond the overnight period. The inspector could not confidently conclude that the street network had spare capacity at the times that mattered.
The appellant referred to other local schemes, supplementary planning documents and the potential use of a public car park at Taylor Road. But the inspector was not given enough comparable information to make those references persuasive. In particular, the possibility that residents could secure public parking permits remained uncertain, and other appeal sites did not share the same facts.
The Hampton Hill appeal decision is not a declaration that every parking-stress survey must use a particular timetable. It is a reminder that the timing, geographic coverage and assumptions in a survey need to reflect the land uses and legal parking controls around the actual site.
New standards do not automatically remove old obligations
The inspector considered London Plan Policy T6.1, the currently applicable parking policy, but declined to apply it retrospectively as an automatic justification for losing established spaces. Residents of six studio flats had access to allocated parking, and some spaces were occupied when the site was inspected. The current use of those spaces was relevant evidence, not an abstract concern.
The appellant also relied on emerging policies in a draft London Plan at Regulation 19 stage. The inspector gave those proposals very limited weight because the plan had not been examined and its eventual adopted form could not be known. The operative development plan therefore remained central to the decision.
On the evidence presented, the inspector found no sufficiently convincing demonstration that losing the spaces would avoid an adverse effect on parking provision and highway safety. Retaining the condition was consistent with Policies 47 and 48 of the Richmond upon Thames Local Plan 2024 to 2039, which address traffic impacts, network safety and reducing harm caused by car journeys.
For applicants, the lesson is particularly important where a building was converted through permitted development years ago. Conditions imposed at that stage do not simply evaporate because a later planning framework takes a more restrained approach to parking in new schemes.
Section 73, prior approval and the legal issue left open
The Hampton Hill appeal also touched on the legal limits of section 73 applications. The inspector accepted that conditions arising from a Class O prior approval can in principle be the subject of a section 73 application. That is different from saying that any proposed change will be permissible or justified on its facts.
The council and appellant disagreed about whether the application would improperly change the original description of development. The inspector considered the Court of Appeal’s ruling in Finney v Welsh Ministers [2019] EWCA Civ 1868, which limits the use of section 73 where changing a condition would require a change to the operative description of the permitted development.
The parties also discussed RSBS Developments Ltd v Secretary of State [2020] EWHC 3077 (Admin). The inspector explained why that decision, concerned with retrospective permitted development rights, did not determine the description-of-development point in this particular appeal.
Importantly, no final ruling was made on that legal dispute. The inspector had already decided that the parking condition was reasonable and necessary, meaning the appeal would fail irrespective of the section 73 argument. It would therefore be wrong to report this decision as a fresh binding judgment on the scope of section 73 or on the meaning of Class O permissions.
Equally, this is an inspector’s decision on a section 78 appeal, not a court judgment. The judgment links above provide the separate case-law context; the outcome at Hampton Hill turns on the inspector’s appraisal of the evidence before them.
What advisers should take from the Hampton Hill appeal
When seeking to remove allocated parking from an occupied conversion, start with the exact wording of the original condition, the development’s approved plans and the arrangements actually in use. A revised parking policy may be relevant, but it does not replace a site-specific assessment of what would happen if spaces were withdrawn.
Surveys should cover the hours when spaces can legally be occupied and any competing demand from shops, restaurants and other nearby uses. If the area contains loading bays or mixed restrictions, record their start and finish times accurately. Alternative car parks and permit arrangements should be backed by clear evidence of eligibility and capacity.
Finally, where the original consent followed an old permitted development class, check section 73 against the wording of the operative permission and the established legal authorities before assuming a variation route will work. The Hampton Hill appeal reinforces the value of resolving both the legal route and the practical parking evidence before spending money on an appeal.
Source: Planning Inspectorate appeal 6010388, decision dated 20 October 2026. The decision is also available via AppealBase. The decision concerns England and does not alter the separate planning regimes in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland.
0 Comments