A Manchester parking appeal has left a basement car park with only three spaces certified as lawful for non-resident use, despite applications concerning as many as 39 spaces. Planning Inspector R Merrett dismissed one appeal and partly allowed another on 6 November 2026.
The dispute concerned the Northern Angel apartment building in Dyche Street, Manchester, which contains 108 flats and two basement parking floors. Brickpaper Limited, now in liquidation, sought to establish that renting spaces to people who did not live in the building was lawful. Manchester City Council had refused two certificates of lawful use or development.
The decisions matter to anyone letting residential parking to outside customers. The Inspector distinguished the wording of the original planning condition from whether a material change of use had occurred, then examined rental records space by space. Two applications for appeal costs, brought by the Council and the building’s management company, were also refused.
Why the Manchester parking appeal produced two outcomes
The Manchester parking appeal arose from a 2004 permission for a residential development of 108 units. Most parking spaces were sold to residents, but some remained in the appellant’s ownership and were rented to residents or outsiders. One certificate application addressed use of the whole car park by both groups. The other asked whether non-resident use of up to 39 individual spaces had become immune from enforcement.
Appeal A, APP/B4215/X/26/3378566, was dismissed. Appeal B, APP/B4215/X/26/3378567, was partly allowed, with lawfulness established only for spaces numbered 10, 40 and 93. The Inspector’s decisions followed a hearing and site visit on 8 September 2026. They concerned the evidence and circumstances of the building, not a general prohibition on letting residential parking spaces to outsiders.
The 2004 parking condition did not expressly restrict users
Condition 8 required the parking shown on approved plans to be surfaced, marked out and available before occupation, and to remain available while the building was occupied. Its stated reason was to ensure adequate parking for the development. The appellant argued that nothing in the wording reserved the spaces exclusively for residents; the Council and management company pointed to the residential purpose of the permission.
Inspector Merrett accepted that the condition’s words did not themselves impose a residents-only restriction. Taking its reason and the permission as a whole into account did not change that conclusion. The Inspector considered that it could ensure the spaces remained available without prescribing the identity of every user. This was a central point in the Manchester parking appeal, but it was not the end of the lawfulness test.
The decision examined the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Trump International Golf Club Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers [2015] UKSC 74 and London Borough of Lambeth v SSHCLG [2019] UKSC 33. Those judgments address how planning permissions and conditions are interpreted. The Inspector also distinguished Suburban Property Investment Ltd v SSCLG [2011] EWCA Civ 112, where the condition expressly controlled incidental use.
A separate material change of use still required permission
There was another question: even without a breach of condition, was renting to non-residents a material change of use? The Inspector found an important operational difference. Residents could reach the basement through internal building access using security keys or fobs. Non-residents could not use that route and had to enter and leave on foot by the vehicle ramps and gates.
Those arrangements brought pedestrians into contact with vehicle movements, slopes and blind corners. The Inspector concluded that the characteristics of this arrangement are materially different
, even with just one space let to an outsider. Complaints about security, noise and parking pressure were discussed, but were not established as comparable changes in the character of use on the evidence.
The Inspector assessed the planning-unit issue using Burdle and Williams v Secretary of State for the Environment [1972] 1 WLR 1207. Each demarcated space used by an outsider was treated as a physically and functionally distinct planning unit. The resulting uses were separate material changes from residential-associated parking to non-residential parking, rather than one change across the entire basement.
This distinction is valuable beyond the Manchester parking appeal. Planning Geek’s change of use guide explains why a change in how premises operate may require permission even without construction work. The character of the activity, access arrangements and the relevant planning unit all matter.
Why just three parking spaces became lawful
The second application was advanced in the alternative. It assumed there was a breach of condition and sought a certificate on the basis that the relevant use had continued for a sufficient period to be immune from enforcement. The Inspector applied the ten-year period relevant to the application, while assessing continuity of use on the balance of probability.
The evidence included statutory declarations and monthly rental records from October 2012 to July 2025. The question was not simply whether someone, somewhere in the car park, had rented a space to a non-resident for ten years. The records needed to establish sufficiently continuous non-residential use of identifiable spaces. The Inspector relied on the principles discussed in R (St Anselm Development Co Ltd) v First Secretary of State [2003] EWHC 1592 (Admin) and Royale Parks Ltd v SSHCLG [2021] EWCA Civ 1101.
Inspector Merrett found that a space rented to a resident for a month, or left vacant for a month, would ordinarily interrupt the particular breach being asserted. A short gap of only a few days between lets could be too minor to matter. The Inspector expressly rejected an argument that vacancy for as long as six months would preserve continuity.
In the Manchester parking appeal, only spaces 10, 40 and 93 had sufficiently persuasive evidence of uninterrupted non-resident use over the required period. The figures had some inaccuracies, but the Inspector treated the supporting sworn records as adequate on the balance of probability for those three spaces. The same three spaces also satisfied the alternative analysis of an established material change of use.
Section 191(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows a certificate to be issued in modified terms to reflect what the evidence actually proves. That is what happened. Rather than all 39 spaces being accepted or the application being rejected entirely, a certificate was granted for the three identified spaces, while the appeal was dismissed for the remaining 36.
Two applications for costs also failed
Manchester City Council sought a full costs award, arguing that the appellant should have produced the space-by-space analysis earlier and had caused avoidable investigative work. Northern Angel Management Company sought a full or partial award, also criticising the appellant’s interpretation of the condition and the timing and reliability of its evidence.
Both applications were refused. The Inspector accepted that some analysis had been wrong and the records were imperfect, but that did not automatically constitute unreasonable behaviour causing unnecessary expense. The later summary table drew on evidence already available, and the other parties were given a chance to comment. There was nothing inherently unreasonable in advancing alternative legal arguments.
This is a reminder that losing an appeal, or failing to prepare the best possible evidence at the earliest stage, does not itself entitle the opposing party to costs. The costs threshold concerns unreasonable conduct and the unnecessary expense it causes, not simply which side persuades the Inspector.
What the Manchester parking appeal means for property owners
The Manchester parking appeal highlights two distinct checks before commercially letting parking spaces associated with flats. First, read the entire planning permission, the conditions and their reasons rather than relying on assumptions about residential use. Secondly, examine whether the practical operation creates a materially different use, including pedestrian access, circulation and planning-unit boundaries.
Where an owner hopes to establish an existing lawful use, records should identify individual spaces, occupancy dates, the user’s connection to the residential building and genuine gaps in occupation. A single overall turnover figure may conceal interruptions that defeat continuity. Precise declarations and source records are more useful than broad assertions that a car park has been commercially operated for years.
The decision also shows why planning conditions and lawfulness should not be conflated. Planning Geek’s guide to the effect of planning conditions provides useful background on how conditions can affect what development or use may proceed without further consent, although the wording and legal question will vary from case to case.
The Inspector decided the linked appeals on 6 November 2026. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase. The outcome is a practical warning that a car park can contain individual spaces with different planning histories, and that proof of longstanding use must be tied to the actual land and activity concerned.
0 Comments