Prior approval conditions are not automatically unlawful. The real questions are whether the GPDO allows a condition, whether its subject is related to a matter the council may consider, and whether the condition itself satisfies the normal planning tests.
A Class AA appeal at 13 Court Yard, Eltham is a useful example. Greenwich granted prior approval for a rooftop flat but imposed a condition intended to keep the new home car-free. The appellant challenged that condition and lost.
Appeal 6005312 was dismissed on 18th September 2026, so Condition 7 remained in place.
The Class AA rooftop proposal
The proposal was to add one storey to 13 and 13A Court Yard and create one self-contained two-bedroom flat. The application was made under Part 20 Class AA, which permits certain new flats above detached commercial or mixed-use buildings subject to its limitations, conditions and prior approval procedure.
A source note for practitioners: the Planning Inspectorate appeal decision heading refers to Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA. That is inconsistent with Greenwich’s application form, delegated report and decision notice, which all identify the proposal as Schedule 2, Part 20, Class AA. The proposal itself, creating a new flat above a mixed-use building, also matches Part 20. This article therefore follows the underlying application record and flags the discrepancy rather than reproducing the heading uncritically.
For Class AA, one of the matters expressly requiring prior approval is the transport and highways impact of the development.
What Greenwich’s car-free condition required
Condition 7 prevented occupation until arrangements approved by the council had secured the development as car-free at the developer’s expense.
The arrangements had to prevent occupiers from applying for, obtaining or holding an on-street parking permit in Royal Greenwich, apart from a permit associated with a disabled person’s badge. Any permit issued contrary to the arrangement had to be surrendered. The approved scheme or agreement then had to remain in place for the life of the development.
The council relied on London Plan Policy T6 and transport policies IM(b) and IM(c) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan.
The legal basis for prior approval conditions
The GPDO does not treat prior approval as a simple binary choice between an unconditional yes and a refusal. Under the Part 20 procedure, the local planning authority may grant prior approval unconditionally or subject to conditions reasonably related to the subject matter of the prior approval.
That wording is crucial. It gives a statutory route to conditions, but it does not give the council a free-standing power to regulate matters outside the prior approval issues specified for the relevant permitted development right.
In this case transport and highways impact was an express Class AA prior approval matter. A condition directed at the travel and parking consequences of the new flat therefore addressed a subject the council was entitled to consider.
The current consolidated Part 20 of the GPDO should always be checked for the precise right and procedure being used.
Prior approval conditions still have to pass the condition tests
The August 2026 NPPF now groups the national policy tests in Policy DM6. Conditions on planning permissions and other associated consents for development should be necessary, relevant to the development and planning considerations, sufficiently precise to be complied with and enforced, and reasonable in all other respects.
The Planning Practice Guidance on conditions continues to express the familiar six tests: necessity, relevance to planning, relevance to the development, enforceability, precision and reasonableness.
Those formulations are compatible rather than competing. The 2026 NPPF groups relevance together and groups precision with the ability to comply with and enforce the condition.
Why the Inspector upheld the car-free condition
The site lies within a controlled parking zone and had a PTAL rating of 5, indicating very good public transport accessibility. Eltham station is within about 800 metres and bus services are available nearby.
The Inspector accepted that even one additional flat could add to parking pressure and private-car use if its occupiers were able to obtain parking permits. Keeping the flat car-free was therefore related to the transport effects of the proposal and to the development-plan policies relied upon.
The condition was also considered sufficiently clear to enforce, necessary for the planning purpose identified and reasonable in the circumstances.
What about the requirement for a later agreement?
The appellant argued that car-free arrangements would normally be secured through a section 106 agreement rather than a condition.
Planning Practice Guidance warns that a negatively worded condition preventing development until a planning obligation or other agreement has been entered into is unlikely to be appropriate in the majority of cases. That is guidance, not an absolute prohibition.
The guidance says a positively worded condition requiring someone to enter into an obligation or agreement is unlikely to be enforceable. It also recognises limited circumstances in which a negatively worded condition may be justified, provided the condition passes the relevant tests.
There was no completed section 106 agreement before the Inspector as an alternative mechanism. On the facts of this appeal, he found Condition 7 reasonable and necessary and dismissed the appeal.
Three questions to ask about prior approval conditions
- Does the GPDO procedure permit conditions to be imposed
- Is the subject of the condition genuinely within a prior approval matter for the particular class
- Does the wording satisfy the national policy and guidance tests for conditions
A condition can fail at any one of those stages. The Greenwich decision therefore does not mean that any condition can be attached to any prior approval. It shows why the statutory framework and the scope of the particular prior approval matter have to be checked first.
See Planning Geek’s wider guides to prior approval, planning conditions and planning obligations.
Appeal decision: Appeal 6005312, 13 Court Yard, Eltham
0 Comments