# Eden Grove, 17-51 London Road, Staines-upon-Thames (s73 parking reduction)

- **Decision:** allowed, 25 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Heppell
- **Authority:** Spelthorne (South East)
- **Appeal reference:** 6007619
- **Application reference:** 25/01245/RVC
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** s73 variation of parking conditions 3 and 20 on a 467-home scheme, cutting residential parking (ratio 0.7 to 0.51 across the wider site) and reallocating 35 basement spaces to commercial use (Appeal A; linked Appeal B 6007620 for the 173-home phase)
- **Homes:** 467
- **Site context:** inside-settlement, near-station
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** TR2(2), TR6(4)
- **Development plan policies:** Spelthorne Local Plan 2024-2039/40 (March 2026) ID2, Surrey County Council Vehicular, Electric Vehicle and Cycle Parking Guidance for New Developments (moderate weight)
- **Main issues:** highway safety and parking
- **Tags:** tier-2, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, s73-variation, parking, connectivity-tool, large-scheme, new-local-plan

## Summary
Berkeley Homes sought to cut residential parking at Eden Grove, a nearly complete scheme on the edge of Staines town centre, because take-up had been low, and to give some spaces to empty commercial units. The inspector applied the county's maximum-standards guidance, which accords with TR2(2), and found the site highly accessible (Connectivity Tool 79-82). With the highway authority content, there was no unacceptable highway safety impact under TR6(4). Allowed.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** "The main parties were afforded the opportunity to comment on the implications of the new Framework" (DL ¶7).
- **Standards.** The county guidance "accords with Policy TR2(2) of the Framework, which encourages the setting of maximum car parking standards where they will support efforts to encourage the use of sustainable transport modes and shared transport" (DL ¶19).
- **Accessibility.** The Connectivity Tool score "derives from its very high public transport connectivity and high walking and cycling connectivity, giving it a score well above the median score of 50 and thus denoting good accessibility" (DL ¶21).
- **Highway safety.** "congestion and nuisance, whilst potentially disruptive to adjacent residents, do not in themselves mean that highway safety has been comprised" (DL ¶34).
- **TR6(4): PASS.** "The evidence before me does not indicate that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety, and therefore a refusal is not justified" (DL ¶39).

## Planning balance
No wider balance: the conditions could be varied without harm to highway safety (DL ¶44).

## What made the difference
Hard evidence of low take-up among private buyers, a strong Connectivity Tool score, a car club and travel plan, and a highway authority that raised no safety objection.

## Transferable points
- TR2(2) supports maximum parking standards; parking below the maximum is justified where sustainable travel is working (DL ¶19, ¶38).
- A Connectivity Tool score is given meaning by comparing it with the median of 50 (DL ¶21).
- Congestion and nuisance parking are not, in themselves, TR6(4) highway safety harm (DL ¶34).

## Policy findings
- **TR2(2): accord.** county maximum-standards guidance accords with TR2(2); development has incorporated sustainable and active travel, justifying reduced parking below the maximum (DL 19, 38)
- **TR6(4): pass.** no unacceptable impact on highway safety; highway authority agreed; congestion and nuisance parking are not in themselves a safety impact (DL 34-35, 39)

## Key facts
- Parties afforded the opportunity to comment on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 7)
- 489 homes across both permissions; residential spaces cut from 341 to 247, commercial spaces up to 40, car club spaces kept at 5 (DL 14-15)
- Take-up 0.47 spaces per privately sold flat, 0.13 for the rental operator, 0.63 for affordable units (DL 26)
- DfT Connectivity Tool score 79-82 against a median of 50; edge of Staines centre, walking distance to rail station with services to London Waterloo and to buses (DL 20-21)
- 2021 Census - 38.4% of flats in central Staines had no car (DL 28)
- Joint letter with Appeal B 6007620 (15-51 London Road), also allowed (DL 2)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007619
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/2d16357e-0547-4430-8a3a-1064e3573db9

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007619.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.