# Eden Grove, 15-51 London Road, Staines-upon-Thames (parking conditions, Appeal B)

- **Decision:** allowed, 25 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Heppell
- **Authority:** Spelthorne (South East)
- **Appeal reference:** 6007620
- **Application reference:** 25/01244/RVC
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Section 73 variation of parking conditions 3 and 21 on a 173-home extension to the Eden Grove scheme, reducing residential parking and reallocating spaces to commercial use
- **Homes:** 173
- **Site context:** inside-settlement, near-station
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** TR6(4), TR2(2)
- **Development plan policies:** Spelthorne Local Plan 2024-2039/40 (March 2026) ID2
- **Main issues:** highway safety and parking
- **Tags:** s73-variation, parking, connectivity-tool, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, large-scheme, tier-2

## Summary
Berkeley Homes sought to cut residential parking at the Eden Grove development in Staines, near the town centre and station, and give some spaces to vacant commercial units. Take-up of spaces had been low. The inspector found the site highly accessible (Connectivity Tool 79–82), the reduction within Surrey's maximum standards and consistent with TR2(2), and no unacceptable highway safety impact under TR6(4). Both linked appeals were allowed.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** "The main parties were afforded the opportunity to comment on the implications of the new Framework for the proposals" (DL ¶7).
- **Accessibility.** The Connectivity Tool score of 79–82 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).
- **Parking standards, TR2(2).** The PGND "accords with Policy TR2(2) of the Framework, which encourages the setting of maximum car parking standards" (DL ¶19). "A reduction in residential parking provision to the level sought by the appellant, below the maximum provision required by the PGND, is therefore justified" (DL ¶38).
- **Highway safety, TR6(4): PASS.** "congestion and nuisance, whilst potentially disruptive to adjacent residents, do not in themselves mean that highway safety has been comprised" (DL ¶34). "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 formal balance. The only issue was highway safety; with TR6(4) passed and ID2 complied with, the conditions were varied (DL ¶40, ¶44).

## What made the difference
Evidence of actual demand (sales take-up) at a highly accessible edge-of-centre site, a highway authority that agreed, and nearby parking controls that deter overspill. A site with poor public transport or no on-street controls would need more.

## Transferable points
- Measured parking take-up at a near-complete scheme is good evidence for reducing provision (DL ¶26–27).
- A Connectivity Tool score well above the median of 50 supports reduced parking (DL ¶21).
- Congestion and nuisance parking are not, in themselves, unacceptable highway safety impacts under TR6(4) (DL ¶34, ¶39).

## Policy findings
- **TR2(2): accord.** Surrey maximum-standards guidance (PGND, moderate weight) accords with TR2(2); reduction below the maximum justified by low take-up (DL 19, 38)
- **TR6(4): pass.** no unacceptable highway safety impact; highway authority agreed; congestion and nuisance parking are not in themselves safety harm (DL 34-35, 39)
- **TR3: pass.** mapped - walking distance of Staines centre, rail station (regular Waterloo service) and buses; Connectivity Tool 79-82 vs median 50; car club and travel plan (DL 20-21, 28-29)
- **E2: benefit.** mapped - reallocating 35 spaces to vacant commercial units could create jobs; no weight word (DL 36)

## Key facts
- Joint letter with Appeal A 6007619 (467 homes); 489 homes across both sites now nearly complete (DL 3, 14)
- Residential parking falls from 341 to 247 spaces (0.7 to 0.51 per unit); commercial spaces rise to 40; 27 multi-storey spaces kept for affordable units (DL 15, 27)
- Take-up of spaces 0.47 per privately sold flat, 0.13 build-to-rent, 0.63 affordable; over 90% of flats sold (DL 26)
- 2021 Census - 38.4% of central Staines flats have no car (DL 28)
- Parking SPD envisaged by ID2 not yet adopted; old 2001/2011 SPG no longer in force (DL 18, 22)
- s73 route accepted (Finney) as the description does not fix parking numbers (DL 5)
- Adjoining streets have parking restrictions reviewed in 2024; earlier parking-management contributions remain unspent (DL 32, 35)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007620

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007620.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.