These historical decisions show why a parking or traffic concern needs a particular proposal, policy and evidential context. A parking finding can be acceptable even when the overall appeal is dismissed. An allowed appeal may depend on evidence and conditions that do not exist in another case.

All eight decisions predate the national framework published on 17 August 2026. Their local standards and old national paragraph numbers are historical references, not today's universal requirements. Read our practical parking and highway guide for current starting points.

1. Slough: parking acceptable, appeal still dismissed

A proposed house extension increased the parking shortfall against the local standard. Considering the existing arrangement, observed capacity, lack of evidence of unreasonable parking stress and flexibility in the policy, the Inspector found no harmful safety or free-flow effect. The appeal was nevertheless dismissed for design and neighbour living-condition harm.

Appeal APP/J0350/D/24/3352064; application P/20542/000; decision 13 February 2025. Original decision, paragraphs 15–19. No conditions imposed. Historical context: Slough Core Strategy and saved Local Plan parking policy.

Lesson: compare existing demand with the proposed change; do not read the overall dismissal as proof of parking harm. The site visit was a snapshot, not a parking survey for every other location.

2. Worcester: evidence supported a parking shortfall

A seven-bedroom HMO was allowed with conditions despite below-guideline car parking. The Inspector considered parking evidence, local restrictions and capacity, the existing shortfall and sustainable travel options. Resident and highway-authority views were considered.

Appeal APP/D1835/W/24/3352502; application 24/00401/FUL; decision 14 March 2025. Original decision, paragraphs 4–11, 20–21 and conditions 2–6. Conditions included secure sheltered cycle parking, a bedroom cap and continued operation of management and car-park plans. Historical context: South Worcestershire Development Plan and the Streetscapes Design Guide cited in the decision.

Counterpoint: this was an evidence-supported proposal with conditions, not a finding that parking pressure never matters or that every shortfall is acceptable.

3. Hounslow: access details within an existing permission

The Inspector approved visibility details for an already-permitted access. Modest boundary treatments and low observed speeds and movements supported the finding. The earlier permission had established the principle; its visibility condition did not specify dimensions.

Appeal APP/F5540/W/24/3354189; application P/2024/2492; decision 19 March 2025. Original decision, paragraphs 1–8. The appeal concerned non-determination of details under condition 3 of permission P/2023/1049, not a fresh full access permission. The decision recorded no information setting out the council's position.

Lesson: check the application and condition being decided. Do not turn a historical assessment under local crossover guidance into a national visibility rule.

4. Gravesham: spaces fitted, access still unsafe

The Inspector found the forecourt depth acceptable in context but dismissed the appeal because reversing and manoeuvring on a busy classified road and obstructed pedestrian and driver sightlines created highway-safety harm. Relevant obstacles were outside the appellant's control.

Appeal APP/K2230/D/25/3363775; application 20240880; decision 31 July 2025. Original decision, paragraphs 4–14 and 16–17. No conditions imposed. Historical context: Gravesham policies, Kent's 2025 dropped-kerb guidance, Manual for Streets and the 2024 national framework.

Counterpoint: no reported collision did not establish absence of risk. This case does not supply a national forecourt depth or visibility distance.

5. Mole Valley: a car turning drawing did not answer every risk

The appeal for a dropped kerb and parking scheme was dismissed. A car swept-path analysis did not settle the Inspector's concerns about larger vehicles, additional parking, reversing, visibility and the nearby junction. Reducing on-street parking did not outweigh the highway harm.

Appeal APP/C3620/W/25/3373227; application MO/2025/0656; decision 5 December 2025. Original decision, paragraphs 4–15. No conditions imposed. A separate biodiversity issue was considered capable of being addressed by a condition, but this did not resolve access safety.

Lesson: read the vehicles and scenarios covered by an analysis. Nearby crossovers can have different relationships. The decision's local-plan date citation differs from the current adoption register; it is not presented here as current policy.

6. Rushcliffe: no highway objection did not settle the evidence

The appeal for a flexible residential-annexe and short-let use was dismissed. The Inspector found insufficient demonstrated usable parking and safe sightlines at a shared access, despite the highway authority having made no objection. Living-condition issues also mattered.

Appeal APP/P3040/W/25/3367946; application 24/01877/FUL; decision 7 April 2026. Original decision, paragraphs 2–14 and 24–25. No conditions imposed. Historical context: Rushcliffe's 2014 and 2019 Local Plan documents and county highway guidance.

Counterpoint: a new visibility drawing was excluded for procedural fairness, not rejected after technical assessment. A shared-access safety finding does not determine private access rights.

7. Hammersmith & Fulham: servicing accepted, other transport issues remained

An office-to-flats prior-approval appeal was dismissed. Reduced delivery, servicing and refuse trips, considered against the existing office use, supported acceptable operational arrangements. But an uncompleted parking-permit restriction and insufficient construction-management information left unacceptable transport impacts.

Appeal APP/H5390/W/25/3367810; application 2024/02381/PMA56; decision 26 September 2025. Original decision, paragraphs 2 and 4–17. No conditions imposed. Historical context: Class MA prior approval, Hammersmith & Fulham Local Plan 2018 and London Plan 2021.

Counterpoint: this was the particular Class MA procedure, with a different scope from full permission. Excellent public-transport accessibility did not complete the legal parking mechanism.

8. Camden: car-free restrictions and usable cycle storage mattered

A non-determination appeal was dismissed and permission refused. Without a completed car-free obligation, parking stress and free-flow concerns remained. Cycle storage security and circulation were unclear. Design, daylight and construction issues also contributed to refusal.

Appeal APP/X5210/W/24/3356020; application 2024/3892/P; decision 3 April 2025. Original decision, paragraphs 15–26. No conditions imposed. Historical context: Camden Local Plan 2017, London Plan 2021 and the December 2024 framework amended in February 2025.

Lesson: car-free does not mean that parking effects can be ignored. The case does not establish that every new home must provide ordinary car spaces.

Compare the issue, evidence and procedure

Identify the actual change, applicable local policy, submitted evidence and mechanism relied on. Distinguish full permission, approval of condition details and prior approval. None of these decisions is a precedent or shows that an objection caused the result.

Use the transport evidence checklist, find your council, and check the comment-deadline guidance. Keep outlook and overbearing effects separate using the amenity evidence collection.

Sources and corrections

Original decision reasoning checked for this collection on 26 October 2026. The Camden original reuses earlier verified research, with its transport passages checked for this collection; the other seven originals were newly read. For a current application use the current framework and its implementation provisions, not historical paragraph numbers.

Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Summaries reproduce no applicant plans, photographs or third-party reports. Linked originals can contain identifying information. Contact us with a correction, appeal reference and sentence. Browse the Planning Information Hub for related resources.