Agenda item

5 Public Speaker

Kingston Parish Council

Sophie Mason – Objector

Mark Holdsworth – Objector

Simon Rogan – Applicant

George Frost – Agent 

Replacement of an existing 2.5-storey detached dwelling with a new 3-storey plus basement detached dwelling including a front driveway, front and rear boundary walls, indoor and outdoor swimming pools, and a car lift.

The Planning Area Team Leader presented the report with updates. After the public speakers were heard the Planning Officer TL responded to the following points raised in terms of flood risk assessment this was detailed in the report clearly as flood zone one which meant there was no requirement for a flood risk assessment, additionally there was no consultation completed with the Environment agency as Flood Zone one did not meet their consultation requirements. A pre application submission was received from the applicant and the council did consult with its engineers on this a result of which an informative condition 11 which addressed how the basement may need to be dealt with from that point of view. Regarding comments made in relation to the SUDs scheme, the act does not come into effect until 2024. Resharing the presentation the officer addressed the comments made relating to the 45- and 70-degree rule, he confirmed that whilst these are guidelines in the Arun Design Guide, they were not Planning Policy and after consideration although there was some conflict it was deemed not enough to create significant harm that would warrant refusal. It was also confirmed that this minor conflict was at ground floor level only. In addressing comments made regarding the dwellings projection he confirmed that this was a single storey projection and would be 5.3 meters as detailed.

 Members raised the following points during their debate, concerns over the size of the dwelling, in particular the basement was felt to be too big for the plot. Concerns in relation to surface water due to the impermeable surface increasing to 80%. A suggestion for a site inspection was made in order to assess the potential damage to other properties in the area, it was felt the intensity of the build would create significant damage to neighbouring properties. Further concerns raised regarding the flood risk were raised, clarification was sought regarding the impermeable surface size percentage and advice was requested on what Planning objection reason would stand up against an inspector on appeal. The Planning Area Team Leader advised there was no clear description of the permeable percentage, however, should members agree to arrange a site visit this information could be requested to be provided at this visit. The Chair then asked if the Committee were minded to approve the application where would the liability sit in terms of the large scale dig that would be needed if it impacted either neighbour on each side of the property. It was confirmed that the liability would sit with the applicant.

The Group Head of Planning advised members that the contravention of the degree lines in the design guide could be a reason for refusal, if it was felt that this was a significant breach, however officers have deemed that that it was not. Furthermore, permitted development rights for the existing property where the applicant could put a large, two storey extension onto the property should they wish too. He then addressed the committees’ comments about the desire for a site visit to the dwelling, the reasons discussed had not yet been clear for officers as to what member would be assessing. In particular the comments regarding members flood risk concerns would provide little benefit to members as they and officers were not flood risk experts.

It was then asked regarding the permitted development rights if the application were to be approved would these rights still be in place and available to use? If yes, could a condition be added to address this. It was confirmed that a condition could be added under schedule 2, part 1, prevention of extensions and this could be tailored to single story extensions.  Discussion returned to reasons for a site visit, and it was formally proposed by Councillor Bower and seconded by councillor Lury that the application be deferred to allow for a site visit in order to assess the potential damage to other properties in the area. Upon the vote being taken, the vote was tied, and the Chair used her casting vote which resulted in in the deferral proposal being LOST.

            The Chair then advised members that they would move to taking the vote on the officer’s recommendation, the Group Head of Planning confirmed that the condition requested by Councillor Blanchard-Cooper regarding permitted development rights would be added as a condition as requested. A further request was made should be application be approved a condition be added to state that considerate building rules be applied, to ensure that the traffic going to and from Kingston could be managed. This was agreed to be included by officers.

 The recommendation was proposed by Councillor Hamilton and was seconded by Councillor Blanchard-Cooper.

The Committee

            RESOLVED

That the application be approved conditionally.