Kingston Parish is within the South Downs National Park and the Authority (SDNPA) is responsible for all planning issues, although the processing of all but major schemes is subcontracted to Lewes District Council. Kingston Parish Council is invited to comment as Consultee to most applications.
The map below contains information on the current planning applications under review by the Parish Council.
Full details of the applications can be seen via the pins on the map (approximate locations):
Red pins – current applications with unexpired deadlines for comments
Yellow pins – current applications with expired deadline for comments but still awaiting decision
If you hover over the red and yellow pins with the mouse cursor you see a brief description of the submitted application or alternatively click on it and you will be taken directly to the South Downs National Park Authority website where you can view the full set of plans and also submit your own comments.
For details of all other past applications please visit the SDNPA planning section of their website hereby clicking here
SDNP/21/04616/HOUS Furlong Down, Ashcombe Lane
It is appreciated that the applicants feel that they need a larger house and the increase in size just meets the maximum permitted by the Park. Our concerns are twofold: Both the materials for the windows and doors (anthracite grey aluminium) and the roof tiles (slate effect) seem out of keeping with the house. Perhaps consideration could be given to windows and doors more in keeping with the village, and clay tiles used on the roof. It is not clear by how much the roof is being raised, we would like this to be clearer in the application. We are concerned that the increase in roof height increases the bulk of the building and is out of keeping with surrounding houses
SDNPA/21/0583/FUL Saxon Down, Church Lane
1. The proposed building seems to be well designed, using sustainable materials. 2. It is not intrusive in the landscape and sits within the planning boundary. 3. However, there is concern that the plot is part of a farm and should not have further building works, especially in a National Park. The proposed property is not being built on the existing footprint of a previous building. 4. The major concern of residents is the continued disruption and concerns about safety in the relatively small area on the edge of the villages housing estate. Because of the nature of the village, large lorries have to come through narrow roads with residential buildings on both sides of the roads which house families with small children. We would therefore urge that the following restrictions are imposed on any construction management plan: * Delivery traffic should enter the village via Ashcombe Hollow only if the vehicle is no wider than 6 feet 6 inches. A prohibition on using Church Lane, which is a private road. * The erection of signage for construction traffic from initial entry to The Avenue. * Imposition of a maximum weight and size of vehicles to be used for deliveries (including on-site plant and equipment) and construction. * That all vehicles belonging to site operatives and visitors should be parked within the construction site and not on grass verges. * The provision of a turning circle for construction traffic on the construction site, and a prohibition of vehicles turning round at the junction of Church Lane and St Pancras Green. * Details of how noise and dust will be minimised during any works on site. * St Pancras Green should be protected from debris and pollution from the building site. Any debris should be removed immediately by construction workers. * No deliveries shall be taken to the site or materials removed from the site between the hours of 8.30 and 9.30, and 15.00 and 16.00 on Mondays and Fridays to avoid school drop off and pick up times, nor at any time on Saturdays, Sundays or public holidays
SDNP/22/00202/HOUS 3 Church Lane
Kingston Parish Council has no objection to this planning application. The only comment that we would make is that, although examples have been provided of cladding around the village, there is no cladding nearby, so it could appear out of place.
SDNP/22/00171/HOUS 6 Mushroom Field
SDNP/21/05695/HOUS and SDNP/21/05696/LIS Rough Down , The Street
SDNP/22/00418/HOUS and SDNP/22/00419/LIS The Post House
KPC objects to this planning application. The proposed development is not consistent with the planning policies set out in the SDNPA Local Plan and the Kingston Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Plan. The proposed extension is both bulky and overbearing – it will significantly increase the footprint of the existing building and will dramatically change the character of this part of the conservation area where houses are already closely packed. The calculation that the extension represents only a 30% increase is faulty as it includes the floor space of the existing detached garage and store. The South Down Local Plan Technical Advice Note states, ‘For the avoidance of doubt, the floorspace of a detached garage, which is used for the purposes of storing vehicles and/or other ancillary domestic storage, will not be included within the percentage floorspace increase’. Furthermore: 1) The proposed extension, specifically, the use of vertical timber, large areas of glazing and dark metal framed doors and windows is at odds with the surrounding buildings – it does not respect the character of the local area. 2) Flint walls (regardless of when they were built) are important features of the conservation area. The plans propose knocking down an existing flint wall to turn a large part of the front garden into a parking space/s. We also note there is no detail on what the size of the parking space will be. The new driveway would also require constant access, creating a new junction on The Street and resulting in the loss of one public parking space. 3) There is a further suggestion that the concrete tiles on the original building will at some time be replaced with clay tiles. This is to be welcomed and it if this was completed at the same time as the extension would go some way to tie the buildings together. 4) The vertical untreated timber of the proposed extension is in sharp contrast to the white horizontal weatherboard of the original building. There is a suggestion that, at some later date, the white paint of the original building will be removed. This seems not just unpractical but would also result in the original building losing much of its current character. One half of the building clad with vertical timber and one with horizontal timber with some old weatherboard but inevitably also some new replacements. It would look disjointed. The existing white weatherboard is a nesting site for house sparrows – any work on the existing weatherboard would disturb this. Sparrows are a red listed species. 5) It is not clear if the ground floor kitchen has a double height ceiling (so that bedroom is the only room on the second floor). Or if the second floor extends beyond the bedroom. 6) The building in the garden is also substantial – and includes a shower, sink and toilet that suggests use as accommodation. At 13ft it is almost twice the height of existing neighbouring fences and will be far more visible that the originally proposed flat roof. This infilling will also result in the loss of considerable green space. Adding a small path in the garden is not going to mitigate against the impact of this building. 7) Both the buildings will result in a loss of light for the neighbours, a loss of privacy (new windows will overlook neighbouring gardens) and an increase in noise. Contrary to what is stated in the application form the extension would be visible from a public road. 8) A construction management plan is needed that recognises that the private road past the property must not be blocked by construction vehicles, since continual access is needed to the other properties in Barn Close. It should include restrictions on days and times of work. The site is directly opposite the village pre-school and this needs to be taken into consideration.