Extension and alteration to existing dwellinghouse and associated works

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 May 2026 by Stewart Glassar BSc (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 19 June 2026 Appeal Ref: 6005250 88 Harley Shute Road, St Leonards-on-Sea, East Sussex, TN38 8BU • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Kevin Richardson against the decision of Hastings Borough Council. • The application Ref is HS/FA/25/00120. • The development proposed is extension and alteration to existing dwellinghouse and associated works. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effectiveness of the surface water drainage for the proposed development. Reasons 3. Policy SC7 of the Hastings Planning Strategy 2014 (HPS) supports, amongst other things, development proposals that do not increase the risk of flooding. This policy is broadly consistent with paragraph 182 of the National Planning Policy Framework which makes clear that applications which could affect drainage on or around the site should incorporate sustainable drainage systems to control flow rates and reduce volumes of runoff. 4. The development proposes to use a soakaway to deal with surface water drainage. However, the Council contends that this approach has not been shown to be appropriate and could lead to an increase in flood risk. 5. The Council identified concerns with both the initial drainage details and the further test results which were submitted by the appellant. The Council’s concerns are that the ground conditions are such that infiltration would not be sufficient to deal with the matter. The drainage reports and calculations provide details of what was undertaken and the test results. They do not provide a commentary or any discussion rebutting the Council's concerns. 6. The Council recommended that an alternative approach to managing surface water drainage be provided and further submissions from the appellant were invited on this basis. Although there was no indication as to the Council’s preferred approach or indeed what the likely available alternatives might be, no further submissions were forthcoming from the appellant. Appeal Decision 6005250 2 7. The appellant’s appeal statement acknowledges that the site’s ground conditions have low to moderate infiltration capacity. However, elsewhere it notes the soil to have moderate infiltration rates. The statement does not seek to explore or clarify the difference between these two positions. Furthermore, it does not explain why a giant soakaway system would provide a sustainable drainage system that is proportionate to the nature and scale of the proposal nor does it directly address the Council’s detailed concerns. Instead, the statement largely restates that the proposal is acceptable but with little meaningful discussion as to why. 8. There is also a reference in the appeal statement to the existing drainage system for the existing roof but there is no further information provided on it or how this assists the current proposal. The statement also suggests that the Council misquoted the results of the soakaway test but does not specify what was misquoted or in what way this might affect the overall situation. 9. The appellant invites me to consider imposing a condition requiring the submission of further details. Whilst I have some sympathy with this approach, it is not clear from any of the submissions what an alternative drainage scheme to the proposed soakaway might entail. For example, there is no suggestion from either party that an alternative, existing water body, drainage system or combined sewer is available. Although each case must be considered on its individual merits, there is no information on whether other sites nearby have encountered similar issues and if so, how they have addressed the matter. 10. As such, it is not evident at this stage whether or not surface water drainage could be successfully addressed through the imposition of a planning condition. In these circumstances, it would not be appropriate to impose a condition without some degree of certainty that an outcome is achievable. 11. In taking a necessarily precautionary approach to this issue, I conclude that the appellant has failed to demonstrate on the evidence before me that the proposed surface water drainage scheme for the proposed development would be effective in managing drainage on or around the site. Consequently, it would fail to comply with Policy SC7 of the HPS which, amongst other things, supports development proposals that do not increase the risk of flooding. Other Matters 12. The Council did not raise concerns in relation to the principle of the development, the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area nor on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. As these were not contentious issues in the appeal, they are neutral factors in my decision. Conclusion 13. The proposal would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should not succeed. Stewart Glassar INSPECTOR