Decision details

The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which stated that Condition 02 should read as follows:

‘The residential accommodation hereby permitted, as shown in drawing No. 02_ Revision B, shall be occupied in association with the dwelling house or shall be used for the purposes ancillary to the dwelling house (Orchard Gate).  At no time shall the building be occupied as an independent planning unit of residential accommodation, business, commercial or industrial purpose.’

During public participation, Maggie Hill, Colden Common Parish Council spoke in objection to the application and Mrs S Rayner spoke in support and answered Members’ questions thereon.

At the conclusion of debate, the Committee agreed to refuse permission as the development was tantamount to a new dwelling in the countryside and was contrary to policy MTRA4.  The precise wording was delegated to the Head of Development Management in consultation with the Chairman.

RESOLVED:

1.             That the decisions taken on the Development Control Applications in relation to those applications outside the area of the South Downs National Park be agreed as set out in the decision relating to each item, subject to the following:

(i)              That in respect of item 7 (15 Silwood Close) permission be refused in accordance with policies DM15, DM16 and DM17, as the quantum of development would appear cramped in the street scene and it was out of character with the prevailing character of the area.  The precise wording was delegated to the Head of Development Management in consultation with the Chairman.

(ii)             That in respect of item 8 (63 St Cross Road) permission be granted for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the Report and the Update Sheet and an additional condition be agreed to the effect that no lighting should be installed without first submitting details to the Local Planning Authority for approval.

(iii)            That in respect of item 13 (Orchard Gate, Lordswood, Highbridge) permission be refused as the development was tantamount to a new dwelling in the countryside and was contrary to policy MTRA4.  The precise wording was delegated to the Head of Development Management in consultation with the Chairman.