Agenda item

Item 11: Variation of condition 1 of application reference no. 19/01049/HOU to allow building to be used solely for purposes ancillary to the occupation of the property known as Brown Eaves. The building shall not be occupied as an independent unit of residential accommodation. 

Brown Eaves, 170 Main Road, Colden Common, SO21 1TJ

Case number: 20/00855/FUL

The Service Lead Built Environment referred Members to the Update Sheet which set out additional information from the agent regarding work that had been carried out to implement the approved and additional landscape planting to provide more screening along southern boundary and referred to a recent permission for a similar proposal in Kytes Lane, Durley.

During public participation, Councillor Maggie Hill (Colden Common Parish Council) spoke in objection to the application and Louise Cutts (agent) spoke in support of the application and both answered Members’ questions thereon.

During public participation, Councillor Cook spoke on this item as Ward Member.

In summary, Councillor Cook made reference to the clause which she stated should not be removed or changed at any stage, she concurred with the comments in opposition to the application, raised by the Parish Council and set out the chequered history of the site, the previous applications and the reasons given and considered that the proposal was contrary to policy MTRA4. Furthermore, Councillor Cook stated that the building should not be occupied as an independent unit of residential accommodation or for any business use other than the occupants of Brown Eaves and made reference to the letters of objection which were all from local residents, whereas the letters of support were not.

During debate, the Service Lead: Built Environment reminded the committee that this application was to vary a planning condition that already allowed the building to be used incidentally to the main house, therefore it was for the committee to determine if it was appropriate to go from an incidental use to an ancillary use. It was envisaged with the ancillary use that overnight sleeping by the person occupying the unit would take place within that unit, therefore any person living there should be related to the residents of the main dwelling.

At the conclusion of debate, the committee agreed to refuse permission for the following reasons: contrary to policy MTRA4 as it was considered tantamount to a new dwelling in the countryside, the removal of this condition would result in a combination that it would be occupied separately from Brown Eaves. The exact wording to be delegated to the Service Lead: Built Environment for agreement in consultation with the Chair.

            RESOLVED:

            That the decisions taken on the Planning 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 6 (49 Broad Street, Alresford: Case number:  19/01525/FUL) permission be refused for the following reasons: contrary to section 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, and policy DM27, as the proposal failed to preserve the setting of the listed building and altered and affected the character of the burgage plot, representing overdevelopment of the site. The exact wording to be delegated to the Service Lead: Built Environment for agreement in consultation with the Chair.

(ii)        That in respect of item 7 (Land East of Main Road, Otterbourne: Case number: 20/00163/FUL) permission be granted for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the Report and the Update Sheet, subject to the following: amendments to condition 3 to read ‘no more than three horses’ and the reason for condition 3 to add the following: ‘to limit the vehicle movements to and from the site which could be unneighbourly’; and an addition to informative 5 to include the removal of manure (cross referenced to condition 6).

(iii)       That in respect of item 8 (The Rod Box, London Road, Kings Worthy: Case number: 19/02057/FUL) permission be refused for the following reasons: The development to create a two bed flat and outbuilding for the business at the site with associated access and parking at the rear, results in overdevelopment, harmful to the character and appearance of the conservation area and the intensification of the use proposed results in a detrimental impact to neighbour amenities. The exact wording to be delegated to the Service Lead: Built Environment for agreement in consultation with the Chair.

(iv)       That in respect of item 11 (Brown Eaves, 170 Main Road, Colden Common: Case number: 20/00855/FUL) permission be refused for the following reasons: contrary to policy MTRA4 as it was considered tantamount to a new dwelling in the countryside, the removal of this condition would result in a combination that it would be occupied separately from Brown Eaves. The exact wording to be delegated to the Service Lead: Built Environment for agreement in consultation with the Chair.

The virtual meeting commenced at 9.30am, adjourned between 12.40pm and 2pm and concluded at 4pm.

Chair