A NEW application to alter a condition of Cain Manor's use as a wedding venue has been rejected. Proposals identical to the those already approved, save for one point, were submitted to and subsequently thrown out by members of East Hampshire's District Council's north planning committee last week. As reported in The Herald, permission to turn the Headley manor into a permanent civil wedding and reception venue was granted in November. At the November meeting, members voted unanimously to grant the application permission, on the proviso that a music room was built within two years. This permission would be revoked if the room was not erected and fully functioning within this period. Owner of Cain Manor Jo Cuttmore-Scott said: "We have decided to submit an entirely new application which covers largely everything as it now stands - with the exception of the music room - so that the permanent permission (if we are successful) will not in any way be conditional on the timing of the completion of the said building.  "We realised that this timetable could be jeopardised by any delay caused by ourselves, the builders or even the authorities. We feel that, in this instance, we can both go to the bank with a clean situation and take bookings for 2007 in good faith." The agent acting on behalf of the applicant, Richard Goodall, said: "My clients have every intention of building the soundproofed music room. However, two years is a very short period of time to undertake such an operation while continuing to function as a wedding and meeting venue." He continued: "While this may be technically possible, it would take at least a year before my clients know whether the timetable imposed by the condition can be achieved. In the meantime bookings cannot be taken beyond the two-year period specified. This inability to take bookings makes the project more difficult to finance as it is the bookings that provide the security for any loan." Case officer Keith Oliver told last week's meeting: "They are asking us to grant permanent permission to help plan their future on the site" . Mr Oliver's recommendation was that permission should be granted providing within nine months of the date of this resolution, all parties enter into a Section 106 Agreement with the district council to secure the revocation of the permission relating to those outbuildings permitted and not yet built. A further condition was the removal of the polytunnels from the former nursery adjacent to Cain Manor and the restoration of that land in accordance with a scheme and to a timetable to be agreed in writing with the planning authority. Headley Parish Council raised objections to this latest application on the grounds that no valid planning reasons were given for amending the conditions attached to the planning permission. At the north planning meeting, Anthony Williams said: "The original application had stressed the need to build a music room to enable the wedding ceremony, breakfast and dancing to be held in different rooms. Are they now saying the urgency has evaporated?" He then added: "Two years is not onerous, so I feel that the original application and the conditions should stand." Geoffrey Whittle said: "I'm sceptical. I feel that it is a step towards the applicant saying that he wouldn't bother with the music room. There is a problem with noise, I recommend that we stick by the permission given in November." Members voted nine to eight against the officer's recommendation. Mr Oliver pointed out that the noise situation had been monitored for a year and in that time they had only received two complains, neither of which were substantiated. Planning officer Chris Murray suggested refusal on grounds that there would be more likelihood of noise disturbance from extended use (including ancillary accommodation) and that the committee would not be happy to grant permission without the inclusion of a properly sound-proofed music room. The refusal was agreed by 12 votes to four. Mr Goodall said after the meeting: "In my view the only planning justification to refuse the application would be if noise was a problem. From the officer's report and the discussions at committee, this was clearly not the case. "It should also be borne in mind that all the noise-related controls imposed on the original temporary permission are not challenged and will therefore remain in place. Noise is therefore safeguarded without the soundproofed music room." He continued: "I think there is a reasonably high likelihood that we will appeal but I would like to see the actual reasons for refusal before making any decisions." Mrs Cuttmore-Scott said: "We haven't yet received the precise reason for refusal but in the meantime, of course, we will be preparing to appeal the decision.  "We have plans ready to submit to the council for the new buildings, but we will need to get the permanent consent unconditional before we can raise the money to begin building.  "This was the chicken and egg we discussed with the officers at EHDC and we are even more convinced now that our opponents will stop at nothing. We cannot be in a position where delaying tactics could affect the viability of our business."