Falmouth home extension plans 'out of keeping'

PLANS to build an extension at 1 Messack Close in Falmouth to include front and rear dormer windows received a mixed reaction from town councillors this week.

While members had no problem with the rear dormer, they did not like the front dormer, claiming it was “ugly” and would alter the street scene and set a precedent.

Councillor Steve Eva said: “I do object to this. Knowing Messack Close, if you start putting a dormer on the front of the bungalow on that road it would be out of keeping.”

The planning committee has recommended refusal of the application, indicating it would prefer to see a Velux window on the front. The final decision lies with Cornwall Council.

Comments (3)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:03pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Gillian Zella Martin 09 says...

Steve Eva has a perfectly valid point about something being out of keeping in a road, I therefore cannot understand why Cornwall Council has in the past approved planning applications for things that are completely out of keeping with surrounding dwellings in some areas, particularly when they happened to be in a conservation area. It appears to me there should be more uniformed rules within the planning department, I believe at times, it appears to be one rule for one and another rule for someone else.
Steve Eva has a perfectly valid point about something being out of keeping in a road, I therefore cannot understand why Cornwall Council has in the past approved planning applications for things that are completely out of keeping with surrounding dwellings in some areas, particularly when they happened to be in a conservation area. It appears to me there should be more uniformed rules within the planning department, I believe at times, it appears to be one rule for one and another rule for someone else. Gillian Zella Martin 09

11:46am Mon 23 Dec 13

seacom says...

I notice Gill only four public objections originating from two properties one of which is the residence of a town councillor and not directly affected by this application.The objection to front elevation should have been based on the revised application not original, the rear elevation blends with the adjacent property which already sets precedent .The objections to noise, deliveries,parking of vehicles etc are part and parcel of development and already regulated.If these objections were upheld what hope for the 4000 houses planned for Falmouth, although maybe a good weapon against it?
I notice Gill only four public objections originating from two properties one of which is the residence of a town councillor and not directly affected by this application.The objection to front elevation should have been based on the revised application not original, the rear elevation blends with the adjacent property which already sets precedent .The objections to noise, deliveries,parking of vehicles etc are part and parcel of development and already regulated.If these objections were upheld what hope for the 4000 houses planned for Falmouth, although maybe a good weapon against it? seacom

12:30pm Mon 23 Dec 13

Gillian Zella Martin 09 says...

seacom wrote:
I notice Gill only four public objections originating from two properties one of which is the residence of a town councillor and not directly affected by this application.The objection to front elevation should have been based on the revised application not original, the rear elevation blends with the adjacent property which already sets precedent .The objections to noise, deliveries,parking of vehicles etc are part and parcel of development and already regulated.If these objections were upheld what hope for the 4000 houses planned for Falmouth, although maybe a good weapon against it?
There have been far more total objections per application, than that, in the past, for proposed buildings/alteration
s/extensions etc and yet they were still approved, it will therefore be interesting to see what the final decision is, made by Cornwall Council. I do hope the Packet publishes the information.
[quote][p][bold]seacom[/bold] wrote: I notice Gill only four public objections originating from two properties one of which is the residence of a town councillor and not directly affected by this application.The objection to front elevation should have been based on the revised application not original, the rear elevation blends with the adjacent property which already sets precedent .The objections to noise, deliveries,parking of vehicles etc are part and parcel of development and already regulated.If these objections were upheld what hope for the 4000 houses planned for Falmouth, although maybe a good weapon against it?[/p][/quote]There have been far more total objections per application, than that, in the past, for proposed buildings/alteration s/extensions etc and yet they were still approved, it will therefore be interesting to see what the final decision is, made by Cornwall Council. I do hope the Packet publishes the information. Gillian Zella Martin 09

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree