CONCERNS were raised over the lack of public notices being put up about a controversial development at the ‘gateway’ to Falmouth this week.

At a meeting of Falmouth Town Council’s planning committee on Monday night, it was suggested that the application to demolish the existing building and put five others in its place at the Anchorage, 28 North Parade Falmouth should be deferred to allow residents more time to ‘object’ to the application.

However councillors decided to go ahead and make a recommendation to refuse the application after hearing two residents objections and listening to a presentation from the architect involved in the design.

Falmouth Packet:

 

How the revised application looks. Image CSA Architects

Mayor Steve Eva said nobody seemed to know why no notices had been put up, not even the agent, although he thought there was no legal obligation to do so. He thought the design was still too high and just didn’t fit on the site and he would be voting for refusal.

Objector Anna Kingsley told the meeting that last December Falmouth Town Council recommended refusal of a previous version of this proposal due to overdevelopment, excessive height and poor design.

“The design statement now implies greater changes than have actually been made,” she said. “Reducing the units by changing one of the buildings from three apartments to only one house has only reduced the bedrooms from 18 to 16. The claimed 25 per cent reduction footprint isn’t a comparison to the version Falmouth Town Council rejected, it is with the larger footprint of an earlier application.

“It differs from other new builds on North Parade and there was no site notice to make people aware of these plans yet, and it seems a speculative development aimed at the home and holiday let market not the stock of homes that are in short supply to Falmouth residents.”

READ NEXT:

White Wings application refused over concerns of impact on conservation area

Earlier architect Susan Kinver told the committee that the highways officer supported for the scheme despite the concerns from residents over the amount of parking provided.

But Cllr Alan Jewell said the council had no obligation to abide by the Highways Officer’s recommendations and this did not mean the council’s recommendations would not be supported.

Cllr John Spargo said the developer had sort of followed comments that the planning committee had made previously but each time the proposal gets reduced: “I look at it again and think, actually it’s still not small enough and it’s too big.”

The planning committee recommended refusal on the grounds of it being too high, an overdevelopment, loss of view from highway and parking issues.