A second attempt to build apartments next to a wooded area close to Falmouth town centre has been refused.
Marble Homes Limited had submitted plans in December 2022 to build nine apartments over three storeys on the 0.25 hectare site, south west of Bridge House Apartments in Melvill Road.
It was proposed that the development would include a large communal roof terrace together with a small communal garden to the rear and west side of the building.
The application described the part of the site where the building was proposed as being broadly level, with the remainder of the site sloping significantly up towards the road, which provided a “sylvan setting” (wooded area).
The site is sandwiched between the road to the south, with a residential area beyond, and the Falmouth branch line to the north.
A former steam engine house and turntables were sited there in the 1880s and early 1900s, and while both had gone by the 1930s the railways lines survive.
An application on the site for a much larger development of 14 apartments was refused permission in 2016 and subsequently confirmed on appeal, with the inspector concluding that the removal of numerous trees to the Melvill Road frontage would harm the character of the Falmouth Conservation Area.
Marble Homes had said the new, scaled down scheme would be accessed via the driveway to the next door development, and so no new access through the trees was needed – and that further trees would be planted.
However, Falmouth Town Council’s planning committee recommended refusal of the application on the ground that it contravened its protection of open space, saying: “The site is a rare area of natural woodland in the town centre and a wildlife haven which forms part of a wildlife corridor along the railway.
“The development will have a detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the Falmouth Conservation Area.”
There were similar concerns raised by the 39 objectors who sent comments to Cornwall Council.
Now a planning officer at Cornwall Council has refused permission for the apartments, under delegated powers.
They described the proposed apartment building as being “strongly contemporary in terms of its architecture and appearance”, and noted that the council’s conservation officer had stated: “It is recommended that the design of the building appears to bear no architectural relevance/reflection to the immediate surrounding residences, all set within Falmouth Conservation Area.
“It is impossible to see how this development architecturally 'enhances' Falmouth Conservation Area.”
The planning officer went on to write in their report: “I concur…and consider that the design and appearance of the proposed development would result in harm to the character and appearance of this part of the Falmouth Conservation Area.”
They further added: “Crucially it is not considered that the relatively modest public benefits of the scheme (i.e. the short-term economic benefits derived from the construction phase, the contribution the scheme would make towards housing supply, and the remediation of a contaminated site) would outweigh this harm, which has been given great weight.”
It was this that led to the refusal of planning permission, along with the officer stating: “The proposed development would result in the loss of an important natural green space that is identified in the Falmouth Neighbourhood Development Plan as having a high value, and would diminish a large gap that is important to the setting of the settlement.”
The officer said that since the appeal decision in 2017 a number of trees within the site had been removed, which had resulted in a “denudation of its sylvan character to a certain degree” and the opening up of views into and through the site. Despite this, the site retained its semi-natural character.
They said the majority of the existing trees would be retained, although seven would be removed, largely from the northern part of the site, and it was proposed an additional 24 trees, and six additional species, would be planted in the southern part of the site.
Several objectors had raised concerns about overlooking, loss of privacy and light, and noise disturbance.
However, the officer stated: “Due to the distances of separation involved the occupiers of these existing residential properties would not be adversely affected.”
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel