Login Register

Penmere Manor Hotel submit new application for access off Queen Mary Gardens

By West Briton  |  Posted: February 21, 2013

Comments (2)

THE Penmere Manor Hotel in Falmouth has reapplied to lift a condition to enable a new access road and footpath to be built, just weeks after being refused.

It wants to create the road through Queen Anne Gardens in Falmouth to access homes which are to be built in the hotel grounds.

But at the end of January Cornwall Council refused the application saying it would result in the loss of important trees from the boundary.

The hotel was granted permission for five residential properties on the condition that no access be created from the cul-de-sac.

Although residents had raised concerns regarding increased traffic and parking, it was only the trees that were listed as a reason for refusal.

Planners said the trees had "a significant level of public visual amenity and make a positive contribution to the local landscape".

The plans included the removal of one of the large beech trees and the work, the council said, would cause further harm to the remaining trees. Revision has been made to the plans so no trees will be removed.

In a design statement, architects Laurence Associates said: "The design will ensure that original concerns of the tree officer are fully addressed and takes on board his comments.

"The detailed plans show clearly how this can be achieved and therefore fully address and overcome the concerns expressed in the single reason for refusal.

"Other issues raised by objectors to the scheme such as traffic safety, parking and impact on neighbour's amenity are not included."

However, two parking spaces will be provided per property to reduce any potential parking outside the site and the internal access drive proposed on the earlier approval is to be amended to stop any through-traffic from Queen Anne's Gardens.

The revised application can be viewed at www.cornwall.gov.uk/plan ning reference PA13/01194.

It is due to be considered by Falmouth Town Council's planning committee on Monday evening.

Do you have something to say? Leave your comment here...

max 4000 characters

2 comments

  • garthbanks  |  February 25 2013, 2:42AM

    This article by Laurence associates in an incorrect public relations exercise and should be commented upon. The reason for a previous refusal singled out a tree problem but did not dismiss the other objections. The release to the press by the council and the refusal referred to Queen Mary Gardens but actually should have related to Queen Anne Gardens which has led to many interested parties missing the alert. It is stated by Laurence associates that the applicant is the Penmere Manor Hotel but in fact the applicant is Bemgo Limited which is not owned by the Hotel and has no assets. It is stated that no trees will be removed but of the nine trees covering the root protection order and are protected three wil be removed, this is one third of the protect trees. The condition said no pedestrian access to be made but like the road past the front of the Penmere Manor Hotel which has no pavements, pedestrians would be able to walk down the new proposed road. The parking spaces outside of the new dwellings approved in 2011 will be inadequate in many situations Two parents with children or other family members resident, carers and party visitors will not be catered for unless the vehicles park in Queen Anne gardens. The roadway proposed will be significantly elevated above one of the propose dwellings only a meter vway and will be visually obtrusive. Water run off the impermeable roadway will alter the water table and may cause flooding and discharge into neighbouring properties. It is stated that the numerous piles to support the roadway must not be driven in such a way as to cause vibration and pneumatic drills should not be employed does this not cause a construction problem! Reference is made to a planning and compulsory purchase act 2004 which expires on the 27th March 2013. The Carrick Local plan envisages the planting of new trees and it was a condition that if protected trees were removed then they should be replaced. There are many other obligations and plans which are not adequately discussed such as opportunities for walking cycling and transport.

    Rate 0
    Report
  • garthbanks  |  February 25 2013, 1:54AM

    This article by Laurence associates in an incorrect public relations exercise and should be commented upon. The reason for a previous refusal singled out a tree problem but did not dismiss the other objections. The release to the press by the council and the refusal referred to Queen Mary Gardens but actually should have related to Queen Anne Gardens which has led to many interested parties missing the alert. It is stated by Laurence associates that the applicant is the Penmere Manor Hotel but in fact the applicant is Bemgo Limited which is not owned by the Hotel and has no assets. It is stated that no trees will be removed but of the nine trees covering the root protection order and are protected three wil be removed, this is one third of the protect trees. The condition said no pedestrian access to be made but like the road past the front of the Penmere Manor Hotel which has no pavements, pedestrians would be able to walk down the new proposed road. The parking spaces outside of the new dwellings approved in 2011 will be inadequate in many situations Two parents with children or other family members resident, carers and party visitors will not be catered for unless the vehicles park in Queen Anne gardens. The roadway proposed will be significantly elevated above one of the propose dwellings only a meter vway and will be visually obtrusive. Water run off the impermeable roadway will alter the water table and may cause flooding and discharge into neighbouring properties. It is stated that the numerous piles to support the roadway must not be driven in such a way as to cause vibration and pneumatic drills should not be employed does this not cause a construction problem! Reference is made to a planning and compulsory purchase act 2004 which expires on the 27th March 2013. The Carrick Local plan envisages the planting of new trees and it was a condition that if protected trees were removed then they should be replaced. There are many other obligations and plans which are not adequately discussed such as opportunities for walking cycling and transport.

    Rate   1
    Report

      YOUR COMMENTS AWAITING MODERATION

       
       

      MORE NEWS HEADLINES

       
       
       

      MOST POPULAR