A meeting of a Cornwall Council planning committee has heard that a bid by a couple in their mid-70s to alter and extend their home to allow them to carry on living independently would be “overpowering and unneighbourly”, writes Local Democracy Reporter Lee Trewhela.

Mr and Mrs Oliver applied for the addition of a first floor to their existing bungalow in Tredova Crescent, Falmouth, including raising the roof and two front dormers, a single storey rear extension providing a garage, WC and utility, and associated alterations to the driveway and property.

The matter was brought before the council’s central planning committee yesterday (Monday, November 18) by local member Cllr Laurie Magowan, owing to concerns he shared with Falmouth Town Council that the proposal is “overpowering and unneighbourly” in terms of loss of light in relation to the garage. Nearby residents had also complained about the proposal.

A planning officer pointed out that numerous properties within the street have been redeveloped and extended, and include pitched dormer windows within roof slopes.

The proposal follows a recently withdrawn application for a similar scheme. The resubmission was improved by altering the proposed box dormer to two pitched roof dormers on the front elevation, and replacing the proposed zinc cladding with Cedral cladding. The pitched roof of the rear garage extension has also been reduced by approximately 500mm.

The officer, who recommended approval, said: “The proposed development is considered to be acceptable in terms of visual amenity due to its appropriate size, scale and design.”

The previously withdrawn application was recommended for approval by Falmouth Town Council, before its members objected to the new plans.

Cllr Jude Robinson, from the town council, said: “Although we passed this initially, that was before any objections had been raised. It’s impossible to understand the impact of this development from a two dimensional plan.” She added it was effectively a two-storey building – “it’s that high”.

“All of the houses here are in a line on a slope and tend to be stepped. This will completely obscure any view and light, and it is completely overbearing for a neighbouring property. It’s totally out of keeping with any garage or annexe in the street because of the height and length.” Cllr Robinson said there were concerns it could set a precedent if approved.

Natalie Dunstan, representing her parents, said: “I would like to emphasise that my parents have made every effort to be considerate of their neighbours with the design of this proposal. We have listened to feedback and the comments raised on the portal and have made amendments to reduce the height of the garage. This was done to minimise any impact on the neighbouring property.

“We have taken care to ensure the proposed structure does not cause significant loss of light to the neighbouring property and we are confident the design is in keeping with the surrounding area without unduly affecting the neighbours’ enjoyment of their property.”

She said her parents, who are in their mid 70s, are looking to modernise their final home to meet their needs and allow them to live “comfortably and independently”, like other property owners have done in the area.

Cllr Magowan said the main concern was of the overbearing nature. He believed the updated garage plan didn’t make much difference and would still have significant impact on the neighbouring property.

Committee chairman Cllr Alan Jewell added that the neighbours have concerns about being able to sit in their conservatory with the ridge height affecting their view. “As the planning officer says, no one is entitled to a view but it is going to impact on the view and it could be deemed as unneighbourly possibly,” he added.

Cllr John Thomas said he didn’t have a problem with it and said he was happy to move as set out. Cllr Peter Williams agreed, saying that it was “perfectly acceptable”.

Cllr Peter Perry added: “It might sound flippant but if you’re sitting in that conservatory you wouldn’t be able to see over the wall anyway, so you’re only losing any view if you’re standing.”

A proposal to approve was won with ten in favour and one against.