PA23/09116: PLANS to demolish a property and replace it with nine residential apartments in Wadebridge has been withdrawn after objections from neighbours and the town council. 

Mr Geoff Harvey applied to Cornwall Council for outline planning permission with some matters reserved, namely appearance, for the demolition of the property known as ‘Asouan’ on Higher Fernleigh Road in the town, with it to be replaced with the nine apartments. 

Mr Harvey had previously sought pre-application planning advice on proposals to build 13 apartments on the site. 

However, the council said in response that in its view, while the principle of building on the land is not unacceptable, it had concerned over the scale and massing of the proposed site. 

In his application for the nine apartments, he stated: “The proposed scheme for the site is a development which provides nine three-bed apartments for residential use. 

“The proposed apartments of nine in total are proposed within three units, each occupy three-storeys offering panoramic views over the Camel estuary. 

“The proposed design has been developed to take advantage of the site’s sloping nature and the panoramic views across the Camel estuary. 

“The rear elevation provides level access off the existing footway, private parking, bike and bin storage accessed from Fernleigh Road. The proposal includes external walkways and stairs to allow for access from Fernleigh Road.”

Neighbours objected to the proposal, with the majority of those commenting on the proposals raising concerns of the impact on a private road leading to the property. 

One objector, Mrs Charmian Licsauer, told Cornwall Council: “Regrettably, as close neighbours we cannot support this application for the following reasons. The proposed access is actually via a private lane that belongs to the properties that back on to it on Higher Fernleigh Road. 

“All these properties require constant access to their garages and outbuildings which are located along this lane. The use of this lane as a permanent means of vehicular use will also mean additional noise and pollution affecting our properties which back on to it. 

“These properties currently enjoy quiet back gardens, and this will be adversely impacted upon should this application be approved. The mains water pipe is no more than 12 inches below the unmade lane surface and is therefore not suited to heavy traffic use. As a previous neighbour has already mentioned, at considerable cost we have just had upgrades carried out to a large section this pipe.

“Therefore, for the reasons outlined above, we do not support the application in its current form.”

Mr Pete Connell said: “The rear lane is considered not to be suitable for frequent residential travel with varying surfaces along the lane. 

“The council prevented the refuse lorry many years ago from using the said lane as it interrupted the mains water supply with the old pipes being unable to withstand the weight. 

“These water pipes to two properties have recently been replaced at households owners costs. 

“The anticipated usage of the lane would as a resident affect my privacy as it overlooks my property. The end of the lane which would allow entry and exit onto the main road is blind in both directions when leaving the lane and seen as a danger and hence rarely used by the existing Higher Fernleigh Road residents.”

Mr John Pinch shared his concerns, saying: “The comment I would like to make relates to the ownership of the proposed site. The extent of the site has been defined by a red line shown throughout the application, in particular the Site Location Plan (A100), Existing Block Plan (A101), Proposed Site Block Plans (A102 & A103) and throughout the Design & Access Statement. 

“The agent on behalf of the applicant, has signed the Certificate of Ownership (Certificate A) to indicate that the applicant is the sole owner of the land to which this application relates. This is misleading because the area defined by the red line includes land owned by myself. The land in question relates to the rear service lane, where my ownership extends to include that part of the lane directly to the rear of my property (Cliffdene). Therefore the applicant does not own the whole of the rear lane. 

“This situation I expect relates to all the other properties along Higher Fernleigh Road. If I understand the process correctly, by signing Certificate A on the application form, the agent on behalf of the applicant, legally confirms that they own everything within the red line. This is clearly wrong and therefore the application needs to be either amended to reflect the true extent of the land to which this proposal relates or sign Certificate B on the application form.”

Wadebridge Town Council also had its concerns stating: “Wadebridge Town Council do not support this application - members have concerns with the size of the development and potential overdevelopment of the site.”

Confirming the proposals’ withdrawal, Cornwall Council said: “Cornwall Council, hereby confirms that the above mentioned application has been withdrawn.”