PLANS for a five-storey apartment block would block an “important public view” of a river, according to Cornwall Council planners who recommended it for refusal.

However, the local councillor argued the development in Looe should go ahead as it would provide much-needed housing in the town for local families.

A mock-up design shows the proposed apartment block in the centre of the photo.
A mock-up design shows the proposed apartment block in the centre of the photo. (Studio Skein)

The planning committee met to discuss the application to demolish a former chapel of rest at The Millpool, West Looe, and replace it with a new building, which would contain six apartments. If approved, it would be built behind the town’s ambulance station and Millpool Centre, Looe’s community building.

Planning officer George Shirley recommended refusal, stating due to the design, scale and siting of the apartment block, harm would arise to the Looe Conservation Area. He also raised concerns about the development’s close proximity to the neighbouring Creekside apartment.

Looe Town Council objected to the proposal due to its height and massing and was “also concerned by the misguided public comments with regards to the proposal being an affordable housing scheme to meet local need which is not the case”. Looe Development Trust also objected to the application.

There are 40 comments by members of the public concerning the application on the council’s planning portal, with just three against. The vast majority are from people who welcome the proposed development.

Architect David Ray, on behalf of applicant William Martin, said they were “dismayed” by the town council’s objection after previously supporting a similar but larger development on the site, which was subsequently scaled down following the planning department’s concerns about a loss of view. He said there was a real need for homes in the community and the apartments could be designated as “principal residences”.

Mr Ray believed the design was harmonious with the surrounding area and did not believe the living conditions of the occupier of the adjacent apartment would be eroded as the existing building already overlooks the property.

Cllr Jim Candy, who represents Looe West, Pelynt, Lansallos and Lanteglos, called the matter before the committee as he considered the benefits of the scheme, through the provision of housing, would outweigh the harm to the conservation area.

Cllr Barry Jordan, who proposed refusal, said: “I’m not happy about this at all. It’s the wrong building in the wrong place. It will overshadow other properties and it will do nothing to enhance the view at all. I don’t think it will end up as principal occupation. I can see it being holiday lets or second homes.”

Cllr Adrian Parsons congratulated the architect on the plans: “I think it’s actually a lovely building, but it doesn’t serve or enhance the conservation area. It’s in the wrong location.”

The committee voted to refuse by eight votes to one with no abstentions.