LAUNCESTON Town Council’s planning committee has lent its support to Bovis Homes Ltd’s application seeking to build up to 190 homes in the town.

However, councillors at the committee meeting on February 15, raised their concerns about what kind of play area will be provided on the site for children, as well as suggesting that developer financial contributions, thought to be benefitting a planned new primary school for the town, should be ‘re-directed’.

Cllr Dave Gordon said: “The Section 106 money was allocated to the school, the new school [known locally as Hay Common School], which, from the clerk’s and my opinion, is funded by the academy. So why should they have 106 money? It should be relocated.”

The Post has previously reported that Launceston College Multi Academy Trust applied to the Department for Education to open the new primary school on the Hay Common development, which will be called Launceston College Primary Campus.

Mayor Cllr Margaret Young added: “I think we should fight that with all our might. It’s designated a free school because the application went to Central Government and Central Government have said yes to a two classroom entry school. Therefore, they must be funding the school.”

Town councillors noted that Historic Environment Planning (Archaeology), another consultee like the town council, recommended ‘no demolition/development shall take place/commence until a programme of archaeological work … has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing,’ which Cllr Gordon said ‘will delay them a little bit’.

The comment indicated there could be a number of prehistoric features and suggested these be fully investigated: “A number of probable prehistoric features were identified from the geophysical survey, including a probable Iron Age round or a series of enclosures, mainly located in the northeastern quarter of the development area, but also the presence of possible pits and features scattered elsewhere.

“The evaluation trenching subsequently investigated the enclosures, and although these were not positively identified, other features such as hearths and associated features and deposits were found, as well as pottery and smithing waste. These features and finds are significant enough to warrant that they be further investigated and archaeologically fully recorded prior to inevitable destruction as a result of groundworks for the development.”

Bovis Homes Ltd has also been asked to produce an air quality assessment by another consultee, ‘Public Protection Air Quality Planning Consultations’, whose comment read: “I have reviewed the application and note that no air quality assessment has been provided. As a proposed Air Quality Management Area, and due to the size of the proposed development, the criteria for an air quality assessment is met. I would therefore be grateful if you could request an assessment and re-consult when this is available.”

Cornwall Waste Management in a comment on Cornwall Council’s online planning portal, said: “There is concern with the development due to problems that could arise with waste and recycling collection.

“It is important to remember that waste is collected by a 26 tonne vehicle and needs access to turn and the roads must be up to taking this weight.”

Town councillors, queried the provision of open space for play. Cllr Brian Hogan said: “The kids want somewhere to play football,” while Cllr Jane Nancarrow added: “Not a bit of grass somewhere saying ‘no ball games’.”

Town clerk Christopher Drake said: “The biggest issue I have — I carry it like a cross to bear — is small un-thought out play is pointless, and in three to five years this town council will be responsible for a derelict bit of stuff that has to be replaced. Give us the money, we can sort out proper play.”

Cllr Gordon said: “Other than Section 106 we have given the nod to the 190 dwellings before.”

Cllr Nancarrow added: “It’s just such a worry — all those houses.”

The town councillors supported the planning application, with a recommendation ‘there is a longer look at the space provided for play and type of play provided within it’.

A spokesperson for Bovis Homes responded to the Post following the raising of the council’s concerns.

With regards to the play spaces, they said: “This is an outline planning application and any detailed design of the play spaces will come forward through reserved matters applications. Unless there is a desire for a parish or town council to adopt public open space, it is now commonplace for such amenities to be the responsibility of a management company organised by the developer.”

Bovis Homes also said the allocation or reallocation of Section 106 monies is outside their control, however, they said the council must ensure that the impact of the new development on infrastructure is accounted for.

“In the case of the school, if there would be insufficient spaces at the new school to accommodate the children arising from the proposed development, the Section 106 monies could be legitimately requested.”

With regards to concerns about lack of infrastructure, the spokesperson said: “Our site is identified as part of the local plan, and its size means that it is not feasible to provide any on-site services. However, should these homes go ahead, we will be making a number of contributions towards the local community via the Section 106 agreement.”