FEARS have been raised the tranquillity of a Newquay hamlet will be ruined following controversial housing plans being given the go ahead.

Cornwall Council has approved a planning application to create a mixed-use scheme of 23 houses and two commercial buildings at the former Arla Creamery at Trevarrian as there was “no planning reason to refuse the scheme.”

More than 50 residents opposed the plans submitted by developer Acorn Property Group arguing the infrastructure would not be able to cope with the extra housing such as the sewage system and the road network.

Concerns were also highlighted the entrance to the development would be unsafe.

St Mawgan-in-Pydar Parish Council and local ward member Paul Wills opposed the plans but Cornwall Council’s central sub area planning committee gave the scheme the go ahead at its meeting at County Hall in Truro on Monday (April 7).

A previous application was refused due to harm to the character of the area, lack of business space and absence of a Section 106 planning agreement.

Cornwall councillor John Fitter said: “As much as we would wish to support local residents if planning policies are clear regarding the development then our hands are tied.

“As councillors we have got to be responsible in our decision-making process.

“Because of vacant building credits the company were not obliged to offer any affordable houses but haver pledged to supply two two bedroomed houses for people with a local connection at 40 per cent discount of local prices.

“Over the last 20 years been one affordable built in the St Mawgan parish so this is a 200 per cent increase

“I am fully aware of concerns as expressed by the chairman of the parish council and take on board some of the objections but there was nothing material enough to offer planning reasons for refusal.

“This application had already been refused by an inspector with reasons given for the refusal.

“The planning officer and the central planning manager have confirmed to Committee that the reasons offered by the Planning Inspector for refusal have now been overcome by the applicant.

“What I believe everyone felt was that safeguards were in place to safeguard employment opportunities and that the site did need to be redeveloped. It is important to understand that this is a brownfield site, not a greenfield site.

“I will always oppose greenfield development.

“As the result of all the information I proposed approval of the application as set out and was seconded by the vice chairman of the committee.”

Residents had put forward numerous objections to the plans.

Elizabeth Knight said: “Trevarrian is a small hamlet, and the proposed development is totally unsuited to the area There are major problems already with sewage and waste water when there is considerable rain or surge on the sewage disposal.

“The site has a functioning factory suitable for further development for any local businesses. Further housing on the scale of this application is detrimental to this area.

David Wright added: “The development is far too big.

“Housing should not be on the side of the road. It is a busy holiday route. Traffic speed through the village. “We have issues with flooding on the road, sewage overflowing already without adding more housing to the mix. It would increase the housing by 50 per cent in our village. The infrastructure cannot cope.

“The site isn't big enough to accommodate what the developers want to place there.”

Claire Mildenhall said: “I feel the proposed site is too big for the village and not in keeping with the charm of the local area.

“Increased traffic will be a problem for the roads, which already become congested in the summer months. I am genuinely worried about the local children, who need to cross the road to get on the school buses, their safety should be a priority.

“We have this year has problems on our property with power cuts and sewerage.

“I am concerned about the strain a development of this size will have on the amenities.

“The size of the development is in my opinion too large for the site and will have a negative impact on the local wildlife.”