Anger at report suggesting new site for houses (From Worcester News)
Get involved! Send your photos, video, news & views by texting WN NEWS to 80360 or e-mail us
Anger at report suggesting new site for houses
4:10pm Monday 29th October 2012 in News By Tarik Al Rasheed
A COUNCILLOR has slammed a new housing report suggesting 800 new homes should be dropped on the doorstep of Norton, just outside Worcester.
Rob Adams, who represents Norton and Whittington on Wychavon District Council, said he was “astounded” to learn a task group from Malvern Hills District Council was advocating moving homes previously earmarked for Broomhall, off the A4440 opposite the St Peter’s Estate.
The task group was set up to look at concerns over housing allocations in the South Worcestershire Development Plan – a blueprint for where to put 23,000 homes across Worcester, Wychavon and Malvern Hills between now and 2030. But as well as suggesting breaking up a proposed urban extension of 700 homes on the outskirts of Malvern, it also calls for 2,450 homes at Broomhall to be reconsidered. It says relocating as many as 500 of the homes to Redhill, in Worcester, and 800 to land near Norton, east of the M5, might serve Worcester’s need better.
Coun Adams said: “I am extremely surprised at the emergence of a report by a group of Malvern Hills councillors, which in part promotes development in my ward.
“Not only was I unaware that such a report was being prepared but I was astounded at the promotion of development in Wychavon and in particular in part of my ward. It is discourteous that the matter was not discussed with the parish council or me.”
The report will be formally considered at a special meeting of Malvern Hills District Council on Tuesday, November 13 and if backed, could pose serious problems for the SWDP, which is timetabled for simultaneous approval by Malvern Hills, Worcester City and Wychavon councils in votes at the start of December.
But Coun Adams said there was “no evidence base whatsoever” for changing the plan and said the priority for all three councils should be to move the SWDP forward as planned.
Malvern Hills District Council leader David Hughes, said the report was initially an internal document. However he decided to release it when it became clear it had been leaked.
“It was the council’s intention that the report would be released with other relevant papers to ensure that the status and implications of the report could be fully understood by both councillors and the public,” he said. “Until the matter is considered by the council, the report’s findings and recommendations have no specific status and do not represent council policy with respect to the SWDP.”
Comments(10)
skychip
says...
6:42pm Mon 29 Oct 12
mayall8808
says...
7:31pm Mon 29 Oct 12
Councillor Adams is one of our better local representatives and he has every right to make his disgust known, its not the councilors that are at fault here its the council officers David Hughes for one from Malvern, again, they are a pain in the neck as sometimes they do not disclose information and also give false information to planning commitees, need i go on?
skychip
says...
7:59pm Mon 29 Oct 12
Frank13
says...
8:20pm Mon 29 Oct 12
More Tea Vicar
says...
8:29am Tue 30 Oct 12
Everything about it is wrong, from its basic principles through the lack of democracy involved, to dodgy logic and half truths and spin, to the actual execution.
The basic problems are that no one voted for it, and it does not answer local needs.
Then there is the 'consultation', which seems to involve overpaid council employees giving expensive, but not entirely accurate, presentations, on behalf of the building industry.
And there are the spin stories. Panic that plan might fail, meaning we'd get even more housing.
Panic, that if plan plan doesn't go ahead, rents and prices will rise.
All complete nonsense, of course. Spin, put about by the planning officers and building companies, perhaps.
The whole thing needs to be dropped.
And followed by a Leveson style enquiry into why Councils are acting so closely with the building industry.
Hwicce
says...
8:59am Tue 30 Oct 12
If you're going to answer "brownfield" then list the sites that you think are available. I'm sure developers will jump at the chance of some available land.
If you say "don't know but not here" then we will draw our own conclusions about your nimbyness.
mayall8808
says...
2:19pm Tue 30 Oct 12
do you want hundreds of houses in your back yard? or your local enviroment? NO i bet.
Hwicce
says...
7:30pm Tue 30 Oct 12
There was a brownfield site opposite me, it's now got 20-odd houses on it so if the sites are available then the builders will build there.
All I keep hearing is the droning....
mr_wilson15
says...
4:49pm Thu 1 Nov 12
Tesco hold site off the Tything, there's a decent area behing the Law Courts , and in fact most of Worcester's car parks can go IMO, there's plenty of land up at Shrub Hill, loads more on the former Diglis industrial estate, fair swathes on the old hospital up Newtown road ...
I could go on.
skychip says...
6:42pm Mon 29 Oct 12