Fears 'rat-run' road will get worse if new homes are built

Worcester News: Middle Battenhall Farm: residents in Battenhall Road objecting Middle Battenhall Farm: residents in Battenhall Road objecting

RESIDENTS in a Worcester road say they fear the worst over a controversial bid for 200 new homes - warning their street will become a "rat run" for drivers.

People living in Battenhall Road say they are already suffering because of motorists dumping their cars along the street to use nearby playing fields.

They say a bid by Miller Homes to build 200 properties on Middle Battenhall Farm will make the traffic situation even worse.

The developer has handed Worcester City Council a planning application despite the farm not being earmarked for any homes in the emerging South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP).

People living in the street say drivers will attempt to cut through it to get into Worcester.

Robert Morris, who lives in Battenhall Road, said: "The volume of traffic we have to put up with on weekends is bad already.

"Every weekend some kind of sport events are on, whether it be football in the winter or cricket in the summer.

"You have cars parked on both sides all down it and it's hard to get through.

"We even had some tradesperson come to visit us the other day and say 'it's taken us 10 minutes to get from St Mary's (St Mary's School, off Battenhall Avenue) to you'.

"This street is a rat-run now - if this development goes ahead 200 cars could potentially be going down it to get into town."

Middle Battenhall Farm, which lies between Whittington Road and Battenhall, off Red Hill Lane, contains an ancient fish pond and is popular with dog walkers.

The SWDP, which contains provision for 23,200 homes, is currently being revised up to 27,300 properties after inspector Roger Clews said the old tally isn’t enough.

That leaves sites like Middle Battenhall Farm vulnerable, with fears the city council could refuse Miller Homes’ scheme but be defeated on appeal.

A spokesman for Miller Homes says in response to concerns over traffic, the proposals include a signal controlled junction next to the New College in Whittington Road. The company says it believes the access will encourage drivers to avoid rat runs.

A spokesman said: "There are no plans to provide better vehicle access to Battenhall Road, as the upgraded junction with traffic lights will sit alongside the New College."

The company plans to create an interpretation board to alert people to the mediaeval fish ponds, and draw up a management plan for the green land just behind the new proposed houses.

It has called the project "a sustainable urban extension" to Worcester but protestors have formed the Middle Battenhall Farm Land Action Group in response to it.

Comments (9)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:58am Thu 13 Mar 14

skychip says...

Once again there will be no consideration for existing residents.
Once again there will be no consideration for existing residents. skychip
  • Score: 4

3:12pm Thu 13 Mar 14

MrWXYZ says...

the article seems ironic given this site was promoting the rat run during the floods!! The floods:live page deciding to publish a tweet about cutting through by there saving loads of time.
Although it is a rat run i'm confused as to the point - as he moans about people visiting to play football & cricket, which is different to a rat run and be less affected by new houses.
the article seems ironic given this site was promoting the rat run during the floods!! The floods:live page deciding to publish a tweet about cutting through by there saving loads of time. Although it is a rat run i'm confused as to the point - as he moans about people visiting to play football & cricket, which is different to a rat run and be less affected by new houses. MrWXYZ
  • Score: 0

3:57pm Thu 13 Mar 14

green49 says...

This company Miller Homes are already causing havoc on Walkers lane, they have no reguard to the fact people live there, huge vechicles delivering at school times when the roads are busy, last friday the stupid site manager tried to back a massive heavily laden lorry onto the site over a ditch, IT SANK, DUH, it was stuck and Millers had to call a even bigger recovery lorry to move it, its a nightmare and also building on flooded land and filling in water filled footings are against the building regs.
This company Miller Homes are already causing havoc on Walkers lane, they have no reguard to the fact people live there, huge vechicles delivering at school times when the roads are busy, last friday the stupid site manager tried to back a massive heavily laden lorry onto the site over a ditch, IT SANK, DUH, it was stuck and Millers had to call a even bigger recovery lorry to move it, its a nightmare and also building on flooded land and filling in water filled footings are against the building regs. green49
  • Score: 4

4:54pm Thu 13 Mar 14

skychip says...

I agree with above comment. Developers just seem to be taking over this City because the Council doesn't have the resources to stand up against them. I really thought this Government would have more regard to the green areas. It will be chaos when the other houses are built on the field at the back of Kilbury Drive.
I agree with above comment. Developers just seem to be taking over this City because the Council doesn't have the resources to stand up against them. I really thought this Government would have more regard to the green areas. It will be chaos when the other houses are built on the field at the back of Kilbury Drive. skychip
  • Score: 5

5:33pm Thu 13 Mar 14

SgtAl says...

Where should the MUCH NEEDED new homes for Worcester be built then?
Where should the MUCH NEEDED new homes for Worcester be built then? SgtAl
  • Score: -2

8:11pm Thu 13 Mar 14

green49 says...

WHO says they are much needed???? the government? there are plenty of brown field sites that should be re-used, there are lots of big building that can be refurbished but no they want to build on green belt or green spaces as its easier to work on, Pickles is the problem here he gives permission on builds when they all get rejected by local councils yet he doesnt even know where the places are, he is letting builders who are only in it for profit of course build on flood planes and flooded areas, thats a fact, there needs to be infastrucrue in place before houses and development are done.
WHO says they are much needed???? the government? there are plenty of brown field sites that should be re-used, there are lots of big building that can be refurbished but no they want to build on green belt or green spaces as its easier to work on, Pickles is the problem here he gives permission on builds when they all get rejected by local councils yet he doesnt even know where the places are, he is letting builders who are only in it for profit of course build on flood planes and flooded areas, thats a fact, there needs to be infastrucrue in place before houses and development are done. green49
  • Score: 4

9:28am Fri 14 Mar 14

SgtAl says...

Green49; As the population increases, as does the need for additional housing stock. As a city, if Worcester wants to compete economically with other similar sized cities (Gloucester) then it will need to grow economically. It can only do that if it attracts big business, which in turn will bring increased employment thereby increasing the population. No government has said (that I am aware of) that Worcester needs increased housing, basic economics does.

I agree with your comment ref building on flood plains, that is, and always has been, a frankly stupid idea. Worcester unfortunately, finds itself on a huge flood plain, and there are very few areas that can be considered not flood plain land, Battenhall being one of them.

I also agree with you ref infrastructure. Ensuring appropriate infrastructure should be part of any plan before increasing housing stock in an area; if it is not included then the planners should reject the proposal outright, that, however, is a local government issue.

I will not address brown-field sites and redevelopment purely in the interests of brevity.

In summary (after all, this does feel like an essay), increased housing should equal increased population, which in turn (should) equal increased and better served infrastructure.
Green49; As the population increases, as does the need for additional housing stock. As a city, if Worcester wants to compete economically with other similar sized cities (Gloucester) then it will need to grow economically. It can only do that if it attracts big business, which in turn will bring increased employment thereby increasing the population. No government has said (that I am aware of) that Worcester needs increased housing, basic economics does. I agree with your comment ref building on flood plains, that is, and always has been, a frankly stupid idea. Worcester unfortunately, finds itself on a huge flood plain, and there are very few areas that can be considered not flood plain land, Battenhall being one of them. I also agree with you ref infrastructure. Ensuring appropriate infrastructure should be part of any plan before increasing housing stock in an area; if it is not included then the planners should reject the proposal outright, that, however, is a local government issue. I will not address brown-field sites and redevelopment purely in the interests of brevity. In summary (after all, this does feel like an essay), increased housing should equal increased population, which in turn (should) equal increased and better served infrastructure. SgtAl
  • Score: 1

5:54pm Fri 14 Mar 14

DarrenM says...

Firstly theres no such thing as a "rat run" everyone is entitled to use the highway.

Secondly I'd bet a pound to a penny the planning application does go through, the area's too high income to be worth upsetting the residents- much better for the plebs on warndon villages and st peters to get the new houses by them instead..
Firstly theres no such thing as a "rat run" everyone is entitled to use the highway. Secondly I'd bet a pound to a penny the planning application does go through, the area's too high income to be worth upsetting the residents- much better for the plebs on warndon villages and st peters to get the new houses by them instead.. DarrenM
  • Score: 1

5:54pm Fri 14 Mar 14

DarrenM says...

I meant "does not" go through..
I meant "does not" go through.. DarrenM
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree