CONTROVERSIAL plans to build 200 homes on a Worcester beauty spot have been temporarily blocked a second time - with councillors today saying people "will never forgive us" if it went ahead.

Miller Homes' bid to develop Middle Battenhall Farm, which has led to around 1,000 objections in recent months, was prevented from going ahead once again this afternoon after the city's planning committee blocked it 8-2.

But rather than back an outright rejection they voted for 'minded to refuse' and have asked planning officers to come back with their views on a possible list of 10 reasons why it should not go ahead.

The decision effectively kicks it down to the road to the July planning committee - and means Miller Homes now has the right to appeal directly to national inspectors due to the absence of a firm 'yes' or 'no' within the set time limits.

The developer's bid went live in February, with the 16-week time limit on a firm decision due to expire this coming Tuesday.

The planning committee wants a firm rejection to be as 'appeal-proof' as possible, using the meeting to again heavily criticise the bid because the land is not earmarked for development in the council's own emerging plan.

Councillor Pat Agar said: "If this went ahead at least half of this landscape will be destroyed, gone forever.

"This development would damage the economic credibility of our city and our sense of who we are.

"It is blatantly, manifestly obvious it would not be in the best interests of the city, I do believe the people of Worcester would never forgive us if we allowed it to go ahead."

Councillor David Wilkinson said in the last eight years the council has looked at Middle Battenhall Farm four times and consistently excluded it for any potential development.

"I do believe there are reasons to refuse this which would stand up to judicial review," he said.

"As a principle, developing Middle Battenhall Farm clearly flies in the face of this planning authority's wishes."

During the debate Paul O'Connor, who runs the planning department, said the scheme offers 40 per cent affordable housing, insisting it was "the first time" he could recall that happening in recent years, and revealed Miller Homes would pay £1.2 million in public transport contributions.

Before today's meeting his department produced a report saying the previous reasons for refusing the development were not likely to stand up at an appeal.

Councillor Simon Cronin disagreed, saying the report "minimises and dismisses the objections" and "appears to advocate" development, insisting that ignoring concerns like flood risk is "irresponsible and stupid".

Councillor Steve Mackay said because of the fact the site is not earmarked for homes in the South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP), allowing it "would actually undermine" the council's own emerging blueprint.

The SWDP has yet to be adopted and is still sitting with a Government inspector, which is why city planners have recommended the Battenhall site is developed.

Rather than refuse it outright the committee voted 8-2 on 'minded to refuse', with only Geoff Williams and Roger Berry going against.

The refusal reasons planning officers are being asked to offer a fresh opinion on are: traffic, the impact on tourism, heritage, biodiversity damage, loss of the landscape, flood risk, sewage disposal, the access, 'prematurity' because the land is not in the SWDP, the habitat and the sheer 'weight of objection'.

The officers are also being asked to look at the whole list together, and come back with their view on if it outweighs the benefits of having 200 new homes, rather than assess each one in complete isolation.

A new vote is now expected to be taken on Thursday, July 23 once that report is complete.

The public objections include a raft of organisations like the Ramblers Association, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, the Battlefields Trust and various conservation and heritage experts as the site is home to a 900-year-old Scheduled Monument, with ancient ponds and a moat.

* To see how the planning committee went for a 'minded to refuse' decision in May click HERE and to see what the latest officers' report said before today's meeting go HERE.

* To see today's LIVE coverage of the debate follow THIS link.