Meeting called on controversial plans

An artist’s impression of how the centre of the development proposed for Malvern could look. An artist’s impression of how the centre of the development proposed for Malvern could look.

WORCESTERSHIRE councillors have demanded an extraordinary meeting to debate a new report that could consign controversial plans for an 800-home development in Malvern to the scrapheap.

Since July, a cross-party policy group of Malvern Hills District councillors has been examining alternatives to the current housing allocations in the emerging South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP).

The group’s report has now been completed and presented to councillors – although its contents remain closely guarded from members of the public.

However, it is understood that it calls for an unpopular urban extension of 700 homes at Newland to be slashed to 250 properties, with the remainder being re-allocated to other sites in South Worcestershire.

The site is already being eyed up by developers and Gleeson Strategic Land has produced detailed plans of its vision for the land.

On Wednesday, a demand for an extraordinary meeting to consider the contents of the report and decide whether to put them out to public consultation was approved by the council. A public meeting will now take place on a date to be fixed.

Councillor Tom Wells, leader of the opposition, said the call for an extraordinary meeting had found support among members of all political parties.

“This is an unprecedented step but it demonstrates the seriousness and importance of the subject,” he said.

He said he could not comment on any of the details of the report, but was keen for it to be placed into the public domain as soon as possible.

“I am hoping we will establish a way forward in recognising and accepting the report,” he said. “If that means further, targeted public consultation, then we need to get on quickly.”

Another councillor, who asked to remain anonymous, said it was outrageous the contents of the report were being kept a secret and that such extreme measures were required to have them debated as a matter of urgency.

A further public consultation would delay the current timetable for the SWDP.

As things stand, it will be debated by the district council and Wychavon and Worcester City councils at meetings on Tuesday, November 27, and – subject to approval – sent for government inspection and a likely adoption in late 2013.

Comments(3)

More Tea Vicar says...
12:24pm Sat 20 Oct 12

Good.

So long as it doesn't mean the same number of houses will be inflicted on other areas of the county.

I think local politicians need to take time off from threatening to dig up corpses, and filling in their expenses.

They need to realise that mass housing development is bad for the area, and it needs to be made bad for them, too.

They need to know they can lose votes.

And planning officers need to know they can lose their jobs.

Allan Whitehead says...
2:05pm Sat 20 Oct 12

While one may consider certain developments unsatisfactory in a particular area. We must not lose sight of demographic growth of our population. Central government say that Local Council must have a development plan for the area it governs. We are told more housing is required for first-time buyer. After World War II, Green Belt was created to prevent Villages and Towns becoming so close together that they would eventually be joined at the hip. Many Council, have concentrated on using infill sites to reduce the number of green field sites being used.

However, infill sites are not popular with developers (insufficient Profit)
because it places to many safety regulations upon them. Central government should make funds available to make infill sites more appealing to developers, rather than allowing them to build house on greenfield sites, or site the Local Council consider being un suitable.

Andy-Apache says...
7:53am Tue 23 Oct 12

Ah, the old 'apply for an unreasonably high number, then "grudgingly accept" the number we really wanted to build' trick eh?

Doesn't change the fact that this is greenbelt, and no-one has actually come up with firm proof that the houses are necessary - other than to boost the building trade in a slow recovering economy.

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