DOZENS of objections have been raised over a plan to build 30 homes on green space in a village.

The homes would be built on land at Old Hills in Callow End near Worcester under plans by developer Terra but residents have said building more homes would “urbanise” the village and a new access road would be dangerous.

Objections have already been made to Malvern Hills District Council against the plan.

Felicity Kvesic of Bush Lane said she was “shocked” and “very disappointed” to see the planning application which she felt would turn Callow End into an “urban development.”

“The access road proposed is hazardous and quite frankly dangerous,” she said. “That road goes from 60 to 30 miles per hour and living right at the end of the village I witness on a daily basis cars flying through and there is no way they're doing 30.

“Add to this traffic from around 60 new vehicles it's a real concern not only for us but schoolchildren and their parents only down the road.

“I am fully aware houses need building, but location is everything, the destruction of the hedgerow, greenfield site and wildlife involved in this prospected build is another concern here.”

Richard Lancey of Upper Ferry Lane in Callow End added to the objections saying he had “major concerns” about the new access road off Upton Road and was also worried about flooding.

“The entrance/exit to the site is on a dangerous stretch of road which has a lot of speeding traffic and will necessitate the destruction of hedgerow, greenfield and wildlife habitat,” he said.

“The extra water being generated from the site will cause more problems for Upper Ferry Lane and Lower Ferry Lane adding to the flooding problems experienced during heavy rain periods.

“Callow End is a rural village and would be in danger of being turned into an urban sprawl with at least 60 new vehicles entering and exiting the village daily.”

Graeme Ruston, also of Upper Ferry Lane, added to other villagers’ “major concerns” saying he feared that allowing 30 homes to be built outside the village’s development boundary would set a dangerous precedent.