CONTROVERSIAL plans for 105 homes and plots for travelling showpeople in Rushwick have been turned down.
Bellway Homes had planned to build dozens of homes on land between Claphill Lane and the A4440, next to the site already being developed by Lioncourt Homes.
It also wanted to create seven travelling showpeople plots on land north of the A4103, between Claphill Lane and the A44.
But hundreds of residents objected to the Bellway scheme and Malvern Hills District Council has now rejected it, saying the development “would result in significant detrimental impacts by eroding this part of the significant gap and undermining the open countryside.”
PLANS: Plans for 105 homes and plots for travelling showpeople in Rushwick have been turned down (Image: Bellway Homes)
Significant gaps are undeveloped plots of land used to stop neighbouring villages and towns from merging into each other – in this case to stop Rushwick from becoming part of Worcester.
Bellway had said the scheme would bring “numerous benefits” to the area, including the provision of 42 affordable homes, a mix of housing types, public open space including a play area, and economic benefits.
But villagers had a number of concerns.
Michael Gale said the plan would only add more pressure to infrastructure that is “already at breaking point.”
Nicole Le Poidevin said: “This would be detrimental to the wildlife in the very small village that is already fast growing for all the wrong reasons.
“The traffic would be awful for everyone all the time and the noise and light pollution would be hideous.
“The beautiful Worcestershire landscape and quaint village would be ruined and the infrastructure cannot support this.”
Missed these? July’s biggest planning stories include 800-home estate and waste plant
Developer to build 30 affordable homes on site after buying land in village
MP has specific concern over multi-million pound city regeneration scheme
Simon Holden urged the council to “listen to the village for once,” saying the plans made him fear for his family’s safety.
Andrew Maggs said: “The development is fundamentally out of character with the surrounding area and poses a direct threat to the safety and amenity of local residents.”
District planners said public benefits arising from the scheme would not outweigh the harms that would come from it.
“The proposal does not deliver sustainable development that meets the wider aspirations” of the council, they said.
