CPRE Worcestershire

WORCESTERSHIRE
Local Groups

 

Malvern Hills

Contacts
Frank Hill 01684 575041 frank.ed.met.cpre'btinternet.com

 

The housing proposals made by the South Worcestershire Joint Core Strategy in July included plans for a larger expansion of Worcester into the Malvern Hills District than had been anticipated at the time of writing last year's report (April 2008). Probably as a result of the Issues and Options consultation in December 2007 (although there may have been other reasons), 6,500 of the 7,400 houses to be built outside the Worcester boundary were allocated to the south (in Kempsey Parish) and northwest of the city (mainly in Lower Broadheath Parish). Only two years ago, these same areas had been designated as Significant Gaps in the Local Plan. Action groups have been formed to campaign against these proposals. Apart from the loss of countryside and wildlife (the vicinity of the Laughern Brook is particularly valued), it is unlikely that either of these housing estates (being equivalent to small towns) will integrate comfortably with the city, and much infrastructure will be needed to enable the residents to move freely into and around it. The present economic downturn will limit the funding available for the road improvements and other

infrastructure necessary before house building commences.

Of the 4,900 dwellings attributed to Malvern Hills District directly, over 1,400 have already been built, are under construction or have been approved. This leaves 3,500, of which 1,600 have been proposed close to Malvern, towards Newland and Madresfield. This was anticipated a year ago, as it is consistent with the trend since the 1960s of expansion to the northeast, but there is strong opposition to the proposals due to the impact on the landscape and the loss of more good agricultural land. Although only a 10% increase to the town's housing stock, its expansion is constrained by the hills to the west, so that it is ,mushrooming' to the northeast. The further the population extends away from the historic centre, the less the benefit to Great Malvern will be, due to the congested roads through Malvern Link and Link Top. Recently it has been suggested that some houses may be built in Malvern on the radar site now owned by Qinetiq, which we tend to support.

Hence, of the 11,400 dwellings earmarked for this District already

(and the Government would prefer to add another 2,000 or so), it seems likely that at least 8,000 will have to be built on green fields - an unacceptably high proportion. We will continue to press (at the Examination in Public) for a reduction in the overall numbers and for a revision of the `large housing estate' solution in favour of smaller­scale developments using more brownfield sites and allowing for `windfalls'.

With regard to the routine monitoring of planning applications, 13 comments or objections have been issued since April 2008. These include: an apartment block in Malvern Wells (withdrawn); a new functions' room at the Masons Arms, Wichenford (revised twice); 58 live/work units at Larford Quarry near Stourport (withdrawn), and houses on the disused railway yard, Malvern Wells (revised twice, currently awaiting appeal decision). The number of planning applications in the first three months of this year was only half the number in the same period last year, probably due to the difficulty in obtaining loans.

Frank Hill