A BID for 450 homes on a patch of land close to a much-loved Pershore woodland was mistakenly missed out of a major blueprint which will govern housing development for the next two decades, the Observer can reveal.
Council chiefs across south Worcestershire took the wraps off their Preferred Options document, produced as part of the review of the South Worcestershire Development Plan, this week.
The major blueprint sets out how a Government requirement to build another 14,000 new homes across Malvern Hills District, Worcester City and Wychavon by 2041 will be met.
But plans for 450 homes off Defford Road close to the Tiddesley Wood Nature Reserve, which were meant to be included, were missed out of the inital document.
The area was subject to a war of words over now defunct proposals for a Community Hall for the town and saw plans for 150 homes close by rejected in 2017.
Council chiefs admitted the error in a series of e-mails passed to the Observer and blamed ‘human error’ for the mistake which has now been rectified ahead of a meeting of Wychavon District Council on Wednesday (October 23) when the document will be discussed.
Planning chiefs across south Worcestershire assessed more than 900 sites for potential development and have put forward proposals which could see a new town close to the Worcestershire Parkway station with 5,000 homes by 2041.
A new town has also been ear-marked close to Throckmorton Airfield delivering 2,000 new homes from 2030 with the potential for further expansion in the future
Council chiefs will be asked to consider as many as 200 new homes in Evesham and 600 in Pershore.
Wychavon chiefs will debate the plans 24 hours after their Worcester counterparts and before Malvern Hills chiefs meet on Tuesday, October 29.
Should the document be approved, a six week public consultation will begin on November 4.
Coun Lucy Hodgson, chair of the SWDP Joint Advisory Panel, said “This is an important step in the process to ensure our local plan continues to allow the three South Worcestershire Councils to meet the Government’s requirement for new housing, as well as providing opportunities for companies to invest, grow and create jobs.
“A huge amount of work has gone into selecting the proposed sites and I’d urge residents to read the document in full, understand the reasoning behind these recommendations and – should they be approved – get involved in the consultation,” she added.
* What do you think? Write to the editor to the address on page eight or e-mail [email protected] with your views.
