Housing plan on verge of collapse

Evesham Journal: Housing plan on verge of collapse Housing plan on verge of collapse

A HOUSING masterplan for all of South Worcestershire is on the verge of collapse after councillors in Malvern Hills voted to send it back to the drawing board.

During a five hour meeting that ended after midnight councillors shot down a motion declaring the emerging South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP) “deliverable and sound”, opting instead to call for further investigation of alternative housing sites flagged up by a council task group.

That decision destroys any hope of the SWDP being ready for sign-off and approval next month as originally planned.

And Malvern Hills District Council leader David Hughes, who had urged members against making significant changes, admitted his council’s decision could spell the end of the SWDP altogether.

During the meeting he warned that Wychavon and Worcester City councils - who have been working with Malvern Hills on the SWDP - had made it clear that they would not tolerate any delay and would go their own way should that be the case.

Coun Hughes, who is due to meet with the leaders and chief executives of the other councils later today (Wednesday), admitted: “I think it will take a few days to absorb tonight’s vote but at the moment I am not confident that Wychavon and Worcester City will remain in the process.

“It has been made absolutely clear to me that if Malvern breaks rank, as has happened, then they will be minded to pursue their own plans.”

Coun Hughes had also warned that delaying the SWDP would leave councils without recognised plans and at the mercy of the new developer-led National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) when it comes into force in March.

But Coun John Raine, who chaired the task group that produced the pivotal report, accused Coun Hughes of “calculated” scaremongering and trying to rush the SWDP through “irrespective of public opinion”.

He said his report was the first time councillors had been given a genuine choice over where housing allocations should go.

“If we cave into peer pressure we will be letting a lot of our own folk down very badly,” he added.

Coun Raine said he was “absolutely delighted” that the council had “held its nerve”.

He said he hoped Wychavon and Worcester City stayed on board with the SWDP process during the delay.

“I hope that we will stick together and that there is tolerance, patience and understanding on all sides,” he said. “But if they can do a plan on their own then so can Malvern.”

Comments (39)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:17am Wed 14 Nov 12

Worcester-Woman says...

Cllr David Hughes's crass scaremongering was pitiful. He wasted an unforgiveable amount of everyone's evening by spending an interminable length of time reading out reports that both councillors and the public had previously received.
The CPG report, led by Cllr John Raine, though late in the day, is at least an attempt to correct the shambles which is represented by MHDC's role in the SWDP and associated Significant Changes.
If nothing else, the bravery to take action, even this late in the process, gives me a glimmer of hope that at least a reasonable number of MHDC councillors realise that after six years of inadequacy from the planning officers, and complete lack of political leadership from within the council itself, there just might be a way forward.
As for the meeting itself, the monumental disorganisation and eddies of confusion which permeated every aspect of it was both staggering and embarrassing.
The fact that the members of the public present, who after all elected these councillors to their places within the group, were dismissed as 'rabble' by one particularly vitriolic councillor who had nothing beyond political posturing to add to the debate, only compounds my view that councillors should undergo stringent performance management procedures so that there is a mechanism by which they can be judged fit or unfit for office.
I was left to wonder whether the councillor in the front row who had actually fallen asleep by 9:30pm was in a much better place.
Cllr David Hughes's crass scaremongering was pitiful. He wasted an unforgiveable amount of everyone's evening by spending an interminable length of time reading out reports that both councillors and the public had previously received. The CPG report, led by Cllr John Raine, though late in the day, is at least an attempt to correct the shambles which is represented by MHDC's role in the SWDP and associated Significant Changes. If nothing else, the bravery to take action, even this late in the process, gives me a glimmer of hope that at least a reasonable number of MHDC councillors realise that after six years of inadequacy from the planning officers, and complete lack of political leadership from within the council itself, there just might be a way forward. As for the meeting itself, the monumental disorganisation and eddies of confusion which permeated every aspect of it was both staggering and embarrassing. The fact that the members of the public present, who after all elected these councillors to their places within the group, were dismissed as 'rabble' by one particularly vitriolic councillor who had nothing beyond political posturing to add to the debate, only compounds my view that councillors should undergo stringent performance management procedures so that there is a mechanism by which they can be judged fit or unfit for office. I was left to wonder whether the councillor in the front row who had actually fallen asleep by 9:30pm was in a much better place. Worcester-Woman
  • Score: 0

8:48am Wed 14 Nov 12

sarah and her chickens says...

I agree worcester woman.The meeting was a shambles and many councillor speeches were embarrassing and self congratulatory. Even on the CPG side I felt much time was wasted attacking the opposition as they called them.
Very few seemed honestly concerned about us taxpayers,to my surprise Roger Hall jones made a lot of sense!
I agree worcester woman.The meeting was a shambles and many councillor speeches were embarrassing and self congratulatory. Even on the CPG side I felt much time was wasted attacking the opposition as they called them. Very few seemed honestly concerned about us taxpayers,to my surprise Roger Hall jones made a lot of sense! sarah and her chickens
  • Score: 0

10:28am Wed 14 Nov 12

Arthur Blenkinsop says...

Both of the above posts confirm that we need more input from the public on these and other issues. Just think what would have happened if this meeting had been carried out behind closed doors! Beggars belief.
Both of the above posts confirm that we need more input from the public on these and other issues. Just think what would have happened if this meeting had been carried out behind closed doors! Beggars belief. Arthur Blenkinsop
  • Score: 0

10:29am Wed 14 Nov 12

chrism says...

Personally I am surprised this article is so polite regarding the conduct of the meeting (especially given what the journalists were tweeting during the meeting - one comment being that it was the complete shambles of the way the meeting was conducted that was the story). Everybody on all sides appeared to think that Cllr Hughes should shut up and sit down - including as noted above one councillor on his own side who fell asleep during his neverending speech. Also the leadership of the meeting was ridiculously weak - Chris Bocock, the chief executive only bothered to contribute in order to take the named vote, including at least one item which should not have been voted on given the earlier amendment.
Personally I am surprised this article is so polite regarding the conduct of the meeting (especially given what the journalists were tweeting during the meeting - one comment being that it was the complete shambles of the way the meeting was conducted that was the story). Everybody on all sides appeared to think that Cllr Hughes should shut up and sit down - including as noted above one councillor on his own side who fell asleep during his neverending speech. Also the leadership of the meeting was ridiculously weak - Chris Bocock, the chief executive only bothered to contribute in order to take the named vote, including at least one item which should not have been voted on given the earlier amendment. chrism
  • Score: 0

10:43am Wed 14 Nov 12

Realistblue says...

how on earth has something like this been messed up....
we need houses, we need employment.
beggars belief.
bow your heads in shame Malvern Council.
how on earth has something like this been messed up.... we need houses, we need employment. beggars belief. bow your heads in shame Malvern Council. Realistblue
  • Score: 0

10:44am Wed 14 Nov 12

chrism says...

...oh and a message to Malvern (and Worcester / Wychavon) councillors and officers. I'm sure you're all reading this aren't you? Now is your chance to shine and prove all the criticism and scaremongering wrong. All is not lost - as mentioned at the meeting, much of the evidence gathering and consultation for many of the sites identified in the CPG has already been done. If this really does add 10 months delay as you liked to suggest, it is then that you should be embarrassed - this is just a question of resource and willingness. The fight is done now, I look forward to much cooperation behind closed doors to progress things, and to both sides giving a bit of ground and taking a realistic approach to what is achievable.

As for Worcester and Wychavon, you must know that you will still have a plan in place sooner if you stick with the joint plan, work with and help Malvern to carry out what it has democratically decided. The MHDC vote has happened, any break away would be in your worst interests and would result in more delay before getting a local development plan in place. Nobody will thank you for cutting off your nose to spite your face - now is the time to take a pragmatic approach and do what is best for everybody, which is to back down a little from your stated positions and help progress this plan as fast as possible rather than waste more time bickering and threatening legal action.
...oh and a message to Malvern (and Worcester / Wychavon) councillors and officers. I'm sure you're all reading this aren't you? Now is your chance to shine and prove all the criticism and scaremongering wrong. All is not lost - as mentioned at the meeting, much of the evidence gathering and consultation for many of the sites identified in the CPG has already been done. If this really does add 10 months delay as you liked to suggest, it is then that you should be embarrassed - this is just a question of resource and willingness. The fight is done now, I look forward to much cooperation behind closed doors to progress things, and to both sides giving a bit of ground and taking a realistic approach to what is achievable. As for Worcester and Wychavon, you must know that you will still have a plan in place sooner if you stick with the joint plan, work with and help Malvern to carry out what it has democratically decided. The MHDC vote has happened, any break away would be in your worst interests and would result in more delay before getting a local development plan in place. Nobody will thank you for cutting off your nose to spite your face - now is the time to take a pragmatic approach and do what is best for everybody, which is to back down a little from your stated positions and help progress this plan as fast as possible rather than waste more time bickering and threatening legal action. chrism
  • Score: 0

10:50am Wed 14 Nov 12

Worcester-Woman says...

Realistblue wrote:
how on earth has something like this been messed up....
we need houses, we need employment.
beggars belief.
bow your heads in shame Malvern Council.
What's shameful about exposing six years' worth of planning officers' woeful inadequacy, compounded by weak political leadership of the council? I'm not saying we don't need houses or employment, just that the process by which the plans were made over the last six years is a fiasco. At last some councillors have had the guts to stand up and say it out loud.
[quote][p][bold]Realistblue[/bold] wrote: how on earth has something like this been messed up.... we need houses, we need employment. beggars belief. bow your heads in shame Malvern Council.[/p][/quote]What's shameful about exposing six years' worth of planning officers' woeful inadequacy, compounded by weak political leadership of the council? I'm not saying we don't need houses or employment, just that the process by which the plans were made over the last six years is a fiasco. At last some councillors have had the guts to stand up and say it out loud. Worcester-Woman
  • Score: 0

10:52am Wed 14 Nov 12

Eugene Fraxby says...

A laughable and negligent decision.

The consequences being that Malvern will now effectively be planning by appeal. Appeals that they will lose due to their inability to prove a future housing supply.

I also understand that Malvern will now have to take on another 2,500 homes that were otherwise to be allocated to Worcester and Wychavon.

I hope the 'PR' is worth it to the councillors involved and that they will stand up and be counted when planning permission is granted on inappropriate greenfield sites dues to the council's inability to prove a future housing supply.
A laughable and negligent decision. The consequences being that Malvern will now effectively be planning by appeal. Appeals that they will lose due to their inability to prove a future housing supply. I also understand that Malvern will now have to take on another 2,500 homes that were otherwise to be allocated to Worcester and Wychavon. I hope the 'PR' is worth it to the councillors involved and that they will stand up and be counted when planning permission is granted on inappropriate greenfield sites dues to the council's inability to prove a future housing supply. Eugene Fraxby
  • Score: 0

10:56am Wed 14 Nov 12

MrStJohns says...

Eugene Fraxby wrote:
A laughable and negligent decision.

The consequences being that Malvern will now effectively be planning by appeal. Appeals that they will lose due to their inability to prove a future housing supply.

I also understand that Malvern will now have to take on another 2,500 homes that were otherwise to be allocated to Worcester and Wychavon.

I hope the 'PR' is worth it to the councillors involved and that they will stand up and be counted when planning permission is granted on inappropriate greenfield sites dues to the council's inability to prove a future housing supply.
thats the truth of the matter, what was proposed before allowed all three councils involved to show how and where new housing stock would be built. now due to malvern hills council, as above planning could be given anywhere developers feel they would like it and will most likely get because there is now no other plan.

very poor forward thinking and in word selfish.
[quote][p][bold]Eugene Fraxby[/bold] wrote: A laughable and negligent decision. The consequences being that Malvern will now effectively be planning by appeal. Appeals that they will lose due to their inability to prove a future housing supply. I also understand that Malvern will now have to take on another 2,500 homes that were otherwise to be allocated to Worcester and Wychavon. I hope the 'PR' is worth it to the councillors involved and that they will stand up and be counted when planning permission is granted on inappropriate greenfield sites dues to the council's inability to prove a future housing supply.[/p][/quote]thats the truth of the matter, what was proposed before allowed all three councils involved to show how and where new housing stock would be built. now due to malvern hills council, as above planning could be given anywhere developers feel they would like it and will most likely get because there is now no other plan. very poor forward thinking and in word selfish. MrStJohns
  • Score: 0

10:59am Wed 14 Nov 12

Eugene Fraxby says...

Worcester-Woman wrote:
Realistblue wrote: how on earth has something like this been messed up.... we need houses, we need employment. beggars belief. bow your heads in shame Malvern Council.
What's shameful about exposing six years' worth of planning officers' woeful inadequacy, compounded by weak political leadership of the council? I'm not saying we don't need houses or employment, just that the process by which the plans were made over the last six years is a fiasco. At last some councillors have had the guts to stand up and say it out loud.
How has this decision exposed anything other than certain Malvern councilors' idiocy at waiting until this point to put forward their unevidenced alternative to a plan that has been 6 years and multiple consultations in the making?

A joke.
[quote][p][bold]Worcester-Woman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Realistblue[/bold] wrote: how on earth has something like this been messed up.... we need houses, we need employment. beggars belief. bow your heads in shame Malvern Council.[/p][/quote]What's shameful about exposing six years' worth of planning officers' woeful inadequacy, compounded by weak political leadership of the council? I'm not saying we don't need houses or employment, just that the process by which the plans were made over the last six years is a fiasco. At last some councillors have had the guts to stand up and say it out loud.[/p][/quote]How has this decision exposed anything other than certain Malvern councilors' idiocy at waiting until this point to put forward their unevidenced alternative to a plan that has been 6 years and multiple consultations in the making? A joke. Eugene Fraxby
  • Score: 0

11:15am Wed 14 Nov 12

Worcester-Woman says...

Eugene Fraxby wrote:
Worcester-Woman wrote:
Realistblue wrote: how on earth has something like this been messed up.... we need houses, we need employment. beggars belief. bow your heads in shame Malvern Council.
What's shameful about exposing six years' worth of planning officers' woeful inadequacy, compounded by weak political leadership of the council? I'm not saying we don't need houses or employment, just that the process by which the plans were made over the last six years is a fiasco. At last some councillors have had the guts to stand up and say it out loud.
How has this decision exposed anything other than certain Malvern councilors' idiocy at waiting until this point to put forward their unevidenced alternative to a plan that has been 6 years and multiple consultations in the making?

A joke.
Perhaps they laboured under the misapprehension that the planners actually knew what they were doing. It is clear they did not, or we would have transparency over the decision making process over which land areas put forward in the SHLAA made it into the plan and which did not. Perhaps someone should ask the question why, of a hundred possible house allocations within the Leader of the Council's area, a grand total of a big fat zero went on to be included in the plan. If I were, like Shropshire residents, for example, privy to a clear, publicly-available set of criteria on which every site was judged, then accepted or rejected on its merits, then I may be in a better position to judge if this is fair. With that lack of transparency, I am free to speculate whether Cllr David Hughes's back yard is rather more sacred than my own. As for the planning process itself, without clarity and transparency, it is at best an obscene game of pin the tail on the donkey, and at worst a golden door behind which the select few are allowed to set their own agendas.
[quote][p][bold]Eugene Fraxby[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Worcester-Woman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Realistblue[/bold] wrote: how on earth has something like this been messed up.... we need houses, we need employment. beggars belief. bow your heads in shame Malvern Council.[/p][/quote]What's shameful about exposing six years' worth of planning officers' woeful inadequacy, compounded by weak political leadership of the council? I'm not saying we don't need houses or employment, just that the process by which the plans were made over the last six years is a fiasco. At last some councillors have had the guts to stand up and say it out loud.[/p][/quote]How has this decision exposed anything other than certain Malvern councilors' idiocy at waiting until this point to put forward their unevidenced alternative to a plan that has been 6 years and multiple consultations in the making? A joke.[/p][/quote]Perhaps they laboured under the misapprehension that the planners actually knew what they were doing. It is clear they did not, or we would have transparency over the decision making process over which land areas put forward in the SHLAA made it into the plan and which did not. Perhaps someone should ask the question why, of a hundred possible house allocations within the Leader of the Council's area, a grand total of a big fat zero went on to be included in the plan. If I were, like Shropshire residents, for example, privy to a clear, publicly-available set of criteria on which every site was judged, then accepted or rejected on its merits, then I may be in a better position to judge if this is fair. With that lack of transparency, I am free to speculate whether Cllr David Hughes's back yard is rather more sacred than my own. As for the planning process itself, without clarity and transparency, it is at best an obscene game of pin the tail on the donkey, and at worst a golden door behind which the select few are allowed to set their own agendas. Worcester-Woman
  • Score: 0

1:42pm Wed 14 Nov 12

mrbones says...

What every opinion you may have, it is now open season for housing developers in Malvern. MHDC will need to sort their own patch quickly!

If they cannot prove they have that future sites earmarked for development, then it will prove difficult to deny planning permission.
What every opinion you may have, it is now open season for housing developers in Malvern. MHDC will need to sort their own patch quickly! If they cannot prove they have that future sites earmarked for development, then it will prove difficult to deny planning permission. mrbones
  • Score: 0

3:37pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Casmal says...

What an incredibly difficult choice for Councillors - to stick with a plan that they know is unrealistic - think infrastructure - and end up with certain disaster or go for a better long-term solution and risk leaving themselves open to "ad hoc" planning applications in the meantime.

Yes, they have left it late. Yes, more of them should have pushed and pressed the officers for information earlier, but why was the whole thing shrouded in such mystery and kept from Councillors for so long? Why were Councillors only presented with the plan one week before the July Council meeting? Why did didn't Cllr. Hughes do more to get it before Councillors earlier? Why didn't the officers? In whose interest was it to delay the SWDP until it was deemed too late to do anything else?

The Officers' responses to residents' feedback was shameful - about 5-6 stock phrases used over and over again, regardless of relevance. Excuses for not incorporating changes were that no other evidence based, sound alternatives were put forward. Do they really expect residents to have the facilities to do this? Isn't this what
we pay our officers for?

Both councillors and officers have a lot to answer for. Officers need to be more open to ideas through MEANINGFUL consultation with ALL parties and councillors need to need to understand the councillor/officer relationship and be more proactive in their role wihin this relationship. The way the code of conduct is being interpretted and used is not in the best interests of democracy.

Despite the very real risks, I believe the right decision was taken last night. It was a courageous decision. This is too important, beautiful and unique an area, which the SWDP would have spoilt for ever.
What an incredibly difficult choice for Councillors - to stick with a plan that they know is unrealistic - think infrastructure - and end up with certain disaster or go for a better long-term solution and risk leaving themselves open to "ad hoc" planning applications in the meantime. Yes, they have left it late. Yes, more of them should have pushed and pressed the officers for information earlier, but why was the whole thing shrouded in such mystery and kept from Councillors for so long? Why were Councillors only presented with the plan one week before the July Council meeting? Why did didn't Cllr. Hughes do more to get it before Councillors earlier? Why didn't the officers? In whose interest was it to delay the SWDP until it was deemed too late to do anything else? The Officers' responses to residents' feedback was shameful - about 5-6 stock phrases used over and over again, regardless of relevance. Excuses for not incorporating changes were that no other evidence based, sound alternatives were put forward. Do they really expect residents to have the facilities to do this? Isn't this what we pay our officers for? Both councillors and officers have a lot to answer for. Officers need to be more open to ideas through MEANINGFUL consultation with ALL parties and councillors need to need to understand the councillor/officer relationship and be more proactive in their role wihin this relationship. The way the code of conduct is being interpretted and used is not in the best interests of democracy. Despite the very real risks, I believe the right decision was taken last night. It was a courageous decision. This is too important, beautiful and unique an area, which the SWDP would have spoilt for ever. Casmal
  • Score: 0

3:57pm Wed 14 Nov 12

DeBrian Thronker says...

Worcester doesn't need more houses because we simply don't have the infrastructure to support them! Our roads are already jammed, schools are overflowing and hospital waiting times are ridiculous. Worcester needs to make the most of what it already has, and develop its industry and commerce rather than build housing estates on greenbelts. We won't be creating new communities, rather lifeless clusters of houses like the Warndon Villages with very little character and no purpose other than living.
Worcester doesn't need more houses because we simply don't have the infrastructure to support them! Our roads are already jammed, schools are overflowing and hospital waiting times are ridiculous. Worcester needs to make the most of what it already has, and develop its industry and commerce rather than build housing estates on greenbelts. We won't be creating new communities, rather lifeless clusters of houses like the Warndon Villages with very little character and no purpose other than living. DeBrian Thronker
  • Score: 0

5:58pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Illogik says...

I reckon a lot of the houses will be used to re-home the folk that get kicked out of the South East when their housing benefit gets capped.
I reckon a lot of the houses will be used to re-home the folk that get kicked out of the South East when their housing benefit gets capped. Illogik
  • Score: 0

6:10pm Wed 14 Nov 12

skychip says...

Good letter DeBrian Thronker, wholeheartedly agree. Worcester cannot support all these extra houses until infrastructure etc. sorted out.
Good letter DeBrian Thronker, wholeheartedly agree. Worcester cannot support all these extra houses until infrastructure etc. sorted out. skychip
  • Score: 0

6:21pm Wed 14 Nov 12

farmeralan1963 says...

Well all I can say is that this shambolic state of affairs represents yet again what is wrong with councils and merely highlights the ineptitude of council officers which led to councillors making this decision at the 11th hour. Those officers responsible should be accountable and heads should roll. Heaven knows how much all of this has cost the tax payer.
Well all I can say is that this shambolic state of affairs represents yet again what is wrong with councils and merely highlights the ineptitude of council officers which led to councillors making this decision at the 11th hour. Those officers responsible should be accountable and heads should roll. Heaven knows how much all of this has cost the tax payer. farmeralan1963
  • Score: 0

6:33pm Wed 14 Nov 12

sarah and her chickens says...

farmeralan1963 wrote:
Well all I can say is that this shambolic state of affairs represents yet again what is wrong with councils and merely highlights the ineptitude of council officers which led to councillors making this decision at the 11th hour. Those officers responsible should be accountable and heads should roll. Heaven knows how much all of this has cost the tax payer.
I agree Mr Bocock and Mr Williams should be held to task for this.As should the Councillors for not doing what they were elected to do and represent us.Not sit and wait for the information to arrive but show a proactive interest.
Maybe now they have found their b******s they will keep digging into just what else our officers have been up to.
[quote][p][bold]farmeralan1963[/bold] wrote: Well all I can say is that this shambolic state of affairs represents yet again what is wrong with councils and merely highlights the ineptitude of council officers which led to councillors making this decision at the 11th hour. Those officers responsible should be accountable and heads should roll. Heaven knows how much all of this has cost the tax payer.[/p][/quote]I agree Mr Bocock and Mr Williams should be held to task for this.As should the Councillors for not doing what they were elected to do and represent us.Not sit and wait for the information to arrive but show a proactive interest. Maybe now they have found their b******s they will keep digging into just what else our officers have been up to. sarah and her chickens
  • Score: 0

10:05pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Eugene Fraxby says...

DeBrian Thronker wrote:
Worcester doesn't need more houses because we simply don't have the infrastructure to support them! Our roads are already jammed, schools are overflowing and hospital waiting times are ridiculous. Worcester needs to make the most of what it already has, and develop its industry and commerce rather than build housing estates on greenbelts. We won't be creating new communities, rather lifeless clusters of houses like the Warndon Villages with very little character and no purpose other than living.
That's all very well to say but typical of the ignorance that surrounds the planning system. Councils have housing targets foisted upon them. If they don't plan for them there can be no plan, which leads to planning by appeal until the targets are met. And planning inspectors will show no mercy!

I wait with interest to see the impact of this process on Malvern- I suspect some very inappropriate greenfield sites will now fall prey to housing developers.

I feel for Malvern residents.
[quote][p][bold]DeBrian Thronker[/bold] wrote: Worcester doesn't need more houses because we simply don't have the infrastructure to support them! Our roads are already jammed, schools are overflowing and hospital waiting times are ridiculous. Worcester needs to make the most of what it already has, and develop its industry and commerce rather than build housing estates on greenbelts. We won't be creating new communities, rather lifeless clusters of houses like the Warndon Villages with very little character and no purpose other than living.[/p][/quote]That's all very well to say but typical of the ignorance that surrounds the planning system. Councils have housing targets foisted upon them. If they don't plan for them there can be no plan, which leads to planning by appeal until the targets are met. And planning inspectors will show no mercy! I wait with interest to see the impact of this process on Malvern- I suspect some very inappropriate greenfield sites will now fall prey to housing developers. I feel for Malvern residents. Eugene Fraxby
  • Score: 0

10:54pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Bab the Builder says...

Thanks MHDC. My share price has just quadrupled.
I am really relishing the prospect of the planning inspectorate approving every planning application that you have refused, regardless of its effect on transport, heritage, environment, and everything else. I'm the cat who has infinite cream. I'll build over graves as well, and you can't stop me anymore.
Yours greedily
Bob.
Thanks MHDC. My share price has just quadrupled. I am really relishing the prospect of the planning inspectorate approving every planning application that you have refused, regardless of its effect on transport, heritage, environment, and everything else. I'm the cat who has infinite cream. I'll build over graves as well, and you can't stop me anymore. Yours greedily Bob. Bab the Builder
  • Score: 0

10:56pm Wed 14 Nov 12

BadgerMash says...

There is a housinng crisis. Two Things are urgently needed:

1) A large amount of truly affordable (mostly rented) housing of reasonable quality for local people as soon as possible.

2) Sensitive but robust policies to reverse the unsustainable continuing rise in local population levels (due both to the birthrate and net migration into the area.

Our representatives should attend to these matters immediately, or resign.

What they should not be doing is pandering to the wild fantasies of greed emanating from property speculators and money-lenders.

Represent the ordinary people of this area or clear off!
There is a housinng crisis. Two Things are urgently needed: 1) A large amount of truly affordable (mostly rented) housing of reasonable quality for local people as soon as possible. 2) Sensitive but robust policies to reverse the unsustainable continuing rise in local population levels (due both to the birthrate and net migration into the area. Our representatives should attend to these matters immediately, or resign. What they should not be doing is pandering to the wild fantasies of greed emanating from property speculators and money-lenders. Represent the ordinary people of this area or clear off! BadgerMash
  • Score: 0

10:57pm Wed 14 Nov 12

accobra1 says...

Been interested to read through all these comments. I have also read the report which was put to MHDC as an alternative to the SWDP. This report recommended some really viable alternatives for Malvern which avoids the imposition of mega housing development around Newlands and splits the housing targets around smaller sites. MHDC had some 'bottle' to reject the SWDP proposal! Well done!! And we should not be afraid that, because there is no Plan,developers.are going to have a 'free for all' around our beautiful county.
Been interested to read through all these comments. I have also read the report which was put to MHDC as an alternative to the SWDP. This report recommended some really viable alternatives for Malvern which avoids the imposition of mega housing development around Newlands and splits the housing targets around smaller sites. MHDC had some 'bottle' to reject the SWDP proposal! Well done!! And we should not be afraid that, because there is no Plan,developers.are going to have a 'free for all' around our beautiful county. accobra1
  • Score: 0

10:57pm Wed 14 Nov 12

accobra1 says...

Been interested to read through all these comments. I have also read the report which was put to MHDC as an alternative to the SWDP. This report recommended some really viable alternatives for Malvern which avoids the imposition of mega housing development around Newlands and splits the housing targets around smaller sites. MHDC had some 'bottle' to reject the SWDP proposal! Well done!! And we should not be afraid that, because there is no Plan,developers.are going to have a 'free for all' around our beautiful county.
Been interested to read through all these comments. I have also read the report which was put to MHDC as an alternative to the SWDP. This report recommended some really viable alternatives for Malvern which avoids the imposition of mega housing development around Newlands and splits the housing targets around smaller sites. MHDC had some 'bottle' to reject the SWDP proposal! Well done!! And we should not be afraid that, because there is no Plan,developers.are going to have a 'free for all' around our beautiful county. accobra1
  • Score: 0

6:47am Thu 15 Nov 12

Worcester-Woman says...

BadgerMash wrote:
There is a housinng crisis. Two Things are urgently needed:

1) A large amount of truly affordable (mostly rented) housing of reasonable quality for local people as soon as possible.

2) Sensitive but robust policies to reverse the unsustainable continuing rise in local population levels (due both to the birthrate and net migration into the area.

Our representatives should attend to these matters immediately, or resign.

What they should not be doing is pandering to the wild fantasies of greed emanating from property speculators and money-lenders.

Represent the ordinary people of this area or clear off!
I'm not quite sure how you would be expecting our representitives to manage 2) ?
Perhaps they could build a high security perimeter fence, and sterilize the population within it?
Also, bearing in mind that in the Malvern Hills area, the impact of an expanding older population due to people living longer is even more significant than Worcester City or Wychavon, perhaps you could suggest they arrange to have everyone over a certain age put to sleep.
[quote][p][bold]BadgerMash[/bold] wrote: There is a housinng crisis. Two Things are urgently needed: 1) A large amount of truly affordable (mostly rented) housing of reasonable quality for local people as soon as possible. 2) Sensitive but robust policies to reverse the unsustainable continuing rise in local population levels (due both to the birthrate and net migration into the area. Our representatives should attend to these matters immediately, or resign. What they should not be doing is pandering to the wild fantasies of greed emanating from property speculators and money-lenders. Represent the ordinary people of this area or clear off![/p][/quote]I'm not quite sure how you would be expecting our representitives to manage 2) ? Perhaps they could build a high security perimeter fence, and sterilize the population within it? Also, bearing in mind that in the Malvern Hills area, the impact of an expanding older population due to people living longer is even more significant than Worcester City or Wychavon, perhaps you could suggest they arrange to have everyone over a certain age put to sleep. Worcester-Woman
  • Score: 0

7:57am Thu 15 Nov 12

BadgerMash says...

Worcester-Woman wrote:
BadgerMash wrote:
There is a housinng crisis. Two Things are urgently needed:

1) A large amount of truly affordable (mostly rented) housing of reasonable quality for local people as soon as possible.

2) Sensitive but robust policies to reverse the unsustainable continuing rise in local population levels (due both to the birthrate and net migration into the area.

Our representatives should attend to these matters immediately, or resign.

What they should not be doing is pandering to the wild fantasies of greed emanating from property speculators and money-lenders.

Represent the ordinary people of this area or clear off!
I'm not quite sure how you would be expecting our representitives to manage 2) ?
Perhaps they could build a high security perimeter fence, and sterilize the population within it?
Also, bearing in mind that in the Malvern Hills area, the impact of an expanding older population due to people living longer is even more significant than Worcester City or Wychavon, perhaps you could suggest they arrange to have everyone over a certain age put to sleep.
A typical tabloid sensationalist reaction to a call that we, and our representatives should take responsibility for unsustainable population growth - which is the root of the present housing crisis and virtually all our other major social, environmental and economic problems .

There are many ways in which local authorities can sensitively but robustly encourage a fall in population - not least by encouraging smaller families through education and discouraging migration into the area. Obviously many more radical - but sensitive and entirely moral - policies would require national government to come to its senses; but the more local authorities stop sticking their heads in the sand about unsustainable population levels, the greater the likelihood of Westminster behaving responsibly. If we don't address our population crisis now, it will eventually make life very unpleasant indeed for all of us. Housing is just the merest whiff of a very big iceberg.
[quote][p][bold]Worcester-Woman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BadgerMash[/bold] wrote: There is a housinng crisis. Two Things are urgently needed: 1) A large amount of truly affordable (mostly rented) housing of reasonable quality for local people as soon as possible. 2) Sensitive but robust policies to reverse the unsustainable continuing rise in local population levels (due both to the birthrate and net migration into the area. Our representatives should attend to these matters immediately, or resign. What they should not be doing is pandering to the wild fantasies of greed emanating from property speculators and money-lenders. Represent the ordinary people of this area or clear off![/p][/quote]I'm not quite sure how you would be expecting our representitives to manage 2) ? Perhaps they could build a high security perimeter fence, and sterilize the population within it? Also, bearing in mind that in the Malvern Hills area, the impact of an expanding older population due to people living longer is even more significant than Worcester City or Wychavon, perhaps you could suggest they arrange to have everyone over a certain age put to sleep.[/p][/quote]A typical tabloid sensationalist reaction to a call that we, and our representatives should take responsibility for unsustainable population growth - which is the root of the present housing crisis and virtually all our other major social, environmental and economic problems . There are many ways in which local authorities can sensitively but robustly encourage a fall in population - not least by encouraging smaller families through education and discouraging migration into the area. Obviously many more radical - but sensitive and entirely moral - policies would require national government to come to its senses; but the more local authorities stop sticking their heads in the sand about unsustainable population levels, the greater the likelihood of Westminster behaving responsibly. If we don't address our population crisis now, it will eventually make life very unpleasant indeed for all of us. Housing is just the merest whiff of a very big iceberg. BadgerMash
  • Score: 0

8:28am Thu 15 Nov 12

More Tea Vicar says...

The big problem with the whole plan is that it is based on a big fat LIE.

The LIE is that it is in any way aimed at meeting local needs.

It isn't.

The plan is all about paving over the county to provide housing for people from elsewhere in the UK, or immigrants.

The only people that will profit are planning officers - the kind of people prepared to line their pockets with our tax money whilst watching local government services be cut.

And their cronies in the property development and construction sectors.

The plan should be dropped, and the focus should be on border controls and an immigration ban, and re-developing our towns and cities in a way and on a scale that the general population needs.
The big problem with the whole plan is that it is based on a big fat LIE. The LIE is that it is in any way aimed at meeting local needs. It isn't. The plan is all about paving over the county to provide housing for people from elsewhere in the UK, or immigrants. The only people that will profit are planning officers - the kind of people prepared to line their pockets with our tax money whilst watching local government services be cut. And their cronies in the property development and construction sectors. The plan should be dropped, and the focus should be on border controls and an immigration ban, and re-developing our towns and cities in a way and on a scale that the general population needs. More Tea Vicar
  • Score: 0

9:36am Thu 15 Nov 12

Eugene Fraxby says...

More Tea Vicar wrote:
The big problem with the whole plan is that it is based on a big fat LIE. The LIE is that it is in any way aimed at meeting local needs. It isn't. The plan is all about paving over the county to provide housing for people from elsewhere in the UK, or immigrants. The only people that will profit are planning officers - the kind of people prepared to line their pockets with our tax money whilst watching local government services be cut. And their cronies in the property development and construction sectors. The plan should be dropped, and the focus should be on border controls and an immigration ban, and re-developing our towns and cities in a way and on a scale that the general population needs.
Put the tin foil hat away.

It sounds like your issue is with the national government and the housing targets they have set that local council's must work towards.

If you want to prevent immigration into the UK then fine but don't pretend that is in any way related to the local planning system.

Planning officers tend to be development industry's sworn enemies. Often the only barrier to development. Your ignorance is embarrassing and your accusations of corruption are unbecoming.
[quote][p][bold]More Tea Vicar[/bold] wrote: The big problem with the whole plan is that it is based on a big fat LIE. The LIE is that it is in any way aimed at meeting local needs. It isn't. The plan is all about paving over the county to provide housing for people from elsewhere in the UK, or immigrants. The only people that will profit are planning officers - the kind of people prepared to line their pockets with our tax money whilst watching local government services be cut. And their cronies in the property development and construction sectors. The plan should be dropped, and the focus should be on border controls and an immigration ban, and re-developing our towns and cities in a way and on a scale that the general population needs.[/p][/quote]Put the tin foil hat away. It sounds like your issue is with the national government and the housing targets they have set that local council's must work towards. If you want to prevent immigration into the UK then fine but don't pretend that is in any way related to the local planning system. Planning officers tend to be development industry's sworn enemies. Often the only barrier to development. Your ignorance is embarrassing and your accusations of corruption are unbecoming. Eugene Fraxby
  • Score: 0

9:59am Thu 15 Nov 12

Peter WR5 says...

Dearie me! This is all further evidence of the need for Worcestershire to be made a unitary authority to increase the overall quality and competency of elected representatives by reducing the number of seats available for disobliging councillors who consider they are elected to grandstand, filibuster, misrepresent or ‘rest their eyes’ during proceedings.
Dearie me! This is all further evidence of the need for Worcestershire to be made a unitary authority to increase the overall quality and competency of elected representatives by reducing the number of seats available for disobliging councillors who consider they are elected to grandstand, filibuster, misrepresent or ‘rest their eyes’ during proceedings. Peter WR5
  • Score: 0

10:35am Thu 15 Nov 12

More Tea Vicar says...

Eugene Fraxby wrote:
More Tea Vicar wrote:
The big problem with the whole plan is that it is based on a big fat LIE. The LIE is that it is in any way aimed at meeting local needs. It isn't. The plan is all about paving over the county to provide housing for people from elsewhere in the UK, or immigrants. The only people that will profit are planning officers - the kind of people prepared to line their pockets with our tax money whilst watching local government services be cut. And their cronies in the property development and construction sectors. The plan should be dropped, and the focus should be on border controls and an immigration ban, and re-developing our towns and cities in a way and on a scale that the general population needs.
Put the tin foil hat away.

It sounds like your issue is with the national government and the housing targets they have set that local council's must work towards.

If you want to prevent immigration into the UK then fine but don't pretend that is in any way related to the local planning system.

Planning officers tend to be development industry's sworn enemies. Often the only barrier to development. Your ignorance is embarrassing and your accusations of corruption are unbecoming.
i beg to differ.

As I pointed out, the 'plan' is utter nonsense, being sold by the planning officers - and they really did put a lot of effort into selling it, way more than the council does into most things it's supposed to do. The idea of planning officers as the builders' sworn enemies is plainly ridiculous.

The planning officers have spent a lot of time and effort pushing this through, often against obvious opposition from local people, the plebs, if you like.

The only local needs it meets are those of the planning officers to stay in a job and drawing a salary.

You might sympathise with the planning officers and share their and the builders' agenda. But don't insult the intelligence of those who can see through the plan and the planners.

You only have to see the way the SWDP was handled, and the outcome of the planners' collective incompetence (from the poorly designed roads and estates) to know these people do not exactly have a monopoly on wisdom.
[quote][p][bold]Eugene Fraxby[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]More Tea Vicar[/bold] wrote: The big problem with the whole plan is that it is based on a big fat LIE. The LIE is that it is in any way aimed at meeting local needs. It isn't. The plan is all about paving over the county to provide housing for people from elsewhere in the UK, or immigrants. The only people that will profit are planning officers - the kind of people prepared to line their pockets with our tax money whilst watching local government services be cut. And their cronies in the property development and construction sectors. The plan should be dropped, and the focus should be on border controls and an immigration ban, and re-developing our towns and cities in a way and on a scale that the general population needs.[/p][/quote]Put the tin foil hat away. It sounds like your issue is with the national government and the housing targets they have set that local council's must work towards. If you want to prevent immigration into the UK then fine but don't pretend that is in any way related to the local planning system. Planning officers tend to be development industry's sworn enemies. Often the only barrier to development. Your ignorance is embarrassing and your accusations of corruption are unbecoming.[/p][/quote]i beg to differ. As I pointed out, the 'plan' is utter nonsense, being sold by the planning officers - and they really did put a lot of effort into selling it, way more than the council does into most things it's supposed to do. The idea of planning officers as the builders' sworn enemies is plainly ridiculous. The planning officers have spent a lot of time and effort pushing this through, often against obvious opposition from local people, the plebs, if you like. The only local needs it meets are those of the planning officers to stay in a job and drawing a salary. You might sympathise with the planning officers and share their and the builders' agenda. But don't insult the intelligence of those who can see through the plan and the planners. You only have to see the way the SWDP was handled, and the outcome of the planners' collective incompetence (from the poorly designed roads and estates) to know these people do not exactly have a monopoly on wisdom. More Tea Vicar
  • Score: 0

11:52am Thu 15 Nov 12

Eugene Fraxby says...

@ moreteavicar

The only 'agenda' I have is to see a plan in place so that planning in Worcester (and Malvern & Wychavon) isn't done on appeal.

The real agenda is of the moronic Malvern councillors who want the good PR of preventing a large development in Malvern.

Newlands will still go ahead and Malvern will end up with more, not fewer, large housing sites as a result.

I just hope Worcester isn't screwed over by developers as a result of all this like Malvern now will be.
@ moreteavicar The only 'agenda' I have is to see a plan in place so that planning in Worcester (and Malvern & Wychavon) isn't done on appeal. The real agenda is of the moronic Malvern councillors who want the good PR of preventing a large development in Malvern. Newlands will still go ahead and Malvern will end up with more, not fewer, large housing sites as a result. I just hope Worcester isn't screwed over by developers as a result of all this like Malvern now will be. Eugene Fraxby
  • Score: 0

12:02pm Thu 15 Nov 12

Eugene Fraxby says...

P.S. a sign of things to come:

http://www.stratford
.gov.uk/news/news.cf
m/item/113205

Oh joy.
P.S. a sign of things to come: http://www.stratford .gov.uk/news/news.cf m/item/113205 Oh joy. Eugene Fraxby
  • Score: 0

1:38pm Thu 15 Nov 12

mrbones says...

Eugene Fraxby wrote:
P.S. a sign of things to come: http://www.stratford .gov.uk/news/news.cf m/item/113205 Oh joy.
Agreed. As I said above, MHDC had better come up with something quickly otherwise it will be open season for housing developers.

What people dont seem to realise this is already happening, like the recent planning approval in Honeybourne and the link above show.

I highly doubt Eric Pickles is going to show much sympathy to a council that has taken this long to change its mind.
[quote][p][bold]Eugene Fraxby[/bold] wrote: P.S. a sign of things to come: http://www.stratford .gov.uk/news/news.cf m/item/113205 Oh joy.[/p][/quote]Agreed. As I said above, MHDC had better come up with something quickly otherwise it will be open season for housing developers. What people dont seem to realise this is already happening, like the recent planning approval in Honeybourne and the link above show. I highly doubt Eric Pickles is going to show much sympathy to a council that has taken this long to change its mind. mrbones
  • Score: 0

2:14pm Fri 16 Nov 12

MrCreosote says...

Another example of tin-pot local politicians caving in to their NIMBY constituents. The other two parties, Worcester and Wychavon are absolutely fuming – Wychavon’s press release has described Malvern’s decision as “reckless”.

I would say that is putting it mildly!

The damage this sort of stupid decision is doing to the local and national economy is incalculable.

I not only feel sorry for the planning officers, who have put in all the work, but also all the members of the public who spent hours attending meetings, reponding to consultations etc over a three year period.

No wonder the country is going down the toilet!
Another example of tin-pot local politicians caving in to their NIMBY constituents. The other two parties, Worcester and Wychavon are absolutely fuming – Wychavon’s press release has described Malvern’s decision as “reckless”. I would say that is putting it mildly! The damage this sort of stupid decision is doing to the local and national economy is incalculable. I not only feel sorry for the planning officers, who have put in all the work, but also all the members of the public who spent hours attending meetings, reponding to consultations etc over a three year period. No wonder the country is going down the toilet! MrCreosote
  • Score: 0

4:46pm Fri 16 Nov 12

Casmal says...

NIMBY, eh? Well, if that means we don't want to be permanently gridlocked in our town, with no-one able to get in or out along the A4440, then yes, we are guilty.

As for feeling sorry for the planning officers, if they had listened to and acted in the comments submitted through the consulation, we wouldn't be in this mess. Similarly, presenting the plan to Councillors just one week before the Council meeting at which they needed a decision was unhelpful.

Not that I am defending Councillors, who should undoubtedly have kept a much closer eye on their officers and ensured they were taking the consultation seriously.

In the alternative proposals, Malvern is not looking to reduce the number of houses built within their area, despite the fact that they are helping Worcester, by taking on some of their housing needs. We are merely looking to implement a more practical plan, one which allows all residents, both current and prospective, to enjoy their environment and travel relatively freely.
NIMBY, eh? Well, if that means we don't want to be permanently gridlocked in our town, with no-one able to get in or out along the A4440, then yes, we are guilty. As for feeling sorry for the planning officers, if they had listened to and acted in the comments submitted through the consulation, we wouldn't be in this mess. Similarly, presenting the plan to Councillors just one week before the Council meeting at which they needed a decision was unhelpful. Not that I am defending Councillors, who should undoubtedly have kept a much closer eye on their officers and ensured they were taking the consultation seriously. In the alternative proposals, Malvern is not looking to reduce the number of houses built within their area, despite the fact that they are helping Worcester, by taking on some of their housing needs. We are merely looking to implement a more practical plan, one which allows all residents, both current and prospective, to enjoy their environment and travel relatively freely. Casmal
  • Score: 0

9:24pm Sat 17 Nov 12

MrCreosote says...

The formation of the SWDP has been a long ,drawn out, but ultimately democratic process. If there are aspects of it that you do not like then you cannot have made your case forcefully enough during the consultation process. Responses are not ignored if they are evidence based and predicated on sound planning principles. To reject the conclusions at the eleventh hour is damaging, reckless and ultimately futile, as what has effectively been ensured is a planning free-for-all (see comments above).

A replacement plan for Malvern that will be found sound by an Inspector is now two years away – so prepare yourselves for an avalanche of planning applications along the lines of the recent one at Shottery, Stratford on Avon for 800 houses, where the Secretary of State approved the scheme against huge local opposition.

It was granted because the local authority could not demonstrate a five year land supply and was promoting a housing figure in it’s Core Strategy that was unrealistic and had no evidential basis. Malvern is now in a significantly more exposed position than Stratford, in having no plan / strategy at all !
The formation of the SWDP has been a long ,drawn out, but ultimately democratic process. If there are aspects of it that you do not like then you cannot have made your case forcefully enough during the consultation process. Responses are not ignored if they are evidence based and predicated on sound planning principles. To reject the conclusions at the eleventh hour is damaging, reckless and ultimately futile, as what has effectively been ensured is a planning free-for-all (see comments above). A replacement plan for Malvern that will be found sound by an Inspector is now two years away – so prepare yourselves for an avalanche of planning applications along the lines of the recent one at Shottery, Stratford on Avon for 800 houses, where the Secretary of State approved the scheme against huge local opposition. It was granted because the local authority could not demonstrate a five year land supply and was promoting a housing figure in it’s Core Strategy that was unrealistic and had no evidential basis. Malvern is now in a significantly more exposed position than Stratford, in having no plan / strategy at all ! MrCreosote
  • Score: 0

9:36pm Sat 17 Nov 12

Casmal says...

Dear me, that was quite a rant. You clearly cannot have been following the process very carefully or you would know that this plan has been on a knife edge as far as Malvern is concerned for months, if not years. And since when have you ever known consultation to be realistic when it comes to politics and the all the vested interests that accompany it?

So come on, declare your interest. Exactly what is your role in the process? Do you live in the Malvern Hills District? Do you work in the Malvern Hills District? Are you an officer in any of the three districts? Are you a developer?
Dear me, that was quite a rant. You clearly cannot have been following the process very carefully or you would know that this plan has been on a knife edge as far as Malvern is concerned for months, if not years. And since when have you ever known consultation to be realistic when it comes to politics and the all the vested interests that accompany it? So come on, declare your interest. Exactly what is your role in the process? Do you live in the Malvern Hills District? Do you work in the Malvern Hills District? Are you an officer in any of the three districts? Are you a developer? Casmal
  • Score: 0

4:59pm Mon 19 Nov 12

MrCreosote says...

I'm a planning barrister - and that was no rant, it was stating the blindingly obvious.
I'm a planning barrister - and that was no rant, it was stating the blindingly obvious. MrCreosote
  • Score: 0

10:31pm Mon 19 Nov 12

FranOb says...

As Chair of the Local Development Framework Panel at Wyre Forest, I am horrified by what has been done in Malvern.
We have worked really hard to have an Adopted Core Strategy an have a secure 5 year Housing Land Supply but now all our work is in jeopardy because, thanks to Malvern Hills Councillors, land at Clows Top and Astley Cross will be vulnerable to Planning by Appeal!
As Chair of the Local Development Framework Panel at Wyre Forest, I am horrified by what has been done in Malvern. We have worked really hard to have an Adopted Core Strategy an have a secure 5 year Housing Land Supply but now all our work is in jeopardy because, thanks to Malvern Hills Councillors, land at Clows Top and Astley Cross will be vulnerable to Planning by Appeal! FranOb
  • Score: 0

10:53pm Mon 19 Nov 12

Casmal says...

You haven't told us whether you are involved with the SWDP and/or you live or work in Malvern?

Not many people have the facilities or access to the kind of information/evidence that would enable them to present "evidence based" alternatives. That is an excellent excuse not to listen to consultation responses. What people have presented are perfectly rational, reasoned and sensible alternatives, which are worthy of further investigation. The officers very brief and repetitive responses contain no evidence that they have properly researched any of these suggestions.

As council has been evenly divided on this plan from very early on, I am surprised that the planning officers did not work more closely with councillors and the public to find a way through the impasse.

There is fault in both sides as undoubtedly councillors should have kept a much closer eye on their
officers to ensure that they were not presented at the eleventh hour with a plan that was not believed to be the best option for Malvern District - although it may have suited Worcester and Wychavon.

It may interest you to know that the new proposals bring developments closer to my home, which is likely to be impacted more than it would have been under the old plans. However, the sites proposed are much more logical and impact less on the town and countryside, including the AONB, which can only be a good thing for the area - so you cannot accuse me of Nimbyism....
You haven't told us whether you are involved with the SWDP and/or you live or work in Malvern? Not many people have the facilities or access to the kind of information/evidence that would enable them to present "evidence based" alternatives. That is an excellent excuse not to listen to consultation responses. What people have presented are perfectly rational, reasoned and sensible alternatives, which are worthy of further investigation. The officers very brief and repetitive responses contain no evidence that they have properly researched any of these suggestions. As council has been evenly divided on this plan from very early on, I am surprised that the planning officers did not work more closely with councillors and the public to find a way through the impasse. There is fault in both sides as undoubtedly councillors should have kept a much closer eye on their officers to ensure that they were not presented at the eleventh hour with a plan that was not believed to be the best option for Malvern District - although it may have suited Worcester and Wychavon. It may interest you to know that the new proposals bring developments closer to my home, which is likely to be impacted more than it would have been under the old plans. However, the sites proposed are much more logical and impact less on the town and countryside, including the AONB, which can only be a good thing for the area - so you cannot accuse me of Nimbyism.... Casmal
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

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