PLANS to build 29 new homes in South Littleton were rejected by council planners.

The application to demolish existing buildings in Forest Lodge, Shinehill Lane in South Littleton near Evesham and replace them with 29 new homes - including 22 affordable homes - was rejected by Wychavon District Council's planning committee on the grounds of 'poor design'.

Councillor Tony Rowley could not accept the plan, saying the design and layout were "shocking" and said it is one of the worst he had seen. He was worried by the lack of green infrastructure.

Cllr Richard Lasota, who represents The Littletons, accepted the need for affordable housing but questioned whether 22 homes was a realistic figure and also criticised the plan for its lack of green infrastructure.

He said similar applications had been passed in surrounding villages only for the number of affordable homes to decrease and be replaced with private housing after it had been approved.

"I'm not saying that will happen here but that is what worries me," he said.

"I'm not happy with only five per cent of green space irrespective of whether it was going to be an affordable housing site or not."

Mark Dauncey from Pegasus Planning Group, said the application “fully accords” with the provisions of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and said the plans had been specifically designed to meet the needs outlined by housing officers at Wychavon District Council. He said the density of homes was "entirely justifiable" given the need.

Cllr Paul Spain, from South Littleton Parish Council, said the application did not represent good quality and said there was not enough room for bins to be collected or for vans to make deliveries.

He said car parking was inadequate and would force drivers to use nearby Clevedon Green and Orchard Close.

Tim Schuler, speaking on behalf of the residents of South Littleton, said the application provided an 'over-provision' of affordable housing for the village and would cause an "extreme over-development of the site" due to the number of houses packed into the site.

He said the application would set a worrying precedent for over-development in the future. He also highlighted the concern for parking in the area.

Mr Schuler said the need for one bedroom homes in the area had been ignored and the development was instead focusing on two and three bedroom homes - six times the amount needed.

He said: "While there may be a need for affordable housing, this scheme doesn't meet that need."

“While not intrinsically opposed to development of the village, we are uneasy about its over-development.

“Where is the proven need for such escalation of development?”