A CONTROVERSIAL new bid has been made to develop an historic Worcester site, sparking public fury.

In December last year Matthews City and Country Homes secured permission to build 35 properties in Rose Bank, off London Road.

But the Worcester News can reveal how the firm has abandoned its original idea on the grounds of financial viability and submitted revised plans without any affordable housing.

The move has enraged campaigners, who fought a long battle to try and block the first suggestion before it was approved by Worcester City Council.

It only secured the go-ahead on the grounds that 14 of the 35 properties would be affordable homes, as well as offering a financial contribution to help the area known as a Section 106 agreement.

At the time of the first permission the Battlefields Trust tried to get it refused, saying Rose Bank "undoubtedly saw fighting” during the Battle of Worcester.

There was also serious concern about the plot being too small for 35 properties, and congestion worries.

The revised plan is expected to be voted on in November or December by the council's planning committee and has attracted 15 objections from angry residents.

Trevor Simmons, who lives nearby, said: "The only people to gain from this application will be the developers, not the community or the residents who already have parking problem."

Householder Jenny Brumhead, of Albert Road, said: "I am dismayed by this attempt to alter what is already a controversial decision in the local area."

A prominent member of the city's Labour leadership has also voiced his dismay.

Councillor Jabba Riaz, a cabinet member who also represents the area, said: "They have re-applied on the grounds of 'viability' and say they can no longer do the original scheme based on the conditions that went with it.

"Residents are not pleased, we argued at the planning committee the developer couldn't afford to do it and we've been proved right.

"It'll be to the detriment of the area in terms of not having any benefits - section 106 money is needed for highways improvements, for play facilities, for schools.

"It adds insult to injury - we know we need more homes in the city but when things like this happen, Worcester people lose out."

A spokesman for the firm has refused to comment on the fresh bid.

He said: "By no means are we in conflict with Worcester City Council, we have submitted a new application but I can't comment any further."