Bid to build 30 homes in Leigh Sinton scuppered - The Malvern Observer
Online Editions

Bid to build 30 homes in Leigh Sinton scuppered

Malvern Editorial 9th Jul, 2015 Updated: 20th Oct, 2016   0

CONTROVERSIAL plans to build more than 30 homes in Leigh Sinton have been thrown out over fears of increased development between the village and Malvern.

Proposals to construct 32 homes off Elmhurst Farm were slammed for being in the ‘significant gap’ and for failing to undertake a bat survey at the Hereford Road site.

Stephen Seymour, chairman of Leigh and Bransford Parish Council, said the bid had come forward because a precedent had been set after a development on an adjacent site was approved.

Coun Tom Wells, councillor for Powick, spoke on behalf of ward members Coun Sarah Rouse and Coun Anthony Warburton at a Northern Area Development Committee meeting last Wednesday (July 1).




“Quite clearly the decision by the planning inspectorate to approve the adjacent site has established a very unfortunate precedent,” Coun Wells said.

“This site has a designated status – it is in the significant gap.


“If we were to disregard this status we would be saying it doesn’t matter anymore and I am sure we do not want to do that.

“Leigh Sinton – like Welland, Powick and Kempsey – has seen an extreme amount of speculative development of this type.

“I despair how on earth villages like Leigh Sinton are meant to deal with that amount of growth in such a short space of time.

“Also, in the absence of any bat survey it is impossible to mitigate against that until it has been properly conducted.”

The plans included 13 affordable properties and was set to pump £86,000 to provide a footpath along the road.

Adam White, representing developers Wolverley Homes, added:

“This access has been deemed safe and suitable.

“It will provide much-needed homes and go some way to addressing the housing shortfall in Malvern Hills.

“The housing will deliver economic benefits and we will provide a significant financial contribution to education.”

A total of five councillors voted against proposals, four were in favour and one member abstained.