A LEADING Midlands property developer has been slammed by councillors after it failed to correctly fill out the planning forms for a major housing estate in Powick.
Selbourne Homes Ltd put forward an application to build 61 homes on land off Hospital Lane but when asked if the land was known to be contaminated or if the site for development was suspected for contamination and whether the development would be vulnerable to contamination the company answered no to each question.
However, Worcestershire Regulatory Services confirmed there was contamination, including asbestos, at the 4.6-hectare site, while references to the problem were also made throughout the report.
And at a Northern Area Planning Committee meeting last Wednesday (March 25), Coun Tom Wells, councillor for the area, said the proposal was a false premise and should be brought back before the committee when it was finalised in an acceptable manner.
“Are we saying whoever wants to fill in a planning application now need not fill in the detail?” he said.
“What is more important than a contamination issue?
“If it is a minor discretion that is one thing, but this is the very core issue about this application and if you don’t fill the forms in correctly how do you expect the council to come to a decision.”
A carbon-copy application for a development on the same site, also submitted by Selbourne Homes, was unanimously rejected by councillors in January and is set to go to an appeal hearing on April 8.
David Onions, who represented the applicant at the meeting, said if committee members granted approval at the meeting, the council could avoid appeal costs against them and the appeal application would be withdrawn.
Coun Wells added: “If the applicant believes the planning inspectorate will order costs against this council then he is wrong.
“It is nonsense to say we will have costs included against us.
“It is a complicated case and we are not experts, I think it would be better for everyone concerned to allow the appeal to take place in two weeks time to allow residents to make their case.”
Plans were deferred on the grounds the form was incorrectly filled out by the applicant and to allow the appeal on the first proposal to take place.
A total of eight councillors voted for deferral, five against deferral and one member abstained.
