Anger over ‘dangerous’ homes bid for rural lane

Tewkesbury Admag: MAKING OUR POINT: Residents of Hyde Lane, Upton-upon-Severn, are fighting a development plan. They are standing where the access will be sited. MAKING OUR POINT: Residents of Hyde Lane, Upton-upon-Severn, are fighting a development plan. They are standing where the access will be sited.

RESIDENTS are up in arms about a “dangerous” new housing development being proposed for their narrow country lane.

People living in Hyde Lane, at Tunnel Hill, Upton-upon -Severn, were shocked and incensed to see a development of 18 homes earmarked in the latest version of the South West Development Plan – which is set to become the planning blueprint for the area for the next two decades.

And more than 100 people have signed a petition, while dozens have written objection letters to Malvern Hills District Council .

They say the lane is already a blackspot for accidents, a rat run for cars speeding at more than 60mph which leave horse riders and pedestrians jumping to safety. Graham Mealand, who has lived in Hyde Lane for 25 years, said it had become “progressively more dangerous”, even without the spectre of more vehicles.

“The residents in Tunnel Hill who would be mostly affected by this project, with at least another 40 cars using Hyde Lane, are up in arms about the road dangers, which are bad enough already,” he said. “There have been two previous applications to try and develop the land and both times the council has turned it down simply because the access is too dangerous.

“And yet here it is again and now being recommended by the very planners who have turned it down.” Residents also fear the development might be the tip of the iceberg, opening up access to acres of potential building land on open countryside behind Tunnel Hill.

Upton Town Council discussed the latest SWDP proposals last week and is objecting to the allocation at Hyde Lane.

Deputy mayor Paul Bennett saying it should never have been considered in the first place. “It's ridiculous – it's an unacceptable site that would not normally get planning permission,” he said.

He was shocked to see it included as councillors have been working with MHDC looking at two sites on Welland Road, in Tunnel Hill, which it believes are far more suitable. “We want houses but we want them in the right place. We are trying desperately to get our sites considered so there is no need to look at either Hyde Lane or across the river in Holly Green,” he said.

MHDC leader David Hughes said a public consultation is currently looking at the changes to the SWDP.

“At this stage, the site in question has not been ruled out on highway grounds by Worcestershire County Council , and the aim of the consultation is to specifically encourage feedback from local residents,” he said.

“Any concerns about highway safety and access arrangements will be taken into account and raised with the county’s highways department before any final decisions on the plan are taken.”

Comments (10)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:34am Thu 23 Aug 12

b1ackb1rd says...

Where I live a Planning Cttee member was almost run over when visiting what locals feel is a dangerous development ... But the spineless Council members still passed the application as they fear being sued.
No green field sites should be agreed until all available brown field sites are exhausted!
Where I live a Planning Cttee member was almost run over when visiting what locals feel is a dangerous development ... But the spineless Council members still passed the application as they fear being sued. No green field sites should be agreed until all available brown field sites are exhausted! b1ackb1rd

8:36am Thu 23 Aug 12

molecat says...

I'm not sure how these 18 houses are going to be any more 'dangerous' than the houses these people live in themselves. The picture shows the houses either side were spaced to allow access to a potential development (which the council MUST have known about) and another 18 badly needed homes will make little difference to the 100 odd houses there already. It always amazes me how people in fairly new houses on the edges of towns and cities get so upset when more houses or supermarkets are built next to them. How come your own homes aren't part of your perceived problem?
I'm not sure how these 18 houses are going to be any more 'dangerous' than the houses these people live in themselves. The picture shows the houses either side were spaced to allow access to a potential development (which the council MUST have known about) and another 18 badly needed homes will make little difference to the 100 odd houses there already. It always amazes me how people in fairly new houses on the edges of towns and cities get so upset when more houses or supermarkets are built next to them. How come your own homes aren't part of your perceived problem? molecat

8:39am Thu 23 Aug 12

skychip says...

Strikes me the local Councils are passing all housing development applications to make their housing quotas look good and that the highway issues are pushed under the table.
Strikes me the local Councils are passing all housing development applications to make their housing quotas look good and that the highway issues are pushed under the table. skychip

8:56am Thu 23 Aug 12

More Tea Vicar says...

molecat wrote:
I'm not sure how these 18 houses are going to be any more 'dangerous' than the houses these people live in themselves. The picture shows the houses either side were spaced to allow access to a potential development (which the council MUST have known about) and another 18 badly needed homes will make little difference to the 100 odd houses there already. It always amazes me how people in fairly new houses on the edges of towns and cities get so upset when more houses or supermarkets are built next to them. How come your own homes aren't part of your perceived problem?
To an extent you have a point. I, too, get irritated, especially when people have 'escaped to the country', and clearly had little compunction about the impact of their arrival in the area.

That said, the SWDP is a classic case of County Hall and big business colluding to wreck Worcestershire.

If our MPs and our so-called Green Party were of any use, they would be opposing it tooth and nail.

I would say, making Peter Walker's son, Harriet Baldwin and Peter Luff understand that this could cost them votes is the only way to stop it.
[quote][p][bold]molecat[/bold] wrote: I'm not sure how these 18 houses are going to be any more 'dangerous' than the houses these people live in themselves. The picture shows the houses either side were spaced to allow access to a potential development (which the council MUST have known about) and another 18 badly needed homes will make little difference to the 100 odd houses there already. It always amazes me how people in fairly new houses on the edges of towns and cities get so upset when more houses or supermarkets are built next to them. How come your own homes aren't part of your perceived problem?[/p][/quote]To an extent you have a point. I, too, get irritated, especially when people have 'escaped to the country', and clearly had little compunction about the impact of their arrival in the area. That said, the SWDP is a classic case of County Hall and big business colluding to wreck Worcestershire. If our MPs and our so-called Green Party were of any use, they would be opposing it tooth and nail. I would say, making Peter Walker's son, Harriet Baldwin and Peter Luff understand that this could cost them votes is the only way to stop it. More Tea Vicar

10:25am Thu 23 Aug 12

molecat says...

We need more houses and the construction industry is on its knees - it ain't rocket science to work out what needs doing! And we need to start it now. Councils should not only be pushing through this sort of development they must also make it a condition of the planning permission that these projects start immediately so as to get the maximum benefit for the economy and to create jobs.
We need more houses and the construction industry is on its knees - it ain't rocket science to work out what needs doing! And we need to start it now. Councils should not only be pushing through this sort of development they must also make it a condition of the planning permission that these projects start immediately so as to get the maximum benefit for the economy and to create jobs. molecat

10:47am Thu 23 Aug 12

More Tea Vicar says...

What about the environment, services, infrastructure?

And as for the jobs and homes, how many of them will go to local, or even British, people? And if they don't, what's the point of them?


Building so city-dwellers can play 'escape to the country' actually makes local housing situation worse, as it tends to actually lead to higher house prices. We are already seeing this.

And catering for immigration-boosted population growth is utterly offensive, a real crime against the environment, and one of the worst legacies of the Labour government.
What about the environment, services, infrastructure? And as for the jobs and homes, how many of them will go to local, or even British, people? And if they don't, what's the point of them? Building so city-dwellers can play 'escape to the country' actually makes local housing situation worse, as it tends to actually lead to higher house prices. We are already seeing this. And catering for immigration-boosted population growth is utterly offensive, a real crime against the environment, and one of the worst legacies of the Labour government. More Tea Vicar

12:16pm Thu 23 Aug 12

dulon says...

MTV you have a good point about the residential mature and local jobs.
Unfortunately our politicians have made law the requirement to build these quantities of homes. The councillors are the messengers not the lawmakers. The politicians that we vote for as MPs are the ones that set this legislation in stone , Our local councils have the odious job of implementing it.
I dont think that there has ever been a development without someone against it . But the councils have very little in the way of resources to fight through planning appeals . The odds are stacked in favour of the developer I'm afraid .
With regard to who might occupy the new houses it is a question of who is prepared to pay the most ! No easy answer there I'm afraid the developers/builders are not doing it for fun !
MTV you have a good point about the residential mature and local jobs. Unfortunately our politicians have made law the requirement to build these quantities of homes. The councillors are the messengers not the lawmakers. The politicians that we vote for as MPs are the ones that set this legislation in stone , Our local councils have the odious job of implementing it. I dont think that there has ever been a development without someone against it . But the councils have very little in the way of resources to fight through planning appeals . The odds are stacked in favour of the developer I'm afraid . With regard to who might occupy the new houses it is a question of who is prepared to pay the most ! No easy answer there I'm afraid the developers/builders are not doing it for fun ! dulon

2:02pm Thu 23 Aug 12

Hwicce says...

Can't see the problem myself. Have a look on google maps and the site entrance is just about opposite Hydefields (and actually on Greenfields Road not Hyde lane). It's a perfect site for houses, classic infill and add-on.

The only people who would complain would be those whose view across fields would be blocked. Its amazing how many people buy a house and seem to think they control every bit of land that they see around them.
Can't see the problem myself. Have a look on google maps and the site entrance is just about opposite Hydefields (and actually on Greenfields Road not Hyde lane). It's a perfect site for houses, classic infill and add-on. The only people who would complain would be those whose view across fields would be blocked. Its amazing how many people buy a house and seem to think they control every bit of land that they see around them. Hwicce

4:23pm Thu 23 Aug 12

b1ackb1rd says...

Molecat, I care as much for the construction industry as they care for me and my neighbours.
I care little for housing quotas, if more heed was paid to the security of our borders we wouldn't be tarmacing over our countryside.
Why do we need to build houses to boost the economy? I don't see the link ... work is done cash in hand, and the bosses avoid paying taxes so how does the economy benefit?
Molecat, I care as much for the construction industry as they care for me and my neighbours. I care little for housing quotas, if more heed was paid to the security of our borders we wouldn't be tarmacing over our countryside. Why do we need to build houses to boost the economy? I don't see the link ... work is done cash in hand, and the bosses avoid paying taxes so how does the economy benefit? b1ackb1rd

8:45am Fri 24 Aug 12

More Tea Vicar says...

dulon wrote:
MTV you have a good point about the residential mature and local jobs. Unfortunately our politicians have made law the requirement to build these quantities of homes. The councillors are the messengers not the lawmakers. The politicians that we vote for as MPs are the ones that set this legislation in stone , Our local councils have the odious job of implementing it. I dont think that there has ever been a development without someone against it . But the councils have very little in the way of resources to fight through planning appeals . The odds are stacked in favour of the developer I'm afraid . With regard to who might occupy the new houses it is a question of who is prepared to pay the most ! No easy answer there I'm afraid the developers/builders are not doing it for fun !
I agree. We have an unholy alliance of County Hall parasites and housebuilders, intent on lining their own pockets at the expense of the environment and people' quality of life.

It reflects very poorly on local government officers, local democracy, and national politics.

I'd like to see wide scale sackings in the planning departments, and see MPs scared for their seats (as in constituencies,not furniture).

I know Tory MPs can get het up over issues such as windfarms, HS2. It would be nice to see Baldwin, Luff and Walker stand up againt the SWDP.
[quote][p][bold]dulon[/bold] wrote: MTV you have a good point about the residential mature and local jobs. Unfortunately our politicians have made law the requirement to build these quantities of homes. The councillors are the messengers not the lawmakers. The politicians that we vote for as MPs are the ones that set this legislation in stone , Our local councils have the odious job of implementing it. I dont think that there has ever been a development without someone against it . But the councils have very little in the way of resources to fight through planning appeals . The odds are stacked in favour of the developer I'm afraid . With regard to who might occupy the new houses it is a question of who is prepared to pay the most ! No easy answer there I'm afraid the developers/builders are not doing it for fun ![/p][/quote]I agree. We have an unholy alliance of County Hall parasites and housebuilders, intent on lining their own pockets at the expense of the environment and people' quality of life. It reflects very poorly on local government officers, local democracy, and national politics. I'd like to see wide scale sackings in the planning departments, and see MPs scared for their seats (as in constituencies,not furniture). I know Tory MPs can get het up over issues such as windfarms, HS2. It would be nice to see Baldwin, Luff and Walker stand up againt the SWDP. More Tea Vicar
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

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