Developers hit back in Hagley homes row

3:59pm Tuesday 11th September 2012 in News

CALA Homes managing director Darren Humphreys CALA Homes managing director Darren Humphreys

DEVELOPERS aiming to build 175 homes in Hagley have hit back at claims their plan is bad news for the village.

CALA Homes managing director Darren Humphreys says misconceptions about their scheme for an estate on land near the busy junction of Kidderminster Road and Worcester Road could prevent investment in the region.

Mr Humphreys has come out fighting after Hagley Parish Council chairman Steve Colella told The News he believes extra traffic from new homes would be "intolerable and dangerous" for villagers.

Mr Humphreys said: "We fully appreciate that local communities may have concerns about the impact of new development in their area. We have listened to those concerns and are keen to put their minds at rest.

“We are facing a major housing shortage, Bromsgrove District Council’s own Strategic Market Assessment identifies the need for between 6,800 and 7,000 new houses over the next 18 years. The site on Kidderminster Road has long been identified for future development and is part of the Bromsgrove District Local Plan.”

“The new development will increase traffic at peak times by less than one per cent. However, CALA will spend over £1million on improvement works to the Kidderminster Road roundabout.

“Without the development, this improvement work will not go ahead. There simply aren’t the funds available.”

CALA Homes also say they have offered to pay for an extension to the doctors' surgery in Hagley which would increase capacity and improve facilities.

They also say, by phasing the development, the arrival of new families will not make a significant impact on each year group at village schools and the company would contribute more than £750,000 to education in the area.

Mr Humphreys added: “We believe that this development provides significant benefits for Hagley and it is essential that schemes such as this go ahead in order to meet the future housing needs of local people.”

A statement from CALA Homes on their proposals for Hagley in full

CALA Homes’ regional managing director Darren Humphreys believes that local people may not be getting the whole picture on the proposed development and says the company is keen to directly address some of the key issues raised. He comments: “We fully appreciate that local communities may have concerns about the impact of new development in their area. We have listened to those concerns and are keen to put their minds at rest.

“We are facing a major housing shortage. Just last week the government announced new initiatives to help encourage the building of more homes. Bromsgrove District Council’s own Strategic Market Assessment identifies the need for between 6,800 and 7,000 new houses over the next 18 years. The site on Kidderminster Road has long been identified for future development and is part of the Bromsgrove District Local Plan.”

One concern raised locally has been the impact of the new development on local traffic and, in particular, the busy Kidderminster Road roundabout. Darren Humphreys says: “The new development will increase traffic at peak times by less than one per cent. However, CALA will spend over £1million on improvement works to the Kidderminster Road roundabout. This work will improve the traffic flow so that peak period queues are reduced. This will also help improve the current air quality in the area. Further improvement works are also proposed to the junction of Kidderminster Road and Worcester Road.

“Without the development, this improvement work will not go ahead. There simply aren’t the funds available.”

Other concerns have been raised about the impact of more homes on local services in the village including education and healthcare. CALA Homes had originally proposed a new doctor’s surgery on the site but this was removed following discussions with the Primary Care Trust. CALA says it has now offered to help fund an extension to the existing doctor’s surgery which would not only accommodate additional patients, but would greatly improve the facilities for the whole community.

But what about the impact on local schools? “This is a phased development over four to five years, so the increase in new residents will be a gradual process,” says Darren Humphreys. “As such, we do not expect the impact on the admissions for each school year to be significant. Both Hagley Primary School and Haybridge High School currently take pupils out of the catchment area.”

If the scheme goes ahead, CALA Homes will also contribute over £750,000 towards education in the area.

The proposed development will offer a wide range of homes, extensive landscaping and public open space. 40 per cent of the properties will be affordable homes, including purpose-built bungalows for the elderly or mobility impaired. 75 per cent of these will be allocated for rented social housing and 25 per cent for shared ownership. However, CALA Homes says it is happy to provide a larger proportion of shared ownership properties, if agreed by the council.

The site, on the southern edge of the village, is part of the Hagley Hall estate and an additional spin off benefit of its development is that the value created will stay in Hagley. Hagley Hall, and its park, has perhaps the most important collection of listed buildings in the district. Funds from the development of the new houses will help maintain, repair and restore these important buildings and the historic registered park.

There will also be financial benefits from the scheme. The development will bring in approximately £1.7million from the New Homes Bonus, a scheme through which the Government provides additional funds to local authorities by matching the council tax raised from the building of new homes for the first six years. The site will also provide 263 direct jobs during construction and the potential to provide at least 50 jobs in new offices being built.

Darren Humphreys continues: “We believe that this development provides significant benefits for Hagley and it is essential that schemes such as this go ahead in order to meet the future housing needs of local people.”

Comments(33)

DAVID1875 says...
6:40am Wed 12 Sep 12

What about the ridiculous plan by Cala to place 3 pedestrian crossings across the 3 sets of traffic lights they plan to place on the traffic island so that people can cross these into the middle of the island than walk off in whatever direction? All in the name of Cala then being able to claim how they are "connecting the development to other parts of the village".The area next to the site is already a designated Air Quality Management Area from 2010-how is adding hundreds of extra vehicles travelling to and from 175 homes going to lessen pollution levels? Hagley already supplies its local housing need-the planned site borders 39 homes currently being constructed by Billingham and Kite.Apparently the flood plans submitted by Cala for their development forgot to take into account the increased risk of flooding from that development! And who precisely is going to take up the office units-there are dozens to let already right next to the Quinton junction of the M5!

Report this post »

NEWPORTPAVONIA says...
9:02am Wed 12 Sep 12

Doesn't the MD of Cala Homes,Darren Humphreys look pleased with himself in your article entitled "Developers hit back in Hagley Homes row".I don't think he'd be so pleased if he currently lived in Hagley and particularly around the area of the development. Road traffic congestion is already chronic-not just on the A456/A491 but in surrounding residential roads such as Western Road and Newfield Rd as drivers try to get through the hold-ups...these two Roads already have a reputation as "Rat-runs"..and there are others.An extra spur off the roundabout to accomodate the traffic from the proposed development will make it 6 exits...on one of the busiest islands in the County!Adding traffic lights and pedestrian crossings will cause traffic chaos and increase the already poor levels of air quality.Building office space is totally inapropriate in that area-besides which there are 100's of un-let units in the local areas of greater Stourbridge etc.I am not against the building of new houses--but WHAT I AM AGAINST are proposed developments which are not truly sustainable due to an obvious significant negative impact on many people already living in the the area.You need top be aware that the passion of the feelings of the majority of local residents is growing by the day and this will be demonstrated in many ways during the next few weeks.

Report this post »

grahamjd says...
10:28am Wed 12 Sep 12

I agree, he does look pleased with himself. Nodoubt he gets some perverse satisfaction from causing traffic chaos and gridlock.

No homes, are anything else for that matter, should be built on that land until the infrastructure is able to cope with the increased load.

There seems to be no attempt to address this.

Report this post »

carolynw1946 says...
11:43am Wed 12 Sep 12

Hagley has grown by in the last ten years and has more than fulfilled it's obligation to Bromsgrove housing policy.
Brownfield sites should be developed before greenfield sites.
Cala homes are proposing 175 houses
Billingham kite are building 39 houses adjacent to Cala Homes site
Another 70 houses are proposed on another site adjacent to Cala Homes site
That makes a total of 284 houses.
Potentially 600 more cars on an already congested air polluted road, and in excess of 600 children needing to be educated in already full to capacity schools.
According to Cala Homes there will be no worse traffic problems, or air quality.
Only 1 more child per school year ie 14 school age children living in 175 houses.
Darren Humphreys you are insulting our intelligence, tell it to the fairies, and they won't believe you any more than we do

Report this post »

carolinej33 says...
2:05pm Wed 12 Sep 12

In addition to all the issues raised in previous comments, which I fully support, Hagley village (which it won't be much longer if all these developments take place) seems to be expected to take on a disproportionately high percentage of Bromsgrove District Council's housing requirements for the next few years. What about the brownfield sites available to it and other areas of the district which have had comparatively few proposals? What about all the houses and offices already for sale or rent in the village and surrounding areas that are not selling? Hagley has already grown by over 25% in the last 10 years and this site, and the adjacent proposals, will be physically separated from much of the village by the already busy A456; the proposed new island development, which Cala are 'kindly' offering to pay for, would not be necessary without them! As for keeping the value of the development in Hagley, all that means is that the money is going to the Hagley Hall estate! We all chose to live in Hagley because of its facilities, character and village atmosphere and we will not let our village be ruined without a fight. All 'localism' seems to mean is that district councils can approve what they like, regardless of actual local opinion, and with no appeal to central government. Although Cala homes are the 'bad guys', they are just making the most of the opportunity afforded them by the district council plans.

Report this post »

No to CALA says...
4:15pm Wed 12 Sep 12

Regardless of what CALA say they are offering, the primary and secondary schools don't support the development and nor does the doctors surgery because this development is unsustainable on so many levels. Bromsgrove's core strategy is not adopted and the inclusion of this land as available for development saw approx. 900 objections, yet here we are having to object again because BDC has not listened during the consultation. The the villages of Clent, Belbroughton, Romsley, Churchill and Blakedown will be severely affected by this development. It will affect the education of their children and the value of their properties and ability to sell them too. Few people in these villages are aware of these implications. Residents in the neighbouring villages should also be formally consulted. This story should be about the residents hitting back, challenging business and the lord of the manor.
This is our community.
Please object: Email: pec@bromsgrove.gov.u
k
Sign the petition at Hagley Doctors
Join the protest walk to Hagley Hall 22-09-12 meeting 11am at Hagley Community Centre.
Bring kids, dogs, musical instruments - lets be heard.

Report this post »

e.austin says...
4:34pm Wed 12 Sep 12

I completely agree with the previous comments, especially the last few which highlight the most important points. There are other brownfield sites in urban areas far more suitable to those areas in respect to new housing, volume of traffic, schools, air quality etc. Plus there are other recent developments previously mentioned which will impact on our services. In addition there is a further one proposed on the old Middle School site, earmarked by McCarthy&Stone for 55 retirement homes. This is in Park Road just off the targeted traffic island. There is absolutely no justification for any other developments let alone such a large out of proportion one proposed by Cala Homes on that site which is separate to the village itself - it will become a minitown and will be an unrealistic strain on existing services in the village. It is nonsense to pretend otherwise. As for the comments that it will not be a further strain on Hagley schools, anyone who has had children attending the schools has witnessed the underfunding of those schools, despite an extension to Haybridge High School where they frequently share books and do not have a locker each which has resulted in some children suffering from bad backs carrying their stuff round all day. It cannot even cater for an assembly hall to hold all the children at the same time, just to name a few points. It is full to bursting as are the other schools. Plus the Primary School was unable to offer a place to a new child who moved in OPPOSITE the school. His parents had to drive their son to Harborne school every day until he got in on appeal 12 MONTHS later. How can the MD of Cala Homes possible justify his statement that the proposed development would not impact on the schools? The chronic traffic situation at the island would not be eased to any noticeable extent by making improvements at the island, as it is due to the volume of traffic that travels daily to/from the village and through the village on the main roads. It is a fallacy to believe otherwise, as witnessed recently by several gridlocked roads. A further development of this kind would be an utter disaster and travesty for the village. The only ones who have earmarked the land in question for development are the 'Developers' themselves- it is a greenfield site and should remain so. Bromsgrove District Council have a duty to finally act responsibly as far as Hagley village is concerned. Will they actually take responsibility this time and listen to those who live in this area?? Watch this space - our previous hopes have been dashed, but maybe this time they will wake up to the very strong opposition which is totally justified in all the circumstances.

Report this post »

DAVID1875 says...
6:13pm Wed 12 Sep 12

With regard to any local residents who wish to object to this 175 homes and offices application,it is vital that you object INDIVIDUALLY directly to Bromsgrove Council planning department via their own website.The level of INDIVIDUAL objections will influence the planning committee's decision on this application.The deadline for objections is now 30 SEPTEMBER.Object asap and no later than then!

Report this post »

gspils says...
12:51am Thu 13 Sep 12

As already stated in previous responses the 'village' of Hagley has increased in size by over 25% in the last ten years resulting in a catalogue of issues for the residents.Traffic congestion, which further comprises already poor air quality,run-off/floo
d water problems,sewage blockages,a medical practice stretched to its limits and schools full to capacity, to identify the more significant concerns. Surely, in these circumstances, Bromsgrove District Council, the collector of the Community Tax, has a moral imperative to protect the existing residents from developers and landowners intent on profit.
How is a traffic island, costing 'over £1million', an extension to the surgery and a placebo of £750,000 to 'education' going to make the proposed Cala Homes building plan acceptable?

Report this post »

i.m.h. says...
6:09pm Thu 13 Sep 12

I completely agree with all the objections
and how dare Mr.Humphreys have the
audacity to tell the people of Hagley
what they want. It has already shown
him by objecting over and over again.
I think he has been dreaming when he
gives figures of number of places needed. Nearly 300 houses will produce
at least 500 student. Where will they go?
300 houses and offices (which are not
needed) will generate at least 400 cars
at a minimum!
As for handing out money legalised
bribery I call it ,The common words
are back handers!
The development is not for the good
ofHagley, but to line the pockets of
Lord Cobham, and Mr.Humphreys.
Wake up Bromsgrove Council and do
the right thing by the people of Hagley.

Report this post »

ozpat says...
10:38pm Thu 13 Sep 12

what can be so wrong in providing housing to those who need it? infrastructure, can be built to accommodate the increase and frankly peri urban areas are the next areas for expansion in an increasing population. Hagley has the space for 175 homes for much needed housing, most of the objections put forward are looking remarkably weak, why the big fuss after all urban areas have reached saturation so the housing need will need to be moved to areas such as Hagley, do yourpart and accept the expansion in a positive manner eh.

Report this post »

DAVID1875 says...
5:42am Fri 14 Sep 12

Ozpat obviously is not aware of the huge amount of brownfield sites there are both locally and nationally where property companies are just sitting on the land.Those should be built on first.But of course it's far cheaper for homes to be built on greenfield sites which is why Cala want to build here at this location in Hagley.Ozpat also does not appreciate the already unacceptable levels of congestion and air pollution which exist at this specific location.The infrastructure cannot cope.What is the point of Cala paying for infrastructure improvements when they are adding 500 or so cars to the already overloaded roads and hundreds of new inhabitants which will put further strain on local services?

Report this post »

No to CALA says...
6:42am Fri 14 Sep 12

We should keep in mind this is about big business - not housing for the needy. (in fact if outline planning is granted, with govt. relaxed rules, they can now reduce the number of affordable homes offered - watch this space - of course they will do this so that they can charge top rate for their homes. What is offered by CALA is the minimum investment for maximum return at any cost. If there were real plans to upgrade the infrastructure, we would be looking at new additional services and a by pass. We are not.The roundabout will be increased from 2 lanes to 3, another exit added to it and a set of lights at each exit plus a pedestrian crossing right through the middle and a one off bung of 750k to the schools. This is also only one development in Hagley - there are several more significant developments planned to go ahead in Hagley, 2 immediately adjacent to this one proposed by CALA - overall increasing the village size by approx 30%

Report this post »

ozpat says...
11:30pm Fri 14 Sep 12

Hi David 1875,

Brown or greenfield sites make no difference here, cala have made the plan to erect homes on this site. As for air pollution do you expect me to believe the air in this peri-urban area is any worse than say an urban industrial are where housing exists, congestion will continue to exist and increase in the absence of a solid public transport system coupled with an ever increasing population, urban areas have had to accommodate traffic increases so why not this area? I am sorry to fully appreciate and or understand the plight of existing residents but then again where else can urban expansion take place, coincidentally the extra housing may improve the housing market to this area and provide employment opportunities. So perhaps welcoming the investment would be better rather than finding excuses for not having it.

Report this post »

DAVID1875 says...
6:19am Sat 15 Sep 12

So Ozpat does not care that yet another greenfield site will be built over.But that is a major point.Check with the Campaign for Protection of Rural England to confirm that! And why are you comparing a village area like Hagley to an urban industrial site?! There is,and should not be,any comparison! There are legitimate reasons why this disproportionate deveoplemnt should not take place at this site-even the landseller Lord Cobham had to admit on local radio yesterday that the current situation at the traffic island next to it is problematic!

Report this post »

carolynw1946 says...
8:30am Sat 15 Sep 12

DAVID1875 wrote:
So Ozpat does not care that yet another greenfield site will be built over.But that is a major point.Check with the Campaign for Protection of Rural England to confirm that! And why are you comparing a village area like Hagley to an urban industrial site?! There is,and should not be,any comparison! There are legitimate reasons why this disproportionate deveoplemnt should not take place at this site-even the landseller Lord Cobham had to admit on local radio yesterday that the current situation at the traffic island next to it is problematic!
I assume ozpat is in oz, making a new life away from traffic congestion, air pollution, overcrowding, and councils hell bent on turning this GREEN and PLEASANT LAND into URBAN SPRAWLS. Stay there if I were you, if this development of 284 houses goes ahead then you may find the population of Hagley will be joining you. I understand oz is looking for intelligent professsionals as they don't appear to have many at the moment

Report this post »

ozpat says...
10:20am Sat 15 Sep 12

Carolynw1946 I shall be staying in Oz and make return visits every 5 years and every time we do so the decline seems insidious. David1875 I am comparing "village to urban industrial " circumstances in reply to your point on air pollution, how can you compare the country village air pollution to the neighbouring areas which have had to tolerate worse levels of air pollution for many more years, again I say a weak case in point when you have to resort to air pollution, traffic and noise when the rest of society has had no choice but to deal with it, perhaps its time Hagley gave up some its space for others a sad but true reality, hence brown green or ruddy purple the land needs are for housing and if the green divide is getting narrower then join me in Oz eh!

Report this post »

i.m.h. says...
4:11pm Sat 15 Sep 12

What nonsence ozypat does talk. How
can a 5 yearly visit put he/she put them
in any way able to make any discisions
on our every dayl lives. I have lived here
pver 60 year 52 weeks a year. Dont you
think you should getting on with your chosen life out there not telling us what we should be doing. We know whats good for us that are here living our lives,
and I tell you its not more housing,

Report this post »

i.m.h. says...
4:11pm Sat 15 Sep 12

What nonsence ozypat does talk. How
can a 5 yearly visit put he/she put them
in any way able to make any discisions
on our every dayl lives. I have lived here
pver 60 year 52 weeks a year. Dont you
think you should getting on with your chosen life out there not telling us what we should be doing. We know whats good for us that are here living our lives,
and I tell you its not more housing,

Report this post »

DAVID1875 says...
9:23pm Sat 15 Sep 12

ozpat,
air pollution and traffic levels are not weak points,they are valid ones,as are the other reasons why Cala should not be building the 175 homes and offices,namely intolerable strain on schools,doctors,incr
eased risk of flooding etc.I really do not know why you keep commenting in support of this development(the only one to do so in this link)in this area when you left for another country years ago.

Report this post »

No to CALA says...
10:13pm Sat 15 Sep 12

PLEASE OBJECT
pec@bromsgrove.gov.u
k
Join the protest march to Hagley Hall
22nd Sept. 2012
11am from Hagley Community Centre.
To Date:
1800 signatures on the petition
400 objections with Bromsgrove.
IF YOU WANT TO STOP THIS - OBJECT NOW - PLEASE

Report this post »

No to CALA says...
10:17pm Sat 15 Sep 12

ROMSLEY-BELBROUGHTON
-CLENT-CHURCHILL-BLA
KEDOWN.

PLEASE OBJECT
PLEASE JOIN THE PROTEST MARCH

THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL AFFECT THE EDUCATION OF YOUR CHILDREN & THE VALUE OF YOUR HOMES.

Report this post »

ozpat says...
12:08am Sun 16 Sep 12

Hi David 1875 & i.m.h, Whether I am returning every 5 years has no relationship with my opinion towards making " decisions on your everyday lives" (very confusing interpretation of my written comment i.m.h) and as for my opinion on the weakness of any point point forward is not in anyway to decry its validity, your viewpoint regarding air pollution and traffic is valid though I percieve as weak given the nature of your protest. i.m.h I respect your opinion, however 2 points the use name is Ozpat and secondly I am getting on with my chosen life here, it's just I have the right to an opinion and given the state of housing an human need for space then why can it not take place, I live in Oz but my family are still around that area so please contain your excitement for a minute and consider how would this expat know about these things, afterall I have freely chosen to leave that country does not mean I have no right to an opinion, by the way I have dual nationality and freedom to live where I like and I like it very much thankyou, I no longer have to live with narrow minded nimby mentality any longer, live and let build eh!

Report this post »

DAVID1875 says...
4:36am Mon 17 Sep 12

Ozpat,why are my arguments weak given "the nature of (my) protest"? You revert to the weak NIMBY accusation,but if local people do not stand up for protecting their own community from loss of green sites and over development then no one else will.What is wrong with villagers wanting to protect their own community from developers whose only motivation is financial greed?Perhaps you should also be directing your criticism at the incompetent Bromsgrove Council who have produced a planning core strategy that is fatally flawed!

Report this post »

ozpat says...
5:29am Mon 17 Sep 12

David 17875 perhaps you are right, Bromsgrove council may be making a mistake, however, housing need and land availability are what attracts corporate attention and investment. By weak I am referring to the position of the objection, if air pollution is all you have then your green belt is going to disappear fairly quickly i'm afraid. I believe that once a neighbouring area\region has reached its saturation point then any available next opportunity is going to be taken as the human need must outweigh the green need. At no point do I decry the value of your viewpoint, only the strength it has to persuade change if you want to "protect" your green belt, find evidence to validate the objections and perhaps maybe you can effect some change . I still maintain that housing need and availability should be enough to justify building need and I agree that corporate profit will be made, but that is the nature of business, and with it investment, employment and more council taxes to improve the whole area.

Report this post »

aldeberan says...
7:46am Mon 17 Sep 12

So, building 170 houses on a green field site is to the benefit of Hagley? I think Cala Homes director Darren Humphreys has been to some sort of “spin school”.
Nice try Mr. Humphries, but we’re not that stupid.
Hagley has borne more than its fair share of development over the last few years, pushing its infrastructure to the limit for a decent quality of life. There is little evidence of a housing shortage in the area, and it is well known that parents can circumvent school catchment rules by devious means, even when they live outside the area.
Lord Cobham clearly cares little for Hagley residents. Knowing the severe opposition to this proposed irreversible destruction of a green field site and its wildlife, he is acting like a medieval baron, showing that people outside his own enclave are unimportant. I suggest he should try working with residents of Hagley, rather than against them.

Report this post »

carolynw1946 says...
10:22am Mon 17 Sep 12

Having recently read on Bromsgrove district council website
BUILDING ON ADR LAND I see that at least six criteria points will not be met if Cala Homes are allowed to develop this site.
1. RESEDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SHOULD REFLECT LOCAL NEED

There are plenty of houses for sale including 2,3,4, and 5 bedroomed properties some of which have been for sale for months. Families have been put of moving to Hagley because of lack of school places, therefore having to ferry children further to school sometimes for years.

2. MINIMISE THE USE OF CAR BASED TRAVEL AND MAXIMISE OPPORTUNITIES FOR USE OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT

The train station is a long walk from this site, and a very steep hill back up. Most people will commute by car, or take their car to the already full station carpark, most will park in the village leaving no room for shoppers to park.
Parents will be forced into taking their children to school by car, as no places are available at Hagley school. If places cannot be found at other local schools which is often the case,
then taxis will have to be arranged and paid for by the council. A friend's child had a taxi everyday for three years to take her to a school in Kidderminster.
Buses are very few and far between, and very expensive.

3. CREATE A SUSTAINABLE AND BALANCED COMMUNITY THAT INTEGRATES INTO THE EXISTING BUILT FABRIC OF THE SETTLEMENT TO WHICH IT RELATES

This land is out on a limb from Hagley between two major congested roads, the residents will not integrate because of this.

4 ADDRESS NOISE AND AIR POLLUTION ISSUES SO THAT AQMA's ARE NOT UNDULY IMPACTED UPON

The A456 adjacent to this site forms a AQMA area ie it is being monitored because of high levels of pollution.
It is incumbent of Bromsgrove Council to address this before building more properties. Many years ago when the A456 was widened this land was classed as a pollution buffer to Western Road and surrounding area This was at a time when pollution levels were no where like the levels we see today. This land was changed from Green Belt to ADR at a time when the Western Orbital Route was being planned, taking a vast amount of through traffic and the pollution away from this area. When this road was scrapped due to cost the land should have been returned to Green Belt

5 MATTERS OF FLOOD RISK SHOULD BE ADDRESSED THROUGH AVOIDANCE AND FLOOD ATTENUATION MEASURES
SURFACE WATER SHOULD BE MANAGED TO PREVENT ADDITIONAL FLOODING FROM THIS SOURCE IN BOTH NEW AND EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

Gallows Brook is cassified as a river and runs through this ADR site.
Bromsgrove DC are well aware that houses lower down Western Road and Brookland Road have had their gardens and garages flooded at times. The A 456 also floods where Gallows Brook runs underneath it, at the junction of Western Road and Worcester Road near the traffic lights. Building on this land will inevitably cause more flooding as this land is now a flood plain.If this development is passed and my property floods I shall not hesitate to sue.

6 IMPORTANT HABITATS

THe proposals does the bare minimum to protect yhe two existing badger setts.

Report this post »

DAVID1875 says...
11:19am Mon 17 Sep 12

Ozpat,the other legitimate reasons(apart from air quality)for not building at this location are: 1.increased risk of flooding(the area already foods at times now), 2.insufficient capacity for patients at doctors, 3.insufficient capacity at the local high schools, 4.setting a dangerous precedent of making the 5 exits into 6 exits at the traffic island,which cannot even cope with current traffic levels, 5. no immediate public transport routes.

Report this post »

Jeremy44 says...
12:00pm Mon 17 Sep 12

The other reason of course, is greed. Hagley's expensive...the people living there don't want it to get bigger and less exclusive.
Cala want to build homes there because they can charge high prices for ordinary houses.
I do however think councils are under pressure to let anything through that gets builders building again. Even if rejected, Cala will get permission in the end by mitigating against each criteria until they have addressed all reasons for refusal. It's just a continuation of poor planning law and the continued degradation of Britain as a worthwhile place to live.
The bloke in Oz has the right idea.....wealth, sustainability, old British community values without the social failures.

Report this post »

desmodave says...
3:48pm Mon 17 Sep 12

The proposed development will have to contain a proportion of affordable housing. It is important that as high a percentage as possible should be negotiated should the development succeed in order to fulfil unmet need within the district.

Report this post »

Jeremy44 says...
12:53pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Yes, define "affordable" and then assess the quality of what's being produced here. Affordable doesn't mean less profits, it normally means smaller houses, gardens, garages, roadwidth's, turning circles...anything to squeeze every last penny out.

Report this post »

CLP1967 says...
8:39pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Good to see people out collecting signatures for the petition out in Blakedown tonight. The sad fact is though that now Bromsgrove Council have zoned this area for development, the chances of getting this application are slim to say the least. But we've got to try and stop this obscene development happing

Report this post »

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr says...
12:47pm Sat 22 Sep 12

Well what did your protest achieve? I can tell you one thing, that the blood bank is now two donations down, one which is Oneg which they are desperate for. After being stopped by police 3 cars back from the roundabout we missed our appointment and by the time we arrived they had stopped for lunch and would not see us. Thank you for completely wasting my morning. You obviously have too much time on your hands.

Report this post »

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