Puxton flood plain plan recommended for approval

7:40am Wednesday 13th May 2009

CONTROVERSIAL plans to build 73 houses on land crossing Kidderminster’s flood plain have been recommended for approval, despite being thrown out by councillors last time round.

Members of Wyre Forest District Council’s planning development control committee voted against the advice of their own planning officer and statutory experts when considering the application for land, off Puxton Drive, two months ago.

Now applicant, A & J Mucklow & Co, has submitted a new bid, which will go before the next planning committee meeting tomorrow night.

A letter to the committee from Wolverley and Cookley Parish Council said the development would “definitely increase the risk of flooding to both Wolverley and Cookley and Caunsall.”

It added: “The land at Puxton would have to be built up and is unstable and there would be a loss of amenity area in the site of Special Scientific Interest.”

The Environment Agency has raised no objection to the plans, saying they “represent a safer and generally more sustainable development” than previously.

A flood risk assessment submitted in support of the application by specialist company, Buro Happold, says the site has a low annual probability of river or sea flooding of less than one in 1,000.

The applicant was granted planning permission to build 46 dwellings on the site in August last year (2008) and plans to increase the development to 73 properties have been met with anger from local residents.

There were 41 letters of objection sent to the council, expressing concerns about flood risk, over-development of the site and increased traffic.

Lynne Cheshire, member of residents’ action group, Wolverley FLAG, said: “No-one seems to consider the knock-on effect to local areas.

“We cannot allow this development to go ahead. The public need to be aware of this proposed build on flood plains.”

Andy Kitchen, senior planner for the applicant’s agent, Pegasus Planning Group, said: “This application includes a number of relatively minor amendments which have been undertaken to address the reasons for refusal.”