PLANS to create four new homes in Tenbury have attracted almost 15 comments.

Submitted by Avon Planning on behalf of 3RS International Limited, the application would see four dwellings built on land off Berrington Road.

But less than six weeks after the application was submitted, the plans have already attracted 13 comments from residents of the area.

The application stated that the proposed houses would “contribute towards meeting the identified unmet need for housing”.

It continued: “The proposed development would be located on the edge of a main town in a sustainable location with very good access to an extensive range of local facilities and transport modes. A safe and suitable means of access will be provided for the development.

“The site is reasonably well contained and abuts residential garden land to the western, eastern, and southern boundaries. There is a small coppice of woodland beyond the northern boundary of the proposed site.”

But the proposal has not sat well with some Tenbury residents, with many raising concerns about the impact on neighbours.

“Building houses in the location proposed will cause intrusion to existing properties as well as devalue them. It is unnecessary,” objected Christine Sheppard.

Jean and Alan Prosser commented: “We are very close to this field, a small oasis of wild land. In the last 10 years or so we have suffered almost continuous building work around us. These houses are not needed. There are plenty available for sale and new being built already or permissions in place. It is accessed by a narrow private road and exiting on to Berrington Road is already fraught with danger due to speed. Enough is enough.”

Others raised concerns about the lack of facilities.

Jan and Richard Punnett said: “The proposed development does not add any new facilities and is out of Tenbury. Tenbury is a rural community with rural services that are already stretched. Despite numbers of dwellings, no additional services have been developed.”

Victoria Roe added: “The schools, the GP surgery, the chemist and dentist are already stretched.”

The planning statement confirmed that advice had been obtained from the council earlier this year. It said: “Preapplication advice was sought from the council in January. The council’s advice was negative on two grounds: the site is outside of the development boundary for the town and the proposed development would not fit with the spatial pattern of development in the area.

“The advice given was predicated on the council being able to demonstrate a five-year housing supply. This is not the case, so the conclusions drawn by the council in the planning balance are not valid.”