A controversial plan to create nine new flats on green belt land in Alvechurch has been refused.

An application was submitted to Bromsgrove District Council by Karl Cross-Watson in June to covert the 1930s Arosa building on The Holloway into nine self-contained apartments.

The proposals would have seen a range of one and two-bed flats with an additional eleven parking spaces and a pool building created on the site.

The plans had previously raised concerns with residents who worried about the safety of the roads, lack of public transport and noise from new houses.

The Holloway resident, Helen Hawkeswood, said: “The Holloway is a narrow, mainly single-track road without lighting, the majority of which has no pavements. The road is unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists and simply cannot cope with increases in regular road commutes.

“I live on The Holloway and should not have to be concerned with personal safety when walking on the road that I live on, as a result of land development directly on and off this rural road.”

Another resident added: “I object to the conversion of Arosa due to the noise created by further dwellings to neighbours and disruption of developing the area. There’s a total disregard for neighbouring properties and it’s no longer the village environment that we bought into.

“There is little public transport, no footpaths for pedestrians and narrow roads which are also dangerous for cyclists, dog walkers and horse riders. The Holloway just isn't suitable for the increased number of vehicles which already will be enormously increased by the scheme at Bordesley Hall.”

Bromsgrove District Council has now refused planning permission for the conversion.

As part of the refusal notice, the head of planning, regeneration and leisure services said: “The proposed development would cause substantial harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, together with the harms identified to the openness and encroachment into the countryside.

“The harms to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and the other harms identified resulting from the proposal is not clearly outweighed by other considerations.”

They added that the proposed development was in an unsuitable location that would not reduce the public’s reliance on cars and the design for the pool building would damage the character and appearance of the main property.