AN objector has claimed that a large bore water main and an electricity cable big enough to light up a housing estate laid to a cottage just outside the Callow End settlement area are far too excessive to service the existing house.

Parishioner Christopher Garner said the new drive laid to Balls Hill Cottage at Deblins Green was more like a road than a track.

It had been excavated over pasture land to a depth of one foot and was nearly a mile long and 15ft wide, with grey granite chippings over a base of rubble, laid on a waterproof membrane.

"I dispute whether anyone could call that a track," he said.

Mr Garner said the original gate to the field from the B4424 Upton road was about 25 yards further up and he did not believe many thousands of pounds had been spent laying a new road and utilities simply to service the cottage.

He estimated that the total area covered by the drive was nearly an acre, in the middle of a site of natural beauty, with a view of the Malvern Hills.

He was speaking before a meeting of Powick planning committee when two applications concerning Balls Hill Cottage were due to be discussed.

Both had been submitted retrospectively by the trustees of Madresfield Estate, one for the creation of an access track to the cottage from the B4424 and the second for change of use of woodland to garden.

The council has received four letters of objection, including one from Mr Garner, who was the only member of the public present at the meeting in Callow End pavilion.

He said a planning application for the renovation of Balls Hill Cottage had been approved on the basis that access would be from Jennet Tree Lane, via an existing road.

Old road

"I don't think anyone would have bothered to object if the old road had been used," he said.

"If this is passed you will have people like me and probably about 50 other objectors saying there is no access to the B road.

"To look after the village interest I would plead with you to think what all these utilities mean. I don't think it's credible that it is just for this tenant."

Discussion of the application was deferred because several members were unable to attend the meeting and two of those present declared an interest.