Plans to build a new travellers' site near a village in Worcestershire have been refused by the council for the second time.

Wychavon District Council has refused plans to build a travellers' site near Childswickham seven months after the first proposals were submitted. 

Residents describe the plans as "detrimental" to the area and state numerous concerns including its effect on the environment and Murcot Road being unsuitable for a high level of traffic. 

The plans would see six travellers homes and room for six caravans on a field that would be developed off Murcot Road on the outskirts of Childswickham. 

Wychavon District Council refused the plans because: 

- The site is located outside any defined development boundary. 

- The western side of the site falls within a flood zone as a result of its proximity to Badsey Brook.

- The distance between the site and Childswickham is considered to be a prohibitive factor in any future residents utilising public transport or pedestrian links to access local facilities.

The plans had 61 comments from neighbours with the vast majority objecting to a new travellers' site. 

Paula Roberts said: "The application site lies outside the development boundary as defined under policy SWDP2.

"As such the site lies on land defined as open countryside where, under the provisions of policy SWDP2, development will be strictly controlled unless special circumstances can be shown.

"There are no special circumstances.

"This is an established quiet country lane used peacefully by slow traffic, pedestrians, cyclists and horses.

"This development will change this to its detriment."

According to the planning statement, the applicant has tried everything to find a site to live on and has been on the council's waiting list for years. 

The documents also state that no building would take place in the flood zone.

Childswickham Parish Council also objected to the plans saying: "Put simply, this is the wrong location for new gypsy and traveller pitches as it is within the open countryside, remote from public services and is contrary to both local and national planning policy and good practice."