No

Representation ID: 85954

Received: 10/01/2025

Respondent: Ms Janice Kerr

Alcester is a small village and does not have the infrastructure to support this development. The road network is poor and will not support a development of this size. The lack of road access will also impact on Studley increasing the pressure on the A435. This will merge Alcester with Coughton will this then be a new town?

Yes

Representation ID: 86202

Received: 15/01/2025

Respondent: Professor Paul Bywaters

.

Yes

Representation ID: 86492

Received: 27/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs C Dempster

Spread out the development

No

Representation ID: 86567

Received: 28/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Bridgewater

Further significant development of this market town will undermine its character.

No

Representation ID: 86699

Received: 29/01/2025

Respondent: Dr Cllr Susan Juned

This site is Green Belt. There are no exceptional circumstances to justify release from Green Belt status. Not supported by the Alcester NDP.
On the opposite side to the A435 bypass; no current meaningful links to the town other than by a pedestrian footbridge.
Not integrated into the town which weakens community links and cannot be classified as a potential new settlement.
Will adversely impact the village of Arrow and residents of the B4090.
Does not comply with the requirements for sustainable travel or other sustainable development requirements.
Development on this site could lead to further flood pressures on Alcester.

Other

Representation ID: 86817

Received: 30/01/2025

Respondent: Mr GERALD KELLY

Alcester has some lovely shopping streets and building work here should be limited to small developments around the town rather than a large estate.

No

Representation ID: 87119

Received: 04/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Karen Greenhalgh

The Area of Alcester has already seen large developments built recently. The infrastructure mainly buses are not frequent or reliable enough for travel to Stratford, Henley, Birmingham or Solihull so many having to commute by car, the residential developments do not allow for multiple cars. The water and electricity supply is terrible. The reason we love Alcester is for its green country spaces and it is now being ruined. Beautiful green fields are being dug up causing wildlife to flee and flooding further down the line. Disgraceful really.

No

Representation ID: 87203

Received: 06/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Folkes

I do not agree with the Kinwarton field site proposal in Alcester for housing. This is a natural area for birds, deers, hedgehogs and rabbits. There are many trees and natural habitats. This is a popular dog walking site and does not need to be developed on.

No

Representation ID: 87265

Received: 07/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Julie Parry

The existing main Alcester Road through King's Coughton is already permanently busy, and floods in heavy rain. Building on the land highlighted will put too much pressure on the existing road network, and undoubtedly add to the flooding issues, as water drains down the slope from the proposed area towards to the main road. You'll destroy greenbelt land, disturb wildlife, and Alcester as a town doesn't have the transport links (no train service) and services (no big supermarket) to support this new development.

Yes

Representation ID: 87357

Received: 08/02/2025

Respondent: Cllr Andrew Day

Sustainable development

Yes

Representation ID: 87509

Received: 09/02/2025

Respondent: mrs susan morris

I agree good transport links and shopping opportunities for houses in this area

Yes

Representation ID: 87692

Received: 10/02/2025

Respondent: Mr justin kerridge

good access to A46 but no train line.
A435 north is very congested already. Any development would need to contribute to decongestion at the Crabbs cross island in Redditch off A448/A441, the spernal junction A448/A435 and active travel routes such as 2 shires greenway and the Alcester to Redditch greenway project (WCC)

No

Representation ID: 87705

Received: 10/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Kathrin Foster

The land proposed is in Green Belt, green areas should be protected and brown fields should be prioritised for any strategic growth developments.

No

Representation ID: 87830

Received: 11/02/2025

Respondent: Mr David Hotten

There are no exceptional circumstances to warrant development in the green belt as there are sufficient strategic growth locations outside of the green belt.

No

Representation ID: 88010

Received: 13/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sharon Quantrill

In greenbelt

No

Representation ID: 88011

Received: 13/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Simon Quantrill

No as in greenbelt

No

Representation ID: 88012

Received: 13/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sharon Quantrill

In greenbelt

Yes

Representation ID: 88145

Received: 13/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Anne Parry

No objection.

Yes

Representation ID: 88181

Received: 14/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Rozanne Harris

SG21 is either already in or directly adjacent to a highly populated area. The road infrastructure is already in place

No

Representation ID: 88244

Received: 14/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Robert Baxter

Further development in this area will greatly deminish the quality of life for the current residents. Increased pressure on infrastructure is guarenteed as we have seen in recent years. The pollution from increased industrial developments and local transport will affect the health and wellbeing of our children and future generations. Already 26 coaches come in and out of Alcester every school day and must be kerbed. This plan is trying to put a gallon into a pint pot and will infuriate many residents.

Yes

Representation ID: 88258

Received: 14/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Ida Marjorie Brown

Although GB, good site location

No

Representation ID: 88291

Received: 14/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Tony Jacks

The area shown is green belt land which apart from being owned and managed by Ragley Estates also provides the local residents access to rural areas for general wellbeing. In addition the current road infrastructure along the A422 is not sufficient to support such development and would be difficult to improve around the Arrow village.

No

Representation ID: 88355

Received: 15/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Joy Smith

This is just ridiculous! Why are you trying to destroy the town and environment? Building such a huge amount of houses in this area will decimate Alcester! For heavens sake, redevelop the brown field sites - the old infant school, priory road old library etc. Disgraceful to even contemplate building on the fields, taking allotments and by the side of the river at Oversley where it ALWAYS floods. What are you going to build - houseboats!! LEAVE OUR PRECIOUS GREEN BELT ALONE! So angry.

No

Representation ID: 88371

Received: 15/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Havard

SG21 would require new schools/medical practice.
Access to town facilities difficult as A435 dual carriageway in the way so any houses would not feel part of the town and new ways for pedestrians/cyclists required.
Developing as far south as the A422 would merge Alcester and Arrow and impact the integrity of the Arrow conservation area.
No rail service in Alcester so inevitable traffic increase in an already busy town.
Agricultural quality land would be sacrificed and site has no defendable boundaries to the west leading to inevitable pressure to grow westward.
Footpaths across this farmland provide relaxation for townspeople.

No

Representation ID: 88456

Received: 16/02/2025

Respondent: Miss Jodie Nash

The proposal to use this location for 3,163 houses is absurd and wholly ludicrous. Besides the fact that precious green belt land will be lost, the existing infrastructure cannot cope with this number of new houses being proposed.

No

Representation ID: 88470

Received: 16/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Frances Greenwood

The road infrastructure of the A435/A46 is not sufficient to support the extra traffic.
Alcester does not have the services to support this large increase in population.
It will ruin this little town.

No

Representation ID: 88474

Received: 16/02/2025

Respondent: Mr mark greenwood

This is getting rid of our lovely surroundings, not thinking of the roads and the amenities. We lost our police station and fire station. But you are addeding more housing. Schools are full but you add more housing. This has not been thought through this need to be strapped.

No

Representation ID: 88475

Received: 16/02/2025

Respondent: Mr mark greenwood

Not thought through it's going to destroy the area

No

Representation ID: 88539

Received: 16/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Russell Duggan

I am completely against any further construction of houses on greenbelt land in the alcester area. This is ridiculous and not required. You will turn alcester into redditch

No

Representation ID: 88598

Received: 17/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Cook

757 - ribbon development not acceptable; too close to dangerous bend and school entrance.
133 - entrance on to Spernall Lane that floods every winter.
880 - If entrance onto Spernall Lane, flood risk on road every winter; if entrance onto B4089, too close to dangerous double bend and school entrance.
620 - on edge of flood plane, as weather deteriorates with climate change this land will almost certainly become water logged. No suitable exit onto road system.