Yes

Representation ID: 88642

Received: 17/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Jerry Corless

N/A

Yes

Representation ID: 88649

Received: 17/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Ida Marjorie Brown

Location ok but question infrastructure links.

No

Representation ID: 88771

Received: 17/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Bruce Park

This site should not be considered due to:
- very poor transport links, no railway station, no planned major highway development or upgrade to A46 planned
- Significant distance to proposed major investment sites.
- This is a green field site not a brown field site
- designated special landscape area
- Development undermines strategy set out in Alcester Neighbourhood Development Plan 2021
- fundamentally change Alcester beyond recognition due to sudden rapid growth of population

No

Representation ID: 88989

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Craig Weale

There is no requirement for this without any proper additional infrastructure especially on a green-field site which will fundamentally ruin the town.

No

Representation ID: 88994

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Alcester Civic Society

A development of this enormity is not sustainable representing a 100% increase in the population, given an average of 2.5 residents per property. It would be like building a second Town of Alcester as a mirror of the existing Town to the west of the A435.
The 350 homes built on the new Alcester Park Estate did not come with any additions to the infrastructure for the Town. The doubling of the population would in effect need a new 'Town Centre' to sustain that level of increase in population as the existing centre will be swamped.

No

Representation ID: 89307

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Mr O Johnson

Area is at risk of flooding and limited access/infrastructure.

No

Representation ID: 89517

Received: 20/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jackie Carr-Smith

The SG21 Alcester area is on green belt land and should be protected countryside. Such a large area of development could cause surface water run off into the nearby River Arrow and cause flooding to the area.

No

Representation ID: 89530

Received: 20/02/2025

Respondent: Miss Emily Carleton

This is green belt! Don't build here!

No

Representation ID: 90092

Received: 22/02/2025

Respondent: Catherine Hewson

River arrow LWS and Coldcomfort Wood PLWS

Yes

Representation ID: 90402

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Dr Louise Stewart

Adds to existing well established infrastructure and as a large town, it already provides employment with significant further opportunity for expansion. Business owners do not want to come to a brand new site with no facilities, it is too risky for them in an already challenging economy.

No

Representation ID: 90615

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Miss Katheryn Clayton Bartlett

The proposed SG21 - Alcester Group strategic growth consideration should be opposed due to its negative impact on the local area, infrastructure, and environment. The location is unsuitable for further housing development, as it would place new homes next to a major motorway, exposing residents to excessive noise pollution and worsening traffic congestion on already strained roads. This expansion would overburden local services, reduce residents’ quality of life, and destroy valuable green space, harming the town’s character. Sustainable growth should prioritise community needs, not unchecked expansion. Residents must take a stand to protect Alcester’s roads, resources, and heritage.

Other

Representation ID: 91026

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Julian Brown

Partial agreement. Location is logical given its access to the A435 and links to A46. 50% development more appropriate.

No

Representation ID: 91047

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Patryk Garczarczyk

The proposed SG21 - Alcester Group strategic growth consideration is deeply concerning due to its detrimental impact on the local area. The chosen location is entirely unsuitable, placing new homes right next to a busy motorway, subjecting future residents to constant noise pollution. Increased traffic will put even more strain on already overburdened roads, worsening congestion and safety risks. Additionally, the destruction of green space will damage the environment and alter the character of the town. Sustainable, well-planned development should come first, not reckless expansion. It’s vital that residents oppose this proposal to protect Alcester’s infrastructure and community.

No

Representation ID: 91094

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Nicole Park

The proposed housing development is disproportionately large compared with the existing size of Arrow and Alcester. It is on a greenfield site and will both destroy the countryside and dramatically alter the character of the area, swamping the environs and available services of this historic market town. With very limited public transport and no rail link in Alcester, the roads will not be able to cope with the enormous and inevitable increase in traffic. The knock on increase in traffic noise and pollution will further impact the neighbourhood and environment.

No

Representation ID: 91396

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Miss Victoria Sturdy

No thought into local environment impact and flooding defences. The town has no infrastructure to support this building and larger developments will be catastrophic to the town.

No

Representation ID: 91438

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Ms Lucia Restall Orr

The proposal will affect the following Local Wildlife Sites: River arrow LWS and Coldcomfort Wood PLWS

No

Representation ID: 91501

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Beth Palmer

further unnecessary encroachment on green belt

Yes

Representation ID: 91951

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Mr James OShea

This is a suitable and sustainable growth location with good and close highway infrastructure

Other

Representation ID: 92065

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Neil Edden

Whilst its inclusion makes sense from an existing, surrounding road infrastructure and massing perspective, careful consideration should be given to traffic that the site would generate on the already overburdened A435 and its potential cumulative impact on site SG22 as there are no rail links nearby and less than substantial employment for potential residents in the area, so housing would be likely occupied by people who work in other areas and will travel and be delivered to by road only.

No

Representation ID: 92164

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Alison Adams

The area is prone to flooding so removing more green field sites will only impact this further. There are not enough services in the infrastructure including schools, doctors etc.. you need to be mindful of the existing community and the risk and impact it will have. Building on green belt land should not be allowed, it's designated green belt for a reason! If these houses are required build them in areas that are not at risk of flooding. Man made defences do not work and only move the issue further down stream

Yes

Representation ID: 92321

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Harbury Parish Council

the road connections are good, but the lack of rail means this should be a modest development

No

Representation ID: 92766

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Bruce Park

this development would change Alcester forever. Settlement would be split in two.
- increase in traffic
- no train station
- lack of schooling, work opportunities
- lowest scoring of all strategic growth locations for sustainability
- entire development in green belt
- 17% site in flood zones 1 and 2
-site includes a watercourse for Alcester
-1000’s of migratory geese and other birds use the reservoir when preparing to migrate
- doesn’t meet 20 min town principle
- brings arrow and Alcester into 1 community with no buffer

Yes

Representation ID: 92916

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Ed Molloy

Close to Alcester

No

Representation ID: 93450

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Bernard Davis

Area is green belt and there are no "exceptional circumstances"

Yes

Representation ID: 93662

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Christopher Bennett

This site is a convenient extension to the already dense area of housing and thriving town of Alcester. I believe this is one of the most desirable sites for housing development in the proposed plan. It is in direct proximity to all the existing community services and facilities available there and feels appropriate in size to the existing settlement. The existing road network provided by the A46 and A422/A435 gives this site an additional important and clear advantage.

No

Representation ID: 93876

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Carina Taylor

There is no train line in Alcester, everyone is reliant on a car as the public transport is so poor. The roads are congested and dangerous, how many deaths on the A46 between Alcester and Stratford-too many!

No

Representation ID: 93900

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Carina Taylor

The new development would be cut off from Alcester due to the A435 dual carriage way, how would children walk to school.
Parents would have to drive, therefore increasing the traffic which is already very congested in Alcester, look at the Birmingham Road , Kinwarton and St Faiths Road in the morning and afternoon. The town carpark is always full and in Waitrose you can only park for 90 minutes.
The schools are at full capacity, 407 have applied for 150 places at Alcester Academy, what will happen to those from the surrounding villages, where will they go to school?

No

Representation ID: 94263

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jon Redhead

This would facilitate encroachment and destruction Green Belt Land, which must not be prioritised.

No

Representation ID: 94354

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr David Moulson

Having lived near the proposed development site for 45 years, I have several concerns. Firstly, Area SG21 is within the Greenbelt, which the government pledged to protect. Secondly, building on productive agricultural land is unwise, especially as climate change makes farming increasingly challenging. The area is also rich in wildlife, hosting many threatened species. Access issues would arise due to inadequate infrastructure, and the proposed housing would overwhelm local amenities and drainage systems. Lastly, archaeological investigations are necessary, given the area's historical significance. Therefore, this land should not be developed.

No

Representation ID: 94451

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Belinda Brown

This location is made up entirely of greenbelt land and should therefore be protected from development. No homes should be being built on green belt land as a part of this SWLP, when there are other sites available!