No

Representation ID: 94725

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Jackson

The road from Alcester A435 through Studley is already extremely busy with variable speed limits which will be intensified with extra traffic as will the A448 which leads upto Headless cross where a small 5 way island is already saturated with traffic with substantial back logs also effecting Astwood Bank where there is a currently lot of essential parking on the road. This is both dangerous and cause for frustration to drivers and those living in the village.

Other

Representation ID: 94736

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Kineton Parish Council

We have insufficient knowledge of the location from which to make an informed comment

Other

Representation ID: 94911

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: mr william tansey

Inappropriate in the greenbelt, but possibly less than other sites due to the space which it occupies.

Yes

Representation ID: 95444

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Hannah Molloy

Not Green Belt. Need for affordable housing in this area. Close to village.

Other

Representation ID: 95495

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Allan Stewart

Alcester has a hopelessly inadequate public transport infrastructure

Yes

Representation ID: 95612

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Ian Clarke

Development in this location is adjacent to pre-existing development and can be served by existing local facilities

No

Representation ID: 95812

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Daniel Hatcher

The SA ranks SG21 as 23rd of 24 SGL's so is the worst bar one in terms of its performance against 13 SA Objectives. This is reason enough for this site to be rejected. The SA (B.12.5.4) also confirms that 30-50% of the SGL is not located within any of the 3 Priority Areas, which the Draft Plan states will be used to distribute growth using the 'Sustainable Travel and Economy' Spatial Growth Strategy. Finally, the HELAA Part B score for the site is 60.2, well above the median score of 45, so again one of the worst performing sites.

No

Representation ID: 96133

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr nigel Freeth

Green field site currently high quality agricultural farm land, with diverse wild life. This site would over burden the existing town of Alcester. Even if this site was to include locate shops, schooling (unlikely to be provided) with a medical centre, the existing town will still be over whelmed. The local transport network will have to accommodate in the region of 7000 additional cars.

No

Representation ID: 96765

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Alcester Town Council

Alcester Town Council and Arrow with Weethley Parish Council have submitted joint comments in relation to this location.

No

Representation ID: 96811

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Alcester Town Council and Arrow with Weethley Parish Council

Alcester Town Coucnil and Arrow with Weethley Parish Council believe SG21 would be inappropriate development in Green Belt. The site should be removed from consideration in the SWLP. The infrastructure required would be prohibitive. Alcester would need new highways – particularly a bridge with two lane access to a new development of potential 3,163 houses. The town would require a new doctor’s surgery, primary and secondary schools, a community centre, cemetery, shops, car parks, play areas and dedicated green spaces and new footpath routes.

In the SA Report the site is ranked 23rd out of 24. It has the worst scores for flooding (SA Objective 2), biodiversity (SA Objective 3), landscape (SA Objective 4), cultural heritage (SA Objective 5), accessibility (SA Objective 11) and economy (SA Objective 13). We support this assessment and provide the below additional commentary.

Objective 1-Climate Change

-SG21 is not within a 20-minute neighbourhood.
-Poor access to services by foot/bike; reliance on cars increases emissions.

Objective 2-Flood Risk

-17% of SG21 lies in Flood Zones 2 & 3; 24% subject to surface water flooding.
-Development would worsen flood risk, especially around Spittle Brook.

Objective 3-Biodiversity & Geodiversity

-Rich in wildlife and habitats, including Ancient Woodland and Local Wildlife Sites.
-Threat to protected species and biodiversity due to development.

Objective 4-Landscape

-Entirely within West Midlands Green Belt.
-Development would cause urban sprawl and merge Alcester with Arrow.

Objective 5-Cultural Heritage

-Proximity to numerous heritage assets including Ragley Hall and Scheduled Monuments.
-Development would harm views, settings, and conservation areas.

Objective 6-Environmental Pollution

-Increased noise, air, and light pollution.
-Risk to Spittle Brook’s water quality and habitat.

Objective 7-Natural Resources

-Good quality agricultural land (Grade 3) and minerals safeguarding area.
-Development would result in permanent loss of these resources.

Objective 8-Waste
-Local waste infrastructure insufficient for the scale of development.

Objective 9-Housing
-Scale of SG21 would double Alcester’s population.
-Poor integration with existing town due to A435 dual carriageway.
-Risks creating a disconnected housing estate.

Objective 10-Human Health
-Pressure on hospitals, GP surgeries, and dentists.
-Loss of public footpaths and inadequate leisure facilities.

Objective 11-Accessibility & Connectivity
-Poor public transport and no train station.
-Increased car dependency and traffic congestion.

Objective 12-Education
-No primary school within 800m.
-Existing schools at capacity; expansion would worsen traffic and parking.

Objective 13-Economy
-Limited local employment opportunities.
-Development would harm heritage assets and worsen congestion.

Yes

Representation ID: 96985

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Jeffery

N/A

No

Representation ID: 97659

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Melanie Elkington

Should not be built on as Green Belt

Yes

Representation ID: 97760

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Gary Jeffery

N/A

No

Representation ID: 98043

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Samantha Currier

Totally unsuitable, too elevated and visible, Roads, GP services, schools would not cope, would encourage further over development.

No

Representation ID: 98271

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Anne Teed

Green belt land will be destroyed.

No

Representation ID: 98329

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Daine Davis

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

No

Representation ID: 98817

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Douglas Gordon

On wrong side of bypass.
Too from Alcester town centre.
No reasonable access from A435
In Spittle Brook flood plain

No

Representation ID: 98885

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Douglas Gordon

On wrong side of Alcester bypass.
In Spitall Brook flood plain
Too far from Alcester town centre
Dangers of crossing A435

No

Representation ID: 98905

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr jonathan billington

this growth location is open land in the green belt, and I believe the green belt should be protected from large scale development in order to prevent urban sprawl. Furthermore, the site would be separated from Alcester by the busy by-pass road which would make it difficult to integrate transport into Alcester. Also, the site would be nearly as big as Alcester, and so
the housing would generate a 'step change' in demand for existing service (doctors, etc), which are already stretched.

No

Representation ID: 99200

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Rawlings

There should not be any development on the Green Belt.

No

Representation ID: 99423

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Diane Wilson

See previous comments

No

Representation ID: 99741

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Matt Gibbins

High school over prescribed

Not enough amenities for locals that already reside in shipston

Yes

Representation ID: 99899

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Geoff Cooper

Already developed outside town centre, road connections good, local employment opportunities.

Yes

Representation ID: 100039

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Neil Brooker

If more houses are needed this Location is more suitable for development than others in the district.

No

Representation ID: 100050

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Adam Quinney

The UK has climate change commitments in legislation, SG22 can produce cereal crops at a lower carbon footprint than many fields in Warwickshire, therefore to meet our commitments to net 0 fields such as SG22 should be left in agricultural production.

No

Representation ID: 100054

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lorraine Grocott

NA

No

Representation ID: 100163

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Philip Wall

Fully opposed to any development on Green Belt Land.

No

Representation ID: 100329

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Deborah Carter

Completely opposed to any development on Green Belt land.

No

Representation ID: 100402

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Carl Austin

I object to any development happening in this area.

No

Representation ID: 100406

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Aimee Carter

There are far better alternatives than destroying this Green Belt land.