No

Representation ID: 88225

Received: 09/02/2025

Respondent: Kenneth Miller

Please see rep below (submitted as attachment).

No

Representation ID: 88260

Received: 14/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Ida Marjorie Brown

Makes no sense.

No

Representation ID: 88472

Received: 16/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Frances Greenwood

The road infrastructure of the A435 cannot support this scale of development.
Traffic is already dreadful at times in this area, and the traffic through the village is horrendous.
It become almost impossible to get from Alcester to Redditch through Studley with an increase in traffic.

No

Representation ID: 88476

Received: 16/02/2025

Respondent: Mr mark greenwood

Terrible idea not thought through no amenities to support the growth

No

Representation ID: 88599

Received: 17/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Ida Marjorie Brown

Green belt, poor strategic location and transport links. Protect Historic Towns. Henley poorly developed with in-town infilling and has poor parking and limited access in and out. Not against developing Henley, but should seek to build infill in the areas around Henley and preserve the town heritage, e.g. infill In Buckley Green, on the former Garden Centre (north of Henley and it is a brownfield site!), expand in Claverdon, Ullenhall and Wootton Wawen. Business Hubs should be located near to accessible motorway and good road infrastructure (Blythe Valley an excellent example). Could easily build 600 homes around Henley by infill.

Yes

Representation ID: 88643

Received: 17/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Jerry Corless

N/A

No

Representation ID: 88651

Received: 17/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Ida Marjorie Brown

Opposite side of town would be better relocation but question the transport links

No

Representation ID: 88767

Received: 12/02/2025

Respondent: Charles Farran

I have lived in Middletown since 1986, and I strongly oppose the SG22 development, which would merge Middletown with Studley, erasing its identity and turning it into an urban area. The 2014 Sambourne Parish Plan opposed further housing, and the Green Belt, established in 1975, aims to prevent urban sprawl. SG22 is valuable agricultural land and its loss would threaten food security. The proposed development would significantly increase Studley's population, overwhelming local services, including healthcare. The 2018 Studley Neighbourhood Plan showed 97% of residents did not wish the existing boundary to be changed.

No

Representation ID: 89003

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Tanworth Residents Association

Our neighbouring local authority has already built up to the county line. It is relying on Warwickshire to avoid urban sprawl through us maintaining our Green Belt protection. None of the Northern cluster of proposed sites SG22, 23 or 24 should be developed until other options outside Green Belt have been exhausted elsewhere in South Warwickshire.

No

Representation ID: 89364

Received: 20/02/2025

Respondent: Mr David Russell

This is a ridiculous amount of housing for this site and would cause huge disruption and change the local environment beyond recognition. A much smaller development could be conceived.

No

Representation ID: 89531

Received: 20/02/2025

Respondent: Miss Emily Carleton

Stop please, this is green belt land!

Yes

Representation ID: 89736

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Compton Verney

n/a

No

Representation ID: 89992

Received: 22/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Cindy Foster

I object vehemently to the proposed development SO22 as the land is Greenbelt and provides a much needed area for wildlife and clean air Close to an already overpopulated town.

No

Representation ID: 90044

Received: 22/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Ruth Smith

No. The land is farmed green belt and we need to keep food production. The noise and air pollution is already bad and the increase in traffic would be horrendous on the country roads. The junctions each end the A448 are already over capacity at peak times, with long queues of traffic. It would increase Studley's population by about 40%; the doctors and local schools are already over-subscribed with waiting lists and there is no NHS Dentist. It would detrimentally affect wildlife. Studley, Middletown and Sambourne would lose their village identities. There is no public transport within walking distance.

No

Representation ID: 90135

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lisa Warren

I do not agree with sg22 as it is green belt land and studley does not have the infrastructure to support lots of new houses, we have no bank, no post office, only 1 doctors, only a private dentist, the schools are full. Please keep our village as it is!

Other

Representation ID: 90395

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Jayne Jones

I don't know this areas well enough to comment

No

Representation ID: 90400

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Martin Russell

Re SG22. I strongly oppose this proposal for many reasons.1 The surrounding road infrastructure is inadequate.2 The land in not grey belt as prime agricultural with elevated site ie landscape value & loss of valuable greenbelt which seperates different villages.3 population/dwelling numbers will swamp existing hamlet and even Studley. 4 Facilities like schools & doctors may be in the area but there is no capacity. In conclusion I think West of Studley SG22 is an unsuitable site.

Yes

Representation ID: 90403

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Dr Louise Stewart

Adds to existing well established infrastructure and as a medium town, it already provides employment with significant further opportunity for expansion. Makes sense to formally join it up with the next town along. 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: 90409

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Mandy Russell

Re West Studley Parcel SG22. I'm opposed to this because it would mean loosing the identity of the rural hamlet of Middletown/ Sambourne and join us with studley also the large number of proposed houses would mean the already busy A448 being heavily congested .The site is quality farm land and should not be developed due to government net zero guidelines.

No

Representation ID: 90655

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lorna Bullett

Access to Schools - there are no spaces in Studley today, and no space at either primary or secondary schools to develop
Access to GP / Hospital services - GP provision is poor currently and it takes a long time to get appointments. the hospital is reducing in levels of services and Worcester/ Warwickshire are a significant distance with limited public transport.
The junction with Middletown lane and Bromsgrove road is unsafe in its current state, there are many near accidents in this location.

No

Representation ID: 91029

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Julian Brown

No. given its location to Redditch i am not convinced this side of Studley requires expansion. There is very little distance between Studley and Redditch i believe it to be better to infill the boundary to Redditch rather than leave such little distance.

No

Representation ID: 91136

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Studley Parish Council

Agent: Mrs Katharine Walters

The local infrastructure is inadequate to support SG22, local schools at maximum capacity, health services stretched, no banking facilities, no post office. Road network would need sufficient upgrade of 1 and 2 new roundabouts. Worcestershire Highways would need consultation. Traffic on A435 is currently at 22,000 vehicles per day. Any CIL or S106 will not be given to Studley as SG22 in Sambourne parish. SG22 will have a serious detrimental effect to the living standards of Studley residents.
Studley Parish Council opinion is in agreement with Sambourne PC following joint meetings.

No

Representation ID: 91150

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Katharine Walters

The local infrastructure is inadequate to support SG22, local schools at maximum capacity, health services stretched, no banking facilities, no post office. Road network would need sufficient upgrade of 1 and 2 new roundabouts. Worcestershire Highways would need consultation. Traffic on A435 is currently at 22,000 vehicles per day. Any CIL or S106 will not be given to Studley as SG22 in Sambourne parish. SG22 will have a serious detrimental effect to the living standards of Studley residents. Studley Parish Council opinion is in agreement with Sambourne PC following joint meetings.

No

Representation ID: 91275

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Gunningham

I object.

Insufficient local infrastructure and capacity - schools, hospitals, GPs, dentists, care for elderly, shops, bus services, transport, roads, and safety thereof (speed, traffic management).

Loss of greenbelt.

Impact of building program - over a very extended period. Noise, dirt, visual impact, large vehicles, road damage, danger to pedestrians, interruptions to services.

Visual impact of new properties. Increased noise and lighting.

Loss of enjoyment of open space.

Loss of enjoyment of personal home.

Financial impact to property values.

No

Representation ID: 91344

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Stephen Mack

The area chosen is lacking the adequate road infrastructure and other local services to accommodate the development.

No

Representation ID: 91681

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Sam Green

The sites are too big!
The Studley site should be split into 3 or 4 sites. The other locations should be west of the A435 (just before the petrol station), then on the land off Abbeyfields Drive (again west of A435). Pictures of these locations attached.
It's lazy to bang them all in one site.
The Wilmcote site is a travesty too. Massively out of proportion to the area.

No

Representation ID: 91813

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent:

Local infrastructure is already under too much pressure, health services limited, no post office or bank road network overused tailbacks pollution. Green Lane Jill Lane and spernal junction will all need roundabouts. Crabs cross roundabout is a danger to support more traffic can not easily be enlarged, it is also worcestershire/redditch boundary in many places What happens to CIL or S106 money will Studley see any of it. The Lepus reports are extensive but flawed/biased with basic scores, its all very well being close to a school but if it is full and can not be expanded it doesnt help

No

Representation ID: 91960

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: NEIL ADCOCK

The development of this area will cause loss of green belt and farmland and a massive increase in traffic and polution.

No

Representation ID: 92012

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lydia Lyth

No, Green Belts shouldn’t include housing allocations. This is unacceptable to approve, the local community are at Max capacity already of doctors, dentists and schools.
The impact of the proposed would have a negative impact on wildlife including protected and declining species at these locations, which act as transitional buffers for nature and would reduce access to nature for people living in urban areas.
Not satisfied that the Councils have carried out a detailed Green Belt Review to include this land, particularly the Stage 2 work as well landscape impact assessments. They have not done individual Flood Assessment work.

No

Representation ID: 92025

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Kathryn mountney

Building so many houses would be detrimental to Studley. Facilities such as schools and doctors are already overstretched and oversubscribed without increasing population

It would no long be a rural village, losing green space.

The road network wouldn't cope with an influx of cars as public transport is already limited in this area