No

ID sylw: 105642

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Fiona Flear

I have lived in Alcester since 2005, witnessing significant housing development that has worsened transport issues in South Warwickshire. I have observed a decline in local services and facilities, with the High Street now dominated by charity shops and eateries. The existing schools and doctors are overwhelmed, and transport options are limited. I strongly oppose the SG21 development because it would double Alcester's size without adequate infrastructure, negatively impact traffic and safety, threaten Green Belt land and local wildlife, and potentially lead to further developments. I believe developers often fail to deliver promised infrastructure improvements.

No

ID sylw: 105799

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Jennifer Campbell

Arden's grafton is a nonservice village without street lights, pavements ,shop or bus service. Residents of Temple Grafton have to park on road side near church making the hill into the village one way only traffic. Roads through the villages have become rat-runs from A 46 to surrounding villages. Because of the volume of traffic it is highly dangerous to turn right onto A46. All roads in the area are now very narrow because of speed and volume of traffic. I therefore am opposed to the planned development as any further building would only worsen the situation as outlined above.

No

ID sylw: 105857

Derbyniwyd: 22/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Peter Havard

The site is separated by a dual carriageway Alcester bypass A435. Connectivity to town will need tunnels and bridges. Schools in the area are at full capacity and new schools will mean more traffic. There will be need to provide more medical practices and improve the connectivity for both cyclists and pedestrians. New development will lead to parking problems in the area. The whole area is in greenbelt and as per DEFRA it is Agricultural Land Classification grade 3. The development in SG21 will disintegrate the community spirit that is enjoyed by the residents of village Arrow.

No

ID sylw: 105946

Derbyniwyd: 15/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Helen Bowen

I desperately wanted to comment on the vast detrimental affect building over 3000 house on this site would have to this beautiful local environment. This site hosts incredible natural habitats- I walk through the woods and on the field margins and see beautiful wild flowers, such as bluebells through the spring, along with countless sightings of hares, deer, buzzards and even a barn owl. It is an area enjoyed by so many - great not only for walking but trail running along the footpaths.
To build so many new houses would also put huge pressure on the town - particularly its schools. I live in Salford Priors and already our village’s children are no longer able to get into Alcester Academy and must travel to Stratford. I would urge the council to think of alternative sites, particularly brown field sites to redevelop rather than eating into our green land.

No

ID sylw: 106138

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Kevin Murphy

Alcester is a small town with insufficient school and health facilities for 3,000 additional homes. There are no buses, pavements or pedestrian crossings along Alcester Heath. Residents rely on private vehicles as there is no train station. Removing vegetation to build houses on this sloped site would worsen flooding issues as rainwater cascades down the B4090 towards the town centre. This is a dangerous road with blind spots and an often-ignored 50mph limit. The A46 is congested in peak-time and an accident hotspot. The B4090 to the ridge way junction is unsuitable for large vehicles or more traffic. These roads are not safe to cross for pedestrians.

The site is open countryside with much wildlife. Development would increase animal casualties from crossing roads and light and noise pollution. The site is agricultural and actively farmed. Topography means new development would be very visible and generate landscape impacts. The Grade 2 listed Hunting Lodge is on the edge of the site. We have had an extension refused due to impacts on openness of the Green Belt. Restrictions relating to visual impact and openness must apply for much larger-scale sites. Concentrate development around locations like the underutilized Stratford Parkway station.

No

ID sylw: 106165

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: K R G McCrory

Site SG21

This site is unacceptable to ourselves as we bought our house based on location and privacy.

This new location will be putting the houses beside our house and garden.

I believe if the new site was to happen then compensation or a purchase of our property would need to be put in place as we will be unable to sell our house due to the volume of houses beside us due to a devaluing of our property.

No

ID sylw: 106237

Derbyniwyd: 25/02/2025

Ymatebydd: A.F. Butt

1) Flooding. Land within SG21 has flooded in 2024 & 2025.
2) Population. A capacity of 3,000 dwellings (= more households) implies a population increase of about 7,000 people, the approx. population of Alcester. A 100% increase! A huge distortion of the town & surrounding villages.
3) Cars. The number of additional cars could be 4000-5000 on roads that are already busy.
4) Traffic. The roads around Alcester are clogged up when Ragley Hall puts on an event (say up to 2000 cars). The addition of 4000-5000 cars permanently would lead to gridlock.
5) Character. The charm and character of Alcester & surrounding villages would be permanently damaged by a scheme of this size.
6) Services. Doctors, dentists, police, fire, hospitals etc. have all been pared down in recent years and can only just cope with the current population, let alone a 100% increase.

No

ID sylw: 106238

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Nicholas John Daniel

Asiant : Jean Cooper

No suitable infrastructure (medical, dentistry, parking, schools etc.)

No

ID sylw: 106240

Derbyniwyd: 24/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Jean & Richard Adams

Building 3000+ houses on the west side of the Alcester by-pass would double Alcester's population. At an average of 2 persons per house that is at least 6000 people, the population at the last census was 6500. At present schools are full, doctors & dentists full, car park in town at busy times full. It would also mean more than twice the traffic using B'ham Rd and Evesham St to access the town. 3000+ houses is a New Town on the west of the by-pass which would need all the above mentioned services. I'm sure sewage would be a problem as well. Spittle Brook runs through the middle of the area, with a large conurbation water drainage will mean much more water entering the book a lot quicker, the brook behind Hadrians Walk and The Folly already floods without more water draining into it. The Church Land off Cold Comfort Lane (the white area on plan) already floods in heavy rain, since Ragley dug out Spittle brook further west towards the Ridgeway.

If this proceeds it would have to be built like a new town i.e. all at once, not all the housing then services later.

No

ID sylw: 106242

Derbyniwyd: 24/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Ms Sandra Clowes

Would be isolated by the bypass

No

ID sylw: 106246

Derbyniwyd: 24/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Anthony Jacks

Area proposed is green belt of high quality. It is well-managed by Ragley Estates and as such is an outstanding area of natural beauty enjoyed by many - which is why Green Belt areas were developed in the first place.

The development would require significant provision of utilities which are completely independent from those already existing within the urban area of Alcester. Further the entire road network often struggles to cope with volume especially on ocassion of events being held at Ragley Hall.

No

ID sylw: 106247

Derbyniwyd: 24/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Pamela & Martin Sturdy

Nifer y bobl: 2

Roads not capable of handling increased traffic
No adequate schools
Not enough parking in Alcester
Not enough provisions for children/young adults i.e. swimming pool clubs, sports.
Why take yet more of our countryside away
Not enough dentists (NHS)
Not enough doctors

No

ID sylw: 106248

Derbyniwyd: 24/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Alvar Williams

Much too large and on Green Belt.

No

ID sylw: 106249

Derbyniwyd: 25/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs S.A. Bayley

Absolutely ridiculous! We only have a population of 6,000, why would you build another 3,000 houses?

No

ID sylw: 106255

Derbyniwyd: 25/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Patricia Hufton

This proposed development will completely alter the nature of Arrow.

At the moment it is a small village & 3,000 houses will ruin & overwhelm the complete infrastructure. All existing services will be overrun, and the traffic which is already busy will come to a standstill. There is nothing good about this proposal.

No

ID sylw: 106256

Derbyniwyd: 25/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Peter Locke

This is an unacceptable proposal and quite ridiculous to be putting housing at the proposed area. Stratford council members seem to like house building in Stratford so I suggest you put them there and not the ridiculous area proposed. On top of that you continuously do what you have done and never fulfil infrastructure to go with it. If you do anything do your job and do it properly. People's well being, health and happiness should be at the forefront of decisions, and this plan plainly was not in the best interest of local people.

No

ID sylw: 106257

Derbyniwyd: 26/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Kirsty Denby

How will this area be supported?

Conservation area?

Infrastructure? No public transport, no school places, NHS overwhelmed.

No

ID sylw: 106258

Derbyniwyd: 26/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Sally Havard

I am deeply opposed to the proposed development of SG21. We are a close knit community in Arrow which would totally change. I feel the amount of traffic is already heavy, especially when there are events being held locally. The impact of an extra 3,163 cars (x2 as most people have 2 cars) would create absolute gridlock on the roads in Arrow. Also, the infrastructure in the small town of Alcester could not support this proposed development in many ways.

No

ID sylw: 106259

Derbyniwyd: 26/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Terry O'Brien

To allow the exploitation of this area would not promote strategic growth, it would just enrich a few fortunate people who appear to be prepared to extinguish the result of centuries of careful husbandry by allowing an unnecessary expansion of the town in this area.

The site suggested falls outside the now significant boundaries of the town and would incorporate a frankly dangerous highway without considering the complicated traffic arrangements that would result.

Population expansion is inevitable but the suggested density of the site is impractical unless the amount of affordable housing turns out to be surprising.

The loss of agricultural capacity and amenity land would prove to be short sighted and the potential impact of such a site would dominate the town and prompt commercial development that may prove to be unwelcome.

No

ID sylw: 106260

Derbyniwyd: 27/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Carloyn Baldwin

No infrastructure to support large increase in population if the development went ahead.

Arrow is a community of less than 200 people and the community would be completely ruined.

Increase in traffic would be unbearable.

No

ID sylw: 106261

Derbyniwyd: 27/02/2025

Ymatebydd: W.G. Baldwin

The proposed development in arrow would ruin the village of less than 200 residents and change its character for ever.

There is no infrastructure to support such a large development.

Roads
Drainage
Schools
Public Transport
Doctors
Dentists

If SG21 were to go ahead the Roman town of Alcester would lose its characteristics and charm and would no longer be a tourist attraction.

No

ID sylw: 106262

Derbyniwyd: 27/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Roger Denby

No further comment supplied.

No

ID sylw: 106263

Derbyniwyd: 27/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Andrew Fowles

This is prime farmland next door to where I have lived for 35 years. This area has provided shelter for my family and an education environment for my children. The land provides a home for many rare wildlife such as deer, pheasants and other birds which use the lake which has lovingly been cared for by the Ragley Estate. They are likely the largest employers in Warwickshire and this important Warwickshire farming land should be protected. This land and its associated memories are important for me, my children, and my grandchildren. Arrow is a wonderful, supportive, friendly place which has helped me raise my children. I love the uniqueness of this village. Please consider other sites.

No

ID sylw: 106264

Derbyniwyd: 27/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Steven Hunter

The development is on prime agricultural land which would serve our society best for food production.

The land is adjacent to a conservation area so is not appropriate for a development of this type.

A development of this scale would be seriously detrimental to the community at Arrow with Weethley - there are barely enough community facilities for the existing residents.

The road infrastructure around the villages struggles to cope with existing traffic. Permanent increases in traffic would overwhelm the surrounding roads.

No

ID sylw: 106287

Derbyniwyd: 01/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Ann Dover

The whole ethos of a small rural village with a small but very close community will be totally lost in Arrow.

The ancient and historic town of Alcester will change as the residents numbers could double with this development. Schools are bulging + health appointments are not easy to acquire now.

No

ID sylw: 106288

Derbyniwyd: 01/03/2025

Ymatebydd: David Vaughan Kitchen

I recently moved to arrow as a retirement haven. Arrow is a small hamlet with period property and an old-word charm.

It has a close-knit community which would be seriously compromised by a large housing settlement nearby, and the character of the area would be completely ruined by contemporary building.

This is a conservation area and that should be observed and maintained in its entirety.

The agricultural land that would be sacrificed for such a development would be yet another step in reducing the capacity of our country to feed the nation.

I strongly oppose the proposal for SG21 to be considered for development.

No

ID sylw: 106289

Derbyniwyd: 02/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Richard Dover

Arrow is a very pleasant hamlet and estate village formerly housing members of staff for Ragley Hall and has retained a very close-knit community spirit with the Church and Village Hall at its centre. This development would destroy the village community and rather than Arrow being a satellite community to Alcester we would all be swept up into one urban sprawl.

No

ID sylw: 106297

Derbyniwyd: 02/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Gavin Downs

SG21 has always been designated as Green Belt. When I applied, a few years ago, to build a garage on my drive neighbouring the area, I was refused permission because it was protected.

This area is home to a wide diversity of wildlife that has slowly seen their natural habitat being eroded.

The woods neighbouring my property are homes to a member of species of owl, birds of prey, badgers, squirrels and bats to name a few.

No

ID sylw: 106299

Derbyniwyd: 02/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Christopher H. Baker

These proposals are an absurdly disproportionate increase of the existing housing and population in Alcester. They would cause severe and long-lasting impacts on noise, light pollution and other construction impacts. There are no details on access, road and transport infrastructure, amenities, play area, open space, schools, retail, or community investment activity. There is no information on when any of the above would be delivered - before development, concurrent with it, or after.

Alcester would become two communities divided by the A435. Why such large development on the Green Belt? Given the large area to be built on, paved, or covered in roads, existing flooding problems would inevitably worsen. How many storm water ponds over what area would be required to serve so much development. The plans are currently half-baked, missing key ingredients, structure and a credible programme. The Alcester Town Council opinion covers all this and much more and calls for a proper response.

No

ID sylw: 106333

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Dr Graham Birley

Does the identification of these areas imply that they are ripe for housing and/or industrial development notwithstanding the fact that they are on green belt land?
This is of great concern because there would be a requirement for a substantial increase in:
1)School and further education provision
2)Medical and dental provision
3) Transport. The roads are congested at the present time and there are no bus services or railway stations.