No

ID sylw: 106450

Derbyniwyd: 24/02/2025

Ymatebydd: David Hartley

1. The projected capacity of the land for housing is stated as 1046, This density is unrealistic, and the numbers are likely to be in the range of 1500 to possibly 1800.
2. The land performs a valuable Green Belt function in preventing urban sprawl. Release of a large area of Green Belt would potentially lead to further extensions of development and infilling. The land performs a valuable Green Belt function in safeguarding the Countryside.
3. Development on this elevated and prominent land with 2 and 3 storey buildings would have a major impact on an area with high landscape value. This is admitted in the Lepus Report.
4. While Lepus ranks the site highly for educational provision, the local schools are over-subscribed.
5. Increasing the population of Studley by 40+% would significantly change the character of the village of Studley. The hamlet of Middletown would effectively be transformed from a small rural settlement to a suburb of Studley-cum-Redditch.
6. Lepus score the site as ‘best’ in terms of health provision. However local GP facilities are over-stretched; there is no NHS dentistry and the Alexandra Hospital in Redditch has been under threat for some years.
7. Accessibility to facilities which are insufficient makes a nonsense of a claim in the Lepus report that the SG22 site would have a positive effect on connectivity. The meaning of this claim is incomprehensible.
8. Transportation is limited and specifically the crucial A448 junction connecting to Redditch is overloaded and not capable of being improved to provide greater capacity.
9. Development of the site would lead to more extensive ‘rat running’ through the village of Sambourne, exacerbating a known existing problem.
10. The land is valuable and productive for agriculture and should not be lost to development.

No

ID sylw: 106452

Derbyniwyd: 24/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Individual Care Services

Asiant : Individual Care Services

1. The projected capacity of the land for housing is stated as 1046, This density is unrealistic, and the numbers are likely to be in the range of 1500 to possibly 1800.
2. The land performs a valuable Green Belt function in preventing urban sprawl. Release of a large area of Green Belt would potentially lead to further extensions of development and infilling. The land performs a valuable Green Belt function in safeguarding the Countryside.
3. Development on this elevated and prominent land with 2 and 3 storey buildings would have a major impact on an area with high landscape value. This is admitted in the Lepus Report.
4. While Lepus ranks the site highly for educational provision, the local schools are over-subscribed.
5. Increasing the population of Studley by 40+% would significantly change the character of the village of Studley. The hamlet of Middletown would effectively be transformed from a small rural settlement to a suburb of Studley-cum-Redditch.
6. Lepus score the site as ‘best’ in terms of health provision. However local GP facilities are over-stretched; there is no NHS dentistry and the Alexandra Hospital in Redditch has been under threat for some years.
7. Accessibility to facilities which are insufficient makes a nonsense of a claim in the Lepus report that the SG22 site would have a positive effect on connectivity. The meaning of this claim is incomprehensible.
8. Transportation is limited and specifically the crucial A448 junction connecting to Redditch is overloaded and not capable of being improved to provide greater capacity.
9. Development of the site would lead to more extensive ‘rat running’ through the village of Sambourne, exacerbating a known existing problem.
10. The land is valuable and productive for agriculture and should not be lost to development.

No

ID sylw: 106461

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: William Boyle

Building any more houses in Studley or surrounding areas is insane. We just haven't got the road structure. The village is gridlocked at the moment.

No

ID sylw: 106464

Derbyniwyd: 28/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Barbara Campbell

Insufficient infrastructure

No

ID sylw: 106486

Derbyniwyd: 28/02/2025

Ymatebydd: First Name not Supplied Dyer

Not sufficient infrastructure.

No

ID sylw: 106550

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Heidi Smith

I would like to register my objection to the proposed site for residential development alongside Node Hill/The Slough in Studley.

The site, if developed, would represent a dramatic increase in the size of the village disproportionate to the amenities and nature of the village. It would take up land that is currently Green fields and if developed fundamentally impact on the village.

The area suffers from regular flooding, suggesting that any development would add to flood risk, it also already suffers from excessive traffic and regular congestion which would increase with such a large development.

This proposed site is on the edge of Studley village when in fact it sits within Sambourne parish I also appears to unfairly negatively impact Studley, by appearing to expand beyond the existing ‘triangle’ boundary. If there is a need for development in Sambourne, this would be better located close to their amenities.

Whilst I appreciate that there is a perceived demand for additional housing across the south Warwickshire area, I believe that developments should be a planned as proportional increase to existing locations, eg X percentage increase in every town/village/hamlet thus sharing the burden of increased population, housing and infrastructure fairly across the area. This may be less attractive for big developers, but would be more sympathetic to the provision of local amenities and less detrimental to the character of local communities .

In addition, before developing on green belt land, greater efforts should be made to develop empty shops in towns to increase the mix of residential and commercial use (and regenerate towns) and to reclaim and repurpose empty properties

No

ID sylw: 106552

Derbyniwyd: 28/02/2025

Ymatebydd: J.M. Hall

Infrastructure is lacking e.g. adequate schools, Drs, hospitals. Extra traffic esp. at the island at the top of The Slough.

No fire station in Studley.

No

ID sylw: 106558

Derbyniwyd: 27/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Catherine Keating

Too much traffic

Not enough spaces in local schools

Not enough openings in Doctors Surgery

Increased pollution

Increased traffic noise

Increased health risks from pollution

Health & safety risk from increased traffic/speed

No

ID sylw: 106561

Derbyniwyd: 28/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Lee [Surname Not Supplied]

Not sufficient infrastructure.

No

ID sylw: 106562

Derbyniwyd: 26/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Pete McGrath

1000 houses = minimum of 1000 cars. 2 people per household = 2000 cars.

Where is the infrastructure - roads - utilities - schooling

Risk to health - potentially 2000 extra cars in a small village environment when traffic is already problematic

No

ID sylw: 106563

Derbyniwyd: 27/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Ian Milnes

Footpaths will be ruined
Doctors appointment
Schools

No

ID sylw: 106567

Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Colin Poole

I am not a nimby as I think we need more affordable housing for our increasing population.

I am concerned that Studley will be overwhelmed by this large development.

Our schools are oversubscribed. There is only one doctor's surgery which cannot cope with the amount of care hom...
I am not a nimby as I think we need more affordable housing for our increasing population.

I am concerned that Studley will be overwhelmed by this large development.

Our schools are oversubscribed. There is only one doctor's surgery which cannot cope with the amount of care homes + McCarthy & Stone Homes. Our roads are already full with most homes with one or two vehicles.

The infrastructure needs to be in place before building starts.

No

ID sylw: 106569

Derbyniwyd: 28/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Ann Pill

SG22 - No

Not sufficient infrastructure.

No

ID sylw: 106576

Derbyniwyd: 28/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Sue Poole

I understand the need for more housing and do not object in principle. However, the infrastructure is already inadequate with the existing number of residents.

1. There is only one GP surgery only. This has been put under strain by recent additions of Studley Rose and Hayward Lodge care homes and couldn't cope with 1 - 2 thousand additional residents.
2. Infant, junior + high schools are already oversubscribed.
3. Studley and Sambourne have no banking or post office services.
4. Studley's road network has major issues with traffic problems and pollution and would require improvement before 1,000 additional homes.

Can improvements and their timing be guaranteed. The builders should bear the costs.

No

ID sylw: 106585

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Barbara Saunders

Far too many houses!

As there are already about 5,000 people living in Studley, to add another potential 3,500 is quite ridiculous. This is based on the assumption of another 1,700 homes. Also the roads in this area are very difficult, with added pollution not healthy.

No

ID sylw: 106586

Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mark Shuter

SG22 - No

I disagree with the proposed development as plans only deal with the development itself but not the impact it has on the local community.

The infrastructure is already over-burdened, with traffic, schools and healthcare under pressure.

I would support the proposal ...
SG22 - No

I disagree with the proposed development as plans only deal with the development itself but not the impact it has on the local community.

The infrastructure is already over-burdened, with traffic, schools and healthcare under pressure.

I would support the proposal if the developers pledged to build new schools / doctors and improved transport infrastructure, however these actions never get included in the proposals as these would always hit the developers profits.
more

No

ID sylw: 106598

Derbyniwyd: 28/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Carol Smith

SG22 - No.

Not sufficient infrastructure for this type of building.

No

ID sylw: 106600

Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Jennie Thompson

Studley does not have the capacity to sustain this amount of dwellings.

The schools + doctors are full to overflowing with no funds to build more.

The roads are at standstill 70% of the time and there isn't enough parking. The car parking in the village is full mo...
SG22 - No

Studley does not have the capacity to sustain this amount of dwellings.

The schools + doctors are full to overflowing with no funds to build more.

The roads are at standstill 70% of the time and there isn't enough parking. The car parking in the village is full more often than not, if you can get a doctor's appointment you can't park there or for the pharmacy. Which is fine if you are able to walk but many people can't.

Unless you can provide better infrastructure and facilities then it's very unwise to proceed with this number of houses.

No

ID sylw: 106621

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs V Walsh

No comment supplied.

No

ID sylw: 106625

Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs B Wall

No for me. It's green belt land losing lovely fields & walks. Doctors and schools fully stretched.

No post office.

Far too many houses for village traffic.

Village badly congested all the time already.

No

ID sylw: 106627

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: - Wardle

Not sufficient infrastructure. Already bottleneck at Windmill Island.

No

ID sylw: 106637

Derbyniwyd: 02/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Colin Webb

In relation to item SG22, I feel that the impact on the infrastructure and traffic would have a very detrimental effect on Studley and Sambourne

No

ID sylw: 106638

Derbyniwyd: 28/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Heather Wersocki

Access - the A448 is already too busy. It is impossible to get out of either end - Crabbs Cross at evening times / early morning and at the junction with Alcester Road you cannot turn right. Lots of people avoid this by using Holt Rd which is not ideal.

The facilities in Studley have declined over the last few years - no bank, post office, library (part time). The doctors surgery is at capacity and the car park is too small.

Schools can cope at the moment but I don't think that they could cope with a lot of children.

Section 106 money - would that go to Sambourne as site is in Sambourne?

No

ID sylw: 106639

Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Jeremy Wilson

I strongly oppose to any housing development in this Parish for the following reasons

Traffic
Studley is already gridlocked with heavy traffic, Bromsgrove Road, Node Hill and the Slough are becoming increasingly busy and dangerous. It is already very difficult to get parked.

Schools
The junior and high schools are already at capacity with waiting lists!

Doctors
There is now only one doctors surgery

Congestion
Due to the above any new residents will have to use their own vehicles all the time to travel to facilities outside of Studley/Sambourne increasing the already traffic congested village!

No

ID sylw: 106673

Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Judith Wilson

I strongly oppose any housing development in this parish

I strongly disagree with this proposed location being considered.

The area of Studley and Sambourne has not get the infrastructure to cope with this proposal.

The roads in and around the Studley area are gridlocked at the best of times!

One doctors surgery is not enough for this area now!

Not enough school places available, therefore more people would have to travel hence putting more cars on our roads!!

No

ID sylw: 106823

Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Laurence Evans

I do not support the proposals in this chapter regarding SG22 'The West of Studley Parcel'. It is totally obvious that this SG22 proposal has been put together by persons not familiar with the area or what the public desire regarding future developments.

The Lepus interim sustainability appraisal of the South Warwickshire local plan, is as previously mentioned, seriously flawed with inaccuracies due to not having sufficient local knowledge and is therefore not fit for purpose.

The site does not conform to development land guideline set by the government being neither brown nor grey belt land but 122 acres of prime green belt agricultural land which produces a significant grain crop each year.

The site provides a much-needed green buffer between Studley, Middletown, Sambourne and the outer reaches of the major combination of Redditch.

Major effects would be a building blight due to the elevated aspect of the land along with people, noise, traffic, light and air pollution.

The infrastructures to support such a development have been seriously underestimated regarding the provision of gas and electricity requirements.

The proposed development is on a hill which will give an undesirable impact on the surrounding vista, in other words a 'blot on the landscape'. Lepus says schools of every type are easily accessible and while this may be correct they fail to understand the fact that each is full with little or no room for building expansion.

Studley has few leisure facilities, a small swimming pool and children's park and that's all, to find other facilities involves a 20-to-30-mile car journey at a time when we are being asked to use the car less.

Public transport is a major issue with only a basic bus service available, there is no train station.

In addition, if the proposed SG23 Alcester development is built, 50% of the traffic from this development will head north towards Studley either on the A435 or A448 compounding the problem further.Lepus said all the above was positive in support of SG22, a statement which is totally confusing, it makes no sense and is totally incorrect. The conclusion is that this proposal is seriously flawed in so many areas it should be withdrawn.

Other

ID sylw: 106881

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Bromsgrove District Council

A1 and A2 are identified in the SWLP Preferred Options as among the 'least preferred' of the potential new settlements based on the evidence base. These comments are provided given the proximity of A1, A2, and SG22 to the Bromsgrove District Council (BDC) boundary.

BDC is reviewing its Local Plan. Growth Options are not confirmed. The potential of Bromsgrove's infrastructure to accommodate Bromsgrove's growth and potential impacts from residents of A1, A2, and SG22 has not yet been established. BDC acknowledges the methodology of locating A1 and A2 close to the A435 due to proximity to strategic road and rail links. The New Settlement Background paper identifies potential settlements with good access to both the road network and the main settlements in South Warwickshire. If A1 and A2 come forward BDC would need clarification on how they would meet SWLP need given their distance from the main SWLP settlements.

BDC will work with the SWLP authorities if these proposals are advanced. Evidence would need to be provided that non-Green Belt sites are unsuitable before these sites come forward. As the evidence base identifies delivery challenges, BDC would require clarification on infrastructure delivery to ensure no adverse impacts on Bromsgrove District should they come forward without full infrastructure in place due to development phasing.

Other

ID sylw: 106885

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Redditch Borough Council

A1 and A2 are identified in the SWLP Preferred Options as among the 'least preferred' of the potential new settlements based on the evidence base. These comments are provided given the proximity of A1, A2, and SG22 to the Redditch Borough Council (RBC) boundary.

RBC is reviewing its Local Plan. Growth Options are not confirmed. The potential of Redditch's infrastructure to accommodate Redditch's growth and potential impacts from residents of A1, A2, and SG22 has not yet been established. RBC acknowledges the methodology of locating A1 and A2 close to the A435 due to proximity to strategic road and rail links. The New Settlement Background paper identifies potential settlements with good access to both the road network and the main settlements in South Warwickshire. If A1 and A2 come forward RBC would need clarification on how they would meet SWLP need given their distance from the main SWLP settlements. The A435 severs potential for active travel links between A1 and A2 for short 'day to day' journeys. Even with local centres it is likely these settlements would generate significant numbers of short car journeys to Redditch.

RBC will work with the SWLP authorities if these proposals are advanced. Evidence would need to be provided that non-Green Belt sites are unsuitable before these sites come forward. As the evidence base identifies delivery challenges, RBC would require clarification on infrastructure delivery to ensure no adverse impacts on Redditch District should they come forward without full infrastructure in place due to development phasing. RBC would welcome further engagement on SG22 to confirm the details of this proposal given its proximity to Redditch.

No

ID sylw: 106892

Derbyniwyd: 26/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Ann Cheetham

I do not believe that the current infrastructure of the Middletown, Studley and Crabbs Cross area will support the development of over 1000 residential properties at the proposed site, SG22.

1. Traffic
The increase in the number of vehicles from the proposed new housing development would overwhelm the existing road network which was not designed to cope with the number and size of vehicles that already use it.

2. Schools
The schools in Studley are already oversubscribed and have poor road access.

3. NHS Facilities
Pool Medical Centre is not of an adequate size to deal with a large increase in patient numbers and patients requiring secondary care are referred to Warwick hospital.
There is no NHS dentist in Studley and the local pharmacy is already running at full capacity.

4. Public transport
There is no easily accessible train station in the local area necessitating the need to use cars.

5. Local Facilities
Studley has 2 small supermarkets both of which have small car parks. Other facilities such as the leisure centre are limited in capacity and the local population use the surrounding countryside and farmland for exercise and wellbeing.

No

ID sylw: 107028

Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Lynn Evans

In essence any house holder in SG22 would not be employed locally and so would need to commute to a place of work, most likely in the greater west midlands area, this defeats the government's aim of reducing travelling and putting houses where people work.

It would be far easier to integrated smaller developments, into a wider area, so spreading the demand on resources.

Lots of comments and assumptions have been made in the supporting documentation which are totally wrong highlighting their ignorance of the local area in every aspect. Even local councillors have questioned the supporting evidence and criticized most of the content as being seriously flawed.

There is no way this land can be considered as brown or grey belt to get round the requirements.

The site provides a much-needed green buffer between Studley, Middletown, Sambourne and the outer reaches of the major combination of Redditch.

Major effects would be a building blight due to the elevated aspect of the land along with people, noise, traffic, light and air pollution.

The infrastructures to support such a development have been seriously underestimated regarding the provision of gas and electricity requirements.

The provision of storm water control and sewage treatment will far exceed the capacity of Spernal Ash sewage treatment works.

Lepus says it scores well on healthcare; the reality is far from that! Redditch hospital is not far away but has been seriously downgraded over the last decade with services moved to Worcester which is now totally overloaded and performing badly.

Studley has few leisure facilities, a small swimming pool and children's park and that's all, to find other facilities involves a 20-to-30-mile car journey at a time when we are being asked to use the car less.

Public transport is a major issue with only a basic bus service available, there is no train station.

In addition, if the proposed SG23 Alcester development is built, 50% of the traffic from this development will head north towards Studley either on the A435 or A448 compounding the problem further.Lepus said all the above was positive in support of SG22, a statement which is totally confusing, it makes no sense and is totally incorrect. The conclusion is that this proposal is seriously flawed in so many areas it should be withdrawn.