No

Representation ID: 100661

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Maureen Rawlings

This is Green Belt land and should not be built on.

Yes

Representation ID: 100720

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Doug Wallace

N/A

No

Representation ID: 101068

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Zoe Leventhal

No very special circumstances exist here to justify removal of land from GB, when other brownfield and non GB sites available.

No

Representation ID: 101362

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Pauline James

This would nearly double Alcester with suburban sprawl of housing. That is not fair and would overload the local roads and ruin the rural character of the area. A smaller, denser addition built at a density of 160 dwellings per hectare may work OK.

No

Representation ID: 102477

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Debra Turner

Alcester has seen significant house building over the last 10 years. The schools have received NO extra funding and are at bursting point. Children that live in houses not in the immediate vicinity of schools are finding access difficult. The infrastructure in the town has not been invested in. There are no facilities for young people, and a worse than poor bus service connecting to other major towns. We are fortunate to be surrounded by green belt, which gives everyone positive benefits. This plan builds on Green Belt, which is not in line with bio diversity or eco friendly policies.

No

Representation ID: 102512

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Jonathan Turner

The existing growth of in main of our urban and semi urban areas has already placed Hugh pressure on existing infrastructure including medical education and leisure facilities. I have no faith that these will be enhanced to meet the extra let alone the increased demand. Further more the apparent significant expansion into the green belt does not seem consistent with de-carbonisation.

No

Representation ID: 102514

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Debra Turner

The builds are on Green Belt. We are losing our open spaces with Buzzards nesting in the mature trees. The town can not sustain any more house building as there is NO plan to increase school capacity or local infrastructure. I believe the last money given by developers was re-directed to another part of Warwickshire. How can this be fair to the residents of the town.
The eco system is at breaking point.

Yes

Representation ID: 102768

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: The Ragley Estate

Agent: Stansgate Planning

The current Core Strategy recognises that Alcester is the largest of the main rural settlements in
the District and supports a wide range of shops, services and jobs. For that reason, the town is a
suitable location for further housing and employment. Necessary development and sustainable,
organic growth in Alcester have been held back by the constraint of Green Belt, which surrounds
the town.

No

Representation ID: 102785

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Sally Jones

Summary
- out of scale with existing town
- difficulty of providing sustainable transport links to town due to dual carriageway A435
- development would join Alcester with Arrow
- harmful impact on Ragley Park & Garden & Arrow CA
- secondary education provision in Alcester -new school required
- no defensible boundary to west - danger of creeping development
- risk of exacerbating flooding in Alcester

Yes

Representation ID: 102865

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Severn Trent Water

This development will likely require treatment at Alcester (STW) Treatment Works, this Wastewater Treatment Works has low capacity constraints and low environmental constraints. Due to the size of the development, it is recommended that network upgrades and infrastructure upgrades will be required, alongside hydraulic modelling and engagement with STW. Overall this development site is considered a lower risk location.

Other

Representation ID: 103157

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Neal Appleton

Whilst the aim is for people to live close to where they work and for Active Travel to be a priority, it must be acknowledged that people often choose to reside and work in different places. Commuting is the norm and the SWLP must accommodate this. Settlement expansion and locations of new settlements must be supported by transport infrastructure. Transport links around Alcester are at capacity. The A46 needs upgrade and links to and through Studley need to be improved before it can be considered for further substantial development.

No

Representation ID: 103160

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Richard Lanz

The proposed site will bring chaos to the Slough & Studley . If you visit this area in the morning or evening you fill find traffic backing up all the way down the hill from Crabbs Cross , the other end is also very difficult to get out . The traffic will like it already does use Sambourne as a Rat run or Studley to access The A435 , which is not going to cope with additional traffic .

No

Representation ID: 103414

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Keith Allan

* Green belt land should NOT be allocated for housing when more suitable non-Green Belt land is available.

Yes

Representation ID: 103532

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Laura Nicholas

Here there is more access to local amenities such as supermarkets, motorway, road and train routes.

No

Representation ID: 103552

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Sarah Shalgosky

Impact on River arrow LWS and Coldcomfort Wood PLWS must be avoided. Wildlife corridors should be developed/maintained.

No

Representation ID: 103585

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Campaign to Protect Rural England - Warwickshire

SG21 Alcester: The suggested development location is in the Green Belt and lies west of the A435 Alcester Bypass. It is attractive landcape and productive farmland and provides part of the setting to the historic town.. The bypass is a clear and effective western limit to the town. Alcester is not served by rail and is largely car-dependent. Access to SG21 would appear to be from the A44 which runs through the village of Arrow, the estate village of historic Ragley Hall. The traffic generated by development of SG21 would be damaging to that locality. SG21 should not be pursued.

Yes

Representation ID: 103605

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford-on-Avon Town Council

The west side of Alcester is a good candidate for development with good regional connectivity in all directions by road and a well-established town centre.

No

Representation ID: 103879

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Michelle Blackburn

destroying the land, nature, added pollution an increasing the flood risks.

Yes

Representation ID: 103912

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Nicola Sawle

The town could sustain some growth , supported by the access of road and transport links

No

Representation ID: 104094

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: David Adams

Alcester is already prone to flooding hence I don't support a new development of this size, so close.
This would put an unacceptable strain on existing facilities, particularly schools and GPs.
Brownfield sites should be truly exhausted for development prior to considering greenbelt sites such as this.
The dual carriageway A435 would hinder integration between the new development and existing Alcester communities, leaving the new development isolated and dysfunctional, with limited benefit to existing amenities such as the high street.

No

Representation ID: 104135

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Craig Stone

Similar ot my comments on Studley, but both Studley and Alcester will suffer, 22000 cars already use the A435 everyday, shops, services, schools, health care will all be further overstretched, why does the SWLP not consider these aspects, what level of affordable housing will be considered

No

Representation ID: 104175

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Great Alne Parish Council

In short, Alcester is a hub for services for neighbouring communities, not just Alcester residents, and major increases in capacity will be required for the 3000+ new households envisaged under SG21. Without such increases in capacity residents of Alcester and neighbouring parishes like Great Alne will be adversely affected. Where will this increased capacity come from?

No

Representation ID: 104222

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: South Warwickshire Foundation trust

As this development is on green belt land, we would not support this site as a priority for development, unless there were significant steps taken to avoid or mitigate any loss of biodiversity and carbon sequestration/climate change mitigation.

Other

Representation ID: 104566

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Ian Dunning

YES ONLY IF the development is high density, linked with public transport and active travel infrastructure.

Do not build detached homes anywhere.
Painted bicycle gutters are NOT active travel infrastructure.
A bus is a bad public transport solution.

No

Representation ID: 104613

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Kay Williams

green belt land! The whole point of the green belt is you don't build in it!

Yes

Representation ID: 104637

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Ian Dunning

Stop building sprawling car-dependent suburbia. You are killing people with these decisions. Cars kill people, stop making people have to get in their cars to get to places. Build high density walkable neighbourhoods with active travel infrastructure.

Paint is not cycling infrastructure.
Buses are bad public transport.
Don't build any detached houses.

Other

Representation ID: 105238

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council

Alcester Group – SG21 – NO OBJECTION

No

Representation ID: 105335

Received: 17/02/2025

Respondent: Victoria Wynne

This proposed development does not fulfil " well connected" option in that:
There is no railway station/network connecting Alcester.
The bus service is limited and (at times) unreliable.
There are road/highway links but the resultant increase of traffic on to A4222 will impact negatively on the environmental countryside.
Alcester also lacks the wider infrastructure to support this development e.g. doctors, dentists, school places, children and youth services.

No

Representation ID: 105340

Received: 22/02/2025

Respondent: Dr and Mrs G A Bunch

I am inquiring if the southern part of the land near Arrow village is designated as a conservation area. While I understand the need for housing, Arrow is a small village with only a large church, lacking essential amenities like a shop or school. Additionally, traffic is a significant concern, especially with agricultural machinery on the roads, as the A422 functions more like a country lane.

Yes

Representation ID: 105563

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Alexander Hargie

SG21/SG22/SG23 as further developments around Alcester, Studley and Henley-in-Arden respectively these should be sustainable with the facilities in these towns and be well supported by the road networks already in place.