No

Representation ID: 98274

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Anne Teed

Green belt land will be destroyed.

No

Representation ID: 98331

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Daine Davis

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

No

Representation ID: 98375

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Susan Marshall

This development will double the size of Studley.
Local lanes too narrow to cope with extra traffic.
Traffic congestion on the Slough /Node Hill, bottle neck at roundabout.
Local Schools although near to development are over subscribed.
The one GP surgery in the village cant cope with the population as it is now.
The loss of rural landscape, farmland, loss hamlet of Middletown and eventually Sambourne.
Run of water from a large development and its affect on the residents of Middletown.

No

Representation ID: 98403

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Barry Yirrell

Once this landscape and farmland is lost, we will never get it back, the rural hamlet of Middletown will be gone and the village of Studley will be almost doubled in size.
Its a struggle to get an appointment with the local GP, this will get worse as the infrastructure for a development of this size will impact all the services in the area, causing more traffic on the lanes. Children will have to be driven out of the area to school as the local schools have a waiting list.
Even more congestion along the Slough and Node Hill.

No

Representation ID: 98586

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr and Mrs R Hammersley

Agent: MacMullen Associates Ltd

This Preferred Location extends to some 49.33 ha (122 acres). All of the land falls within the parish of Sambourne.
It is suggested that permitting development on SG22 would not only be an unwarranted encroachment onto an area of considerable ‘landscape value’ but would, in the longer term, also potentially lead to ‘unrestricted sprawl’.
There is no suggestion that the land in SG22 could be considered to qualify as ‘Grey Belt’.
In terms of Sustainability Appraisal assessment we do not agree with the assessment of this site. In our opinion there is no respect in which it can be agreed that the SG22 Land West of Studley site should be ranked within the ‘top 10’ under the Sustainability Assessment.

No

Representation ID: 99011

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Heidi Murfin

The infrastructure is not sufficient for this large scale housing development plan. To build 2500 houses (more than doubling the size of the town) and then address the infrastructure afterwards is not fair on the current residents. It will put this village at greater risk of flooding, more difficulties getting hold of a GP, longer waiting list for hospital appointments and treatments, and not enough secondary school places for local children. The current sewer system will over-spill, the high street will be congested and historic buildings may be irreversibly damaged.

No

Representation ID: 99204

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Rawlings

There should not be any development on the Green Belt.

Yes

Representation ID: 99832

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Jasmine Rossiter

I do not agree with SG23 plan. The character of Henley-in-Arden area would change forever. The environment would change, loss of green space and it would be more polluted. The impact of traffic in Henley would mean increased congestion and parking. Also concerning is the access to SG23 area and Ref ID 737. Local amenities and services would not cope -including healthcare, schools, public transport and supermarkets.

Yes

Representation ID: 99923

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Geoff Cooper

Local roads okay, proposals look quite contained, but shame to see Studley go the same way as Redditch.

No

Representation ID: 99987

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Adam Quinney

SG22 is neither the best performing for health , education , nor economy . The reason being that the 41% increase (as a minimum) in Studley’s population and pressure on existing facility and service resources has been completely overlooked, providing a distorted meaningless result. In fact, SG22 would be one of the worst performing options.
The Lepus Consulting report fails to draw attention to the significantly large percentage increase (41%) of population that the housing development would add to Studley. Studley and Sambourne, could not cope with the facility and service demands that would be placed on it.

Yes

Representation ID: 100007

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jennifer Bates

SG22 is perfect for development as:
1) There is an acute shortage of housing in Studley.
2) SG22 is grey belt land separate from Sambourne and Redditch. Development would not undermine green belt.
3) The land is unproductive and would not result in significant agricultural loss. No food crops have been grown for many years.
4) Amenities, e.g. education, have significant capacity and would NOT be overwhelmed (data below). There are plentiful other amenities/leisure facilities.
5) Transport links are very good
6) Local unemployment is very low with plentiful job opportunities as well as good commuting links.

Yes

Representation ID: 100043

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.

Yes

Representation ID: 100060

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lorraine Grocott

NA

No

Representation ID: 100165

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Gary Baines

As a member of the local Community Speed Watch Group and living directly opposite the proposed site I experience the high volume of traffic which rat run down the lanes at high speed first hand. The number of households proposed would massively increase the already problematic traffic problems which make our lane, with no footpath, a highly dangerous place to walk and cycle.
Sustran have already declared Middletown lane a cycle route but excess traffic would endanger peoples lives. With traffic jams on the slough and the junction at A435 there is no alternative but to use Middletown Lane.

No

Representation ID: 100166

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Philip Wall

Fully opposed to any development on Green Belt Land.

No

Representation ID: 100241

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr James Hyde

There used to be a Fire Station here in Studley, there isn't one now. There was also a Police Station, there isn't one now. There used to be two doctors surgeries, there's now one and you are lucky to get an appointment. There used to be two bus services, there is now only one and that finishes before 7pm. The nearest railway station is Redditch 6 miles away so everyone here uses their car. The Alcester Road is a massive queue twice a day all through the Village. The infrastructure just isn't here to cope with more houses.

No

Representation ID: 100269

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Samantha Hyde

This part of Studley is unique. It provides the community with a walkable route out into the wider countryside.
It is a place beauty and interest at all times of the year. I enjoy this space regularly, it is quiet and tranquil and benefits my mental and physical well being. I believe it’s accessibility and location on GREEN BELT land are key to it’s popularity and success. It makes no sense, given the government’s emissions targets and obligations to meet them, with rising mental and physical illness amongst the population, to place housing on this land.

No

Representation ID: 100330

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Deborah Carter

Completely opposed to any development on Green Belt land.

No

Representation ID: 100514

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Michael

This Development is not sustainable because of poor schools provision, poor drainage infrastructure and medical surgery capacity. It will also act as urban infilling between Studley and the village of Middletown. Increased traffic via rat run through Sambourne is of particular concern. Full traffic analysis and service provision studies to be instructed. Loss of greenfield space.

No

Representation ID: 100518

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Pamela Turner

Increased traffic through Sambourne to Alcester is a concern. Lack of medical surgeries and post office and banking facilities also. Urban infilling between Studley and the village of Middletown. Loss of greenfield space.

No

Representation ID: 100663

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Maureen Rawlings

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

Yes

Representation ID: 100722

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Doug Wallace

N/A

No

Representation ID: 101057

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Chris Clews

SG22 - what exactly is seen as strategically growing onto or within this site?
This site is agricultural Green Belt.
Guesstimates of 1500 houses - Studley has 3200(2011 census).
Heavily impact local services and facilities. Local schools oversubscribed .
Problematical access - A448(busy main road, bottle-necked at each end) or Middletown Lane (already has traffic issues).
Private transport necessary as public transport availability is minimal.
Flooding already an issue - development would aggravate the problem by preventing ground soak-away.
Local topography means severe landscape impact.
This site should be removed from further consideration.

No

Representation ID: 101070

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: 101418

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Chris Clews

SG22 - what exactly is seen as strategically growing onto or within this site?
This site is agricultural Green Belt. Guesstimates of 1500 houses - Studley has 3200(2011 ward census).
Heavily impact local services and facilities. Local schools oversubscribed .
Problematical access - A448(busy main road, bottle-necked at each end) or Middletown Lane (already has traffic issues). Private transport necessary as public transport availability is minimal.
Flooding already an issue - development would aggravate the problem by preventing ground soak-away.
Local topography means severe landscape impact. This site should be removed from further consideration.

No

Representation ID: 101479

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Maria Needle

The proposal to develop green belt land raises concerns about its impact on local infrastructure and the community. The area lacks the necessary infrastructure, such as schools, healthcare facilities, and roads, to support the significant population increase. Traffic congestion, especially during peak times or when there are issues with nearby motorways, would worsen, potentially leading to gridlock. The conservation status of the high street adds further complications. The proposed development is seen as unsustainable both environmentally and socially, as it would strain existing resources and compromise the needs of the current generation.

Other

Representation ID: 101891

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Heart of England Forest

This area is located within the Green Belt and ignores the current efforts by the Heart of England Forest to create new native broadleaf woodland immediately adjacent and contiguous to this area. No information is provided on how this developing Nature Recovery Area will be protected should this area be adopted. The new woodland which is an existing and tangible asset will contribute to achieving LNRS objectives and assist with addressing the climate emergency. This area should not be included within the plan.

Yes

Representation ID: 102661

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Chris Britt

I agree, in principle, with consideration of the area designated as SG22 (West of Studley) being considered for development within the South Warks Local Plan. However, I feel that the area is generally unsuitable for a large-scale housing development, without major investment in local infrastructure - particularly transport (public transport, cycleways, footpaths and roads), health (GP surgeries and pharmacy) and education. 100-200 new homes might be sustainable, although improved road junctions at Spernal and Crabbs Cross would be essential. 500-1,000 homes would put unacceptable pressures on local facilities, ensure huge traffic problems and severely damage the character of the area.

Yes

Representation ID: 102672

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Lucy Quibell

We support the allocation of SG22 and welcome the recognition of Studley as a Main Rural Centre, aligned with the Local Plan’s spatial growth strategy. However, we argue that SG22 should be expanded to include Land South of A448 (The Slough), Studley, a logical and sustainable extension. Allelys, the landowner and the UK’s largest rail haulier, is a nationally significant employer requiring urgent expansion to maintain its role in critical infrastructure and job creation. Given updated PPG guidance (Feb 2025), we request a Green Belt reassessment and the inclusion of this site within SG22 to secure Studley’s long-term economic sustainability.

No

Representation ID: 102807

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Lucy Scragg

There is an evident lack of consideration with this proposed development: it frankly seems out of touch. It completely goes against the history of the land itself as well as the wider community and rural landscape, as well as not taking into account the local, already exsisting infrastructure. More in attached document.