Introduction
Wyre Forest District Council is preparing a new Local Plan for the District. The new Local Plan will establish the planning framework for the future development and use of land within Wyre Forest and will replace the existing development Plan (adopted April 2022).
As part of the early stages of preparing the new Local Plan, the Council undertook a scoping consultation, in accordance with Regulation 20 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2026.
The purpose of the Scoping consultation was to seek views at an early stage on:
- The scope of the Local Plan
- Key issues and challenges
- Evidence base
- Vision and priorities (early thinking)
- How we consult and engage
The consultation was undertaken for six weeks, from 26 May 2026 to 7 July 2026. The consultation was supported by a Local Plan Scoping Report, which provided background information on the District, identified key issues and challenges and set out the proposed approach to engagement and plan preparation.
The Council received 114 representations during the consultation period.
This document has been prepared as the Council’s Summary of Scoping Consultation for the purposes of Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2026.
Purpose and legal requirements
Regulation 22(1) of the Town and Country Planning Regulations requires a local planning authority to prepare, in connection with the preparation of its Local Plan, a document known as the ‘summary of scoping consultation’.
Regulation 22(2) requires the summary to set out:
(a)the general consultation bodies and the specific consultation bodies who were invited to make representations under regulation 20,
(b)the manner by which those invited bodies were asked to make any representations under regulation 20,
(c)if representations were made under regulation 20, whether by persons invited to do so or otherwise, a summary of the main issues raised in those representations,
(d)if representations were made under regulation 20, how the local planning authority have, to date, had regard to those representations in accordance with section 15CA(6)(b) of the Act, and
(e)if applicable, that no representations were made under regulation 20.
This document addresses each of those requirements.
Consultation bodies invited to participate
The Council invited a range of consultation bodies and other stakeholders to participate in the scoping consultation. The consultees were identified having regard to the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2026 and the Council’s understanding of the organisations and stakeholders that may have an interest in the preparation of the new Local Plan at scoping stage.
The consultation included relevant specific consultation bodies, including neighbouring local planning authorities, relevant parish and town councils, the local highway and education authority, and organisations with responsibilities relating to matters including the environment, heritage, nature conservation, transport, infrastructure, water and drainage, rail, aviation, minerals and other relevant planning matters.
The Council also invited relevant general consultation bodies and community and civic organisations, including organisations representing environmental, community and local interests.
In addition, the Council consulted a number of other organisations and stakeholders considered to have relevant local knowledge, expertise or an interest in the preparation of the Local Plan. These included local community, cycling and civic organisations and other organisations with relevant planning, infrastructure or specialist interests.
The consultation was also available more widely to residents, businesses, community groups and other interested parties, enabling anyone with an interest in the preparation of the Local Plan to submit representations.
A detailed list of the consultation bodies and other organisations invited to participate in the scoping consultation is provided at Appendix 1.
How representations were invited
Consultees and other interested parties were invited to make representations on the scoping consultation during the six-week consultation period from 26 May 2026 to 7 July 2026.
The consultation material, including the Local Plan Scoping Report and supporting information, was made available through the Council’s website. Consultees were provided with information explaining the purpose of the consultation and how they could submit their views.
The consultation was publicised through the Council’s social media channels and through the Wyre Forest District Council newsletter, ‘Wyredin’, to help raise awareness of the consultation and encourage participation. Local Councillors also promoted the consultation to residents through their local networks.
Representations could be submitted using the methods identified in the consultation material, including through the Council’s online consultation or submitted via post or email to the Planning Policy Team.
Representations received and main issues raised
Representations were received from a range of respondents, including residents, community organisations, town and parish councils, stakeholder organisations and other interested parties.
Overall, the consultation identified a strong and consistent interest in ensuring that future development in Wyre Forest is appropriately located, supported by infrastructure and to ensure that environmental protection and the character of the district is safeguarded and protected. The principal themes arising from the consultation were:
- Environmental protection and climate resilience – protection of the green belt, green spaces, biodiversity, landscape, waterways and other environmental assets was one of the most consistently raised issues. Respondents also highlighted the importance of addressing climate change, flood risk, habitat connectivity and biodiversity enhancement.
- Infrastructure and services – Respondents repeatedly raised concerns about the capacity of existing infrastructure and services to accommodate future growth. Reference was made to highways and congestion, public transport, schools, healthcare, drainage, water and wastewater, utilities, and community facilities. There was strong support for development being appropriately phased and for infrastructure requirements to be identified and delivered alongside development.
- Housing – Respondents recognised the need for the Plan to address housing requirements, affordability, and the provision of a suitable range of housing, including specialist housing. However, there was also concerns about the scale and location of future housing development and its potential effects on infrastructure, the environment, and existing communities.
- Brownfield land and Regeneration – There was significant support for prioritising previously developed land, vacant and underused buildings and opportunities for town centre regeneration. Respondents frequently expressed a preference for making best use of existing developed areas before considering the release of greenfield land, where this is consistent with national planning policy and the need to meet identified development requirements.
- Town Centres and the Local Economy – Regeneration and the future vitality of Kidderminster, Stourport and other centres were prominent themes. Respondents supported measures to address vacant premises, support independent businesses and markets, encourage appropriate mixed used development, and improve the attractiveness and accessibility of town centres. The responses also identified the importance of supporting employment investment and creating a robust local economy.
- Transport and Connectivity – Traffic congestion, highway capacity, public transport, and sustainable transport were recurring issues. There was support for directing developments towards locations which provide opportunities for walking, cycling and public transport, alongside improvements to transport infrastructure and connectivity.
- Local Character and Heritage – Respondents placed importance on protecting the distinctive character of the district’s heritage assets. The individual identities of Kidderminster, Stourport, Bewdley and the rural settlements were identified as important considerations in determining the location and design of future development.
- Evidence and the basis for decision making – Respondents identified the need for a robust current and transparent evidence base. Areas identified for updated evidence included infrastructure capacity, transport and traffic modelling, housing need and land supply, ecology and biodiversity, flood risk and drainage, economic development and town centres, heritage, landscape, and design.
A detailed summary of responses to each question can be found in Appendix B.
How the Council has had regard to representations
The Council has reviewed and considered the representations received through the scoping consultation as part of the ongoing preparation of the Local Plan.
The representations will be used alongside the Council’s evidence base, national planning policy, local priorities, and other relevant information to inform the preparation of the Plan. In particular, the consultation responses have helped the Council to identify matters requiring further investigation, consider the scope and priorities of the Plan, identify potential evidence requirements and inform the approach to future engagement.
The findings from the scoping consultation will help inform the development of the Local Plan’s vision and objectives, ensuring that the issues and priorities raised at this stage are reflected as the Plan develops. They will also help shape our approach to future consultation and engagement.
The consultation has also helped us identify priorities for the evidence gathering programme which is already underway. In particular, respondents have highlighted the importance of having a robust evidence base to inform our new policies with the new plan.
Next Steps
The scoping consultation forms an early stage in the preparation of the new Wyre Forest Local Plan.
The Council will continue to develop the evidence base and consider the issues, challenges and priorities identified through the consultation alongside national planning policy, local circumstances and other relevant evidence.
The next planned stage of consultation is the consultation on the proposed content of the Local Plan and supporting evidence, which is currently scheduled to take place around January/February 2027.
Further opportunities for residents, businesses, communities, consultation bodies and other stakeholders to participate will be provided as the Local Plan progresses in accordance with the Council’s published Local Plan Timetable and the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2026.
Conclusion
The scoping consultation provided an early opportunity for residents, businesses, communities, consultation bodies and other stakeholders to contribute to the preparation of the new Wyre Forest Local Plan.
The consultation ran for six weeks from 26 May 2026 to 7 July 2026 and resulted in 114 responses being received.
The representations have provided the Council with a range of views on the issues, challenges, opportunities and priorities that should be considered through the preparation of the new Local Plan. The Council has had regard to these representations alongside its evidence base, national planning policy and other relevant considerations.
The findings from this consultation will inform the ongoing preparation of the Local Plan, including the development of its evidence base, spatial strategy, policies and proposals and the approach to future engagement.
This Summary of Scoping Consultation has been prepared in accordance with Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2026 and records the consultation undertaken at this stage of the Local Plan making process.
Appendix A – Consultation List
Active Travel England
Bewdley Civic Society
Bewdley Town Council
Birmingham City Council
Bromsgrove and Redditch Borough Council
Broome Parish Council
Cadent Gas
Canal and River Trust
Chaddesley Corbett Parish Council
Churchill and Blakedown Parish Council
Civil Aviation Authority
Coal Authority
CPRE
Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council
Environment Agency
Forestry Commission
Health and Safety Executive
Highways Authority
Historic England
Homes England
Kidderminster Foreign Parish Council
Kidderminster Town Council
Malvern Hills District Council
National Grid
Natural England
Network Rail
National Health Service (NHS)
North Worcestershire Water Management
Office of Rail and Road
Police and Crime Commissioner
Rock Parish Council
Rushock Parish Council
Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council
Severn Trent
Shropshire Council
Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council
South Staffordshire District Council
Sport England (Central)
Sport England (West Midlands)
Stone Parish Council
Stourport Civic Society
Stourport-on-Severn Town Council
Upper Arley Parish Council
Western Power
WMCA
Wolverley and Cookley Parish Council
Worcester City Council
Worcestershire County Council
Wychavon District Council
Wyre Forest Cycle Forum
Appendix B: Summary of Responses
Summary of responses: main focus for the review
Question: What would you like see as our main focus for our review?
Executive summary
Overall, respondents most often asked the review to balance growth with protection of Wyre Forest’s environmental assets. The strongest themes were protection of green belt/open spaces, biodiversity and climate/flood resilience; ensuring infrastructure is in place before or alongside growth; using brownfield land and town-centre regeneration before greenfield expansion; and meeting housing needs in sustainable locations. Several also highlighted transport, economic vitality, community engagement, heritage/settlement character and evidence-led site allocations.
|
Theme |
Responses mentioning |
% of responses |
Summary of what respondents said |
Representative comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Protect environment, green belt/open space, biodiversity and climate resilience |
44 |
42% |
The dominant message was to protect the district’s environmental assets while planning for growth: green belt/open spaces, biodiversity, flood resilience, water quality, the River Severn corridor, woodland/trees and climate impacts. |
“Wyre Forest’s environment is one of its greatest assets and the Local Plan should recognise that protecting and restoring it is just as important as accommodating growth.” |
|
Infrastructure capacity before or alongside growth |
31 |
30% |
Many responses said housing or economic growth must be matched by roads, schools, healthcare, drainage, water/wastewater, utilities and wider community infrastructure, with some explicitly opposing further development until capacity is improved. |
“Stopping future development unless infrastructure improvements made first.” |
|
Brownfield/town-centre-first development and regeneration |
29 |
28% |
A strong theme was to prioritise brownfield land, vacant buildings and town-centre redevelopment before greenfield/green belt expansion, often linked to Kidderminster and Stourport regeneration. |
“Focus on town centre and brownfield, turning derelict sites into housing… Leave fields alone and greenbelt alone.” |
|
Housing delivery, affordability and specialist needs |
33 |
32% |
Developers and some residents focused on meeting housing need, including affordability, social housing, homes for younger households and specialist/older people’s housing; others framed housing as acceptable only where sustainable and supported by infrastructure. |
“Ensure the Local Plan supports delivery of specialist housing for older people.” |
|
Town centre vitality, local economy and jobs |
32 |
31% |
Respondents wanted stronger town centres, more shops and footfall, employment opportunities and economic regeneration, particularly in Kidderminster and Stourport. |
“Town centre Vitality and Economic Growth.” |
|
Transport, public transport, active travel and congestion |
16 |
15% |
Transport was frequently raised through calls for better public transport, active travel, connectivity, relief roads and tackling congestion such as Stourport bridge and the A456. |
“Development supported by good public transport.” |
|
Community engagement, transparency and listening to residents |
8 |
8% |
Some responses stressed that the review should start by understanding what residents value and improving transparent, accessible engagement throughout plan-making. |
“Listening to the people.” |
|
Protect heritage, character and rural/settlement identity |
19 |
18% |
Several comments focused on protecting the character, historic environment and distinct identities of Bewdley, Stourport, Kidderminster and rural communities. |
“Preserving the integrity and character of the three main communities that make up the overall Wyre Forest district.” |
|
Evidence-led site allocations and strategic/cross-boundary planning |
15 |
14% |
Statutory consultees, developers and some residents emphasised robust evidence, site assessment, deliverable allocations, cross-boundary impacts and a clear spatial strategy. |
“The primary focus… should be to establish a clear and deliverable strategy for meeting Wyre Forest’s future development needs whilst protecting and enhancing the qualities that make the District an attractive place to live.” |
Summary of responses: key issues to deliver a new vision
Question: What do you think the key issues will be to deliver a new vision and why?
Executive summary
Overall, respondents saw the main delivery challenge as balancing housing and growth pressures with protection of Wyre Forest's green belt, biodiversity, landscape character and climate/flood resilience. Infrastructure capacity was the next major concern, especially roads, schools, healthcare, utilities and services. Other recurring issues were where and how to deliver housing, a brownfield/town-centre-first approach, economic regeneration, transport and connectivity, stronger community engagement, protection of heritage/settlement identity, and robust evidence-led planning.
|
Theme |
Responses mentioning |
% of responses |
Summary of what respondents said |
Representative comment |
|
Balancing growth with environmental protection, green belt, biodiversity and climate/flood resilience |
40 |
38% |
The most common issue was how to accommodate change without losing green belt, green spaces, habitats, biodiversity, water quality and climate/flood resilience. Many framed the vision as needing to protect environmental assets while responding to housing pressures. |
“The key challenge will be balancing development needs with the protection of environmental assets.” |
|
Infrastructure and service capacity |
35 |
33% |
Respondents repeatedly warned that roads, schools, health services, drainage, utilities and local facilities are already stretched and must be planned before or alongside growth. |
“Plan for increased capacity of all infrastructure and services to meet increased demands as many are already over used and under supplied.” |
|
Housing numbers, affordability, delivery and location |
32 |
30% |
Housing was a central issue: the scale of government targets, affordability, social/specialist housing, where new homes should go and whether enough deliverable land can be found. |
“Where to build housing, quality of new housing and affordability.” |
|
Brownfield-first, town-centre regeneration and local economy/jobs |
44 |
42% |
Many saw delivery of the vision as dependent on reviving town centres, using brownfield or already-developed land, attracting investment, supporting shops/small businesses and improving local employment. |
“Kidderminster town centre is desperate for redevelopment. Too many empty shops with little chance of businesses wanting them.” |
|
Transport, connectivity, public transport and active travel |
30 |
28% |
Transport issues included poor public transport, congestion, road capacity, active travel, bridge/traffic bottlenecks and the need to connect new development to services without car dependency. |
“Better Public transport, Improvements to the Local Environment and Sustainability.” |
|
Community engagement, trust, leadership, governance and funding |
22 |
21% |
A smaller but important theme was the need for genuine resident engagement, political leadership, adequate funding and trust that decisions will reflect local priorities rather than box-ticking or external pressure. |
“Actually listening to residents not just box ticking and doing it anyway.” |
|
Heritage, character, placemaking and settlement identity |
30 |
28% |
Several responses highlighted the need to protect built heritage, settlement identity and the separate character of Kidderminster, Stourport, Bewdley and rural areas, while improving design and placemaking. |
“Protecting the natural & built environment.” |
|
Evidence-led planning, site allocations and cross-boundary issues |
16 |
15% |
Statutory consultees and developers especially emphasised robust evidence, site assessment, green belt review, deliverable allocations, national policy compliance and cross-boundary implications. |
“Ensuring that cross boundary issues are considered.” |
|
Health, wellbeing, sport, recreation and equitable access |
20 |
19% |
Some responses linked the vision to health and wellbeing through active design, sport/recreation provision, access to services and creating healthier, safer communities. |
“The vision for WFDC should promote health and well being at the heart of development.” |
|
Not directly answered / no substantive issue stated |
7 |
7% |
A small number of entries did not provide a substantive answer to this specific question. |
“Not directly answered.” |
Summary of responses: how long ahead to plan
Question: How long ahead should we plan for in the new Plan, and why?
Executive summary
Respondents were split between short, adaptable planning and longer-term certainty. Around 20 years / to 2046 was a strong theme, particularly where respondents referred to housing delivery, infrastructure, climate resilience, regeneration and strategic site lead-in times. Many residents preferred shorter 5- or 10-year horizons because political, financial, technological and community needs change quickly. A recurring compromise was a long-term vision supported by rolling reviews, annual targets or a 5-year action programme.
|
Horizon preference |
Responses |
% of responses |
Summary of what respondents said |
Representative comment |
|
Short term: 1–5 years |
18 |
17% |
A group wanted a short plan because conditions change quickly, finances and politics are uncertain, or urgent action is needed. |
“5 years because things change.” |
|
Medium term: around 10 years |
17 |
16% |
Many residents preferred around 10 years as a practical, understandable horizon that is long enough to act but not too speculative. |
“10 years to give a clear and structured plan for the future of Wyre Forest.” |
|
Medium-long term: around 15 years |
12 |
11% |
Several responses referred to a 15-year horizon, often because it aligns with national planning policy expectations and gives strategic stability. |
“A 15 year plan period is appropriate to provide certainty, support long term investment, and ensure strategic stability.” |
|
Long term: around 20 years / to 2046 |
18 |
17% |
This was a strong preference, especially among consultees/developers, because housing, infrastructure, climate resilience and regeneration take many years to plan and deliver. |
“Twenty years should be the time horizon for the new plan, to provide certainty for all parties…” |
|
Very long term: 25–30+ years |
8 |
8% |
A smaller group supported a very long-term vision, including 30 years or more, to address major strategic change and long-term environmental or delivery impacts. |
“50+ years.” |
|
Mixed or rolling approach |
6 |
6% |
Some responses preferred a short action programme or regular reviews within a longer strategic vision, so the plan can remain current while retaining direction. |
“A 5 year and 25 Year horizon seems sensible.” |
|
No fixed period / unclear or immediate focus |
14 |
13% |
Some answers did not give a specific timeframe, questioned whether planning ahead was possible, or focused on immediate issues rather than a plan period. |
“Given LGR I cannot answer this.” |
|
Not directly answered / no substantive horizon |
12 |
11% |
Several consultee entries did not directly answer this question. |
“Not directly answered.” |
Summary of responses: Biggest challenges facing Wyre Forest
Question: What do you think are the biggest challenges facing Wyre Forest?
Executive summary
Respondents most often described the challenge as accommodating housing and population growth without overwhelming infrastructure or damaging Wyre Forest’s environmental assets. Recurring concerns included roads, healthcare, schools and utilities; green belt, biodiversity, climate and flood resilience; the decline of town centres; congestion and weak public transport; and insufficient jobs and investment. Many responses also stressed protecting settlement character, responding to demographic and social needs, and overcoming funding, governance and cross-boundary pressures.
|
Theme |
Responses mentioning |
% of responses |
Summary of what respondents said |
Representative comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Infrastructure and service capacity |
38 |
35% |
The most persistent challenge was infrastructure failing to keep pace with housing and population growth. Roads, healthcare, schools, utilities, public services and community facilities were repeatedly described as constrained or under-resourced. |
“Too much housing is being built without associated sufficient infrastructure and is also destroying green spaces.” |
|
Housing growth, requirements, affordability and suitable land |
38 |
35% |
Respondents highlighted the scale and location of housing growth, pressure from national targets, affordability, an ageing population, land availability and the difficulty of finding deliverable sites without unacceptable impacts. |
“Accommodating the increased housing requirement while protecting as much nature and recreation as possible.” |
|
Environment, green belt, biodiversity, climate and flood resilience |
34 |
31% |
A major theme was protecting green belt, countryside, habitats, woodland and biodiversity while adapting to climate change and flood risk. Many saw environmental protection as inseparable from decisions about growth. |
“The biggest challenges… are balancing growth with protecting the district’s environment and infrastructure.” |
|
Town-centre decline, regeneration and vitality |
23 |
21% |
Many responses identified declining or underperforming town centres—particularly Kidderminster and Stourport—as a challenge, citing empty shops, weak retail, limited investment and the need for regeneration and mixed uses. |
“Creating vibrant, social town centres for people to use.” |
|
Transport, congestion, connectivity and car dependency |
27 |
25% |
Transport concerns centred on congestion, weak public transport and rail links, car dependency and road-network pressure, with Stourport and links between settlements mentioned frequently. |
“Road congestion and poor public transport.” |
|
Economy, jobs, investment and deprivation |
28 |
26% |
Respondents raised weak local employment, limited career opportunities, low incomes, insufficient investment and the need for stronger economic development alongside housing growth. |
“More jobs need to be driven into the area, not just housing.” |
|
Settlement character, heritage, rural identity and urban sprawl |
12 |
11% |
A recurring concern was loss of the district’s distinctive rural and historic character, erosion of gaps between Kidderminster, Stourport and Bewdley, and the risk of settlements merging through urban sprawl. |
“Maintaining its rural aspect with small and thriving market towns, and not getting sucked into wider conurbations.” |
|
Community wellbeing, demographics, safety and inclusion |
19 |
17% |
Some responses focused on population ageing, health and wellbeing, opportunities for young people, crime and antisocial behaviour, social isolation and maintaining cohesive, inclusive communities. |
“Building a happy safe interesting environment for the future residents.” |
|
Governance, funding, leadership, engagement and cross-boundary pressures |
23 |
21% |
Several answers pointed to national housing pressure, reduced public funding, leadership and planning trust, developer influence, resident engagement and cross-boundary impacts as barriers to delivery. |
“Ensuring views of local residents [are] considered fully in all decisions.” |
|
Not directly answered / referred elsewhere |
6 |
6% |
A small number of entries did not provide a substantive response to this question or referred to another answer. |
“Not directly answered.” |
Summary of responses: agreement with identified key issues and challenges
Question: Do you agree with the issues we have identified in "Key issues and challenges"?
Executive summary
Overall, most respondents who expressed a clear view agreed or broadly agreed with the identified issues, but qualified support was common. Respondents frequently asked for stronger or clearer treatment of environmental protection, biodiversity and landscape; housing need, affordability and brownfield priority; infrastructure and transport; climate adaptation, flood and water issues; and the historic environment. A smaller group disagreed, often because they opposed further housing growth or felt the stated priorities were too broad, poorly ranked or insufficiently local.
|
Agreement category |
Responses |
% of responses |
Interpretation |
Representative comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Agree |
22 |
22% |
Clear, unqualified agreement with the identified issues. |
“Yes.” |
|
Broad/qualified agreement |
32 |
33% |
Agreement in principle, but with qualifications, requests for greater emphasis, changes to priorities or additional issues. |
“Broadly I agree…” |
|
Disagree |
9 |
9% |
Explicit disagreement with the identified set of issues. Reasons commonly concerned housing growth, green belt impacts or the balance of priorities. |
“No, because the plan for housing need does not support the other issues…” |
|
Unclear / unable to assess |
8 |
8% |
The respondent was uncertain or said the relevant section was not visible or understood. |
“Where is section 3b?” |
|
Comment only / no clear stance |
18 |
18% |
A substantive comment or proposed addition was provided without a clear yes/no position. |
“There needs to be a tighter priority/delivery aims and objectives.” |
|
Not directly answered |
9 |
9% |
The entry did not directly answer this question. |
“Not directly answered.” |
Summary of responses: strategy for meeting development needs
Question: In seeking to meet our identified development needs, what should our strategy be?
Executive summary
The dominant strategy preference was brownfield-first regeneration: reuse vacant buildings, redundant sites and town-centre space before greenfield land. Respondents also wanted growth constrained by environmental and infrastructure capacity, directed to sustainable and well-connected locations, and supported by meaningful consultation and robust evidence. Developers and consultees additionally stressed allocating enough viable land to meet housing needs, with a suitable mix of homes and sites. Across the responses, the common principle was the right development in the right place, with infrastructure and community benefits delivered alongside it.
|
Theme |
Responses mentioning |
% of responses |
Summary of what respondents said |
Representative comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Brownfield-first, reuse existing buildings and town-centre regeneration |
30 |
29% |
The clearest strategy preference was to maximise brownfield land, vacant or redundant buildings and town-centre regeneration before considering greenfield development. |
“Maximise use of existing brownfield sites, existing empty buildings and redundant town centre areas before allocating any greenfield sites.” |
|
Protect green belt, nature, landscape and environmental assets |
28 |
27% |
Many respondents wanted environmental capacity to lead the strategy: protect green belt and landscapes, avoid sensitive or flood-risk locations, and build biodiversity, green infrastructure and climate resilience into development. |
“A starting point of protecting the environmental assets of the District and identifying how these can be enhanced through the plan process.” |
|
Infrastructure-led and phased development |
29 |
28% |
Growth should be directed and phased according to infrastructure capacity, with roads, schools, healthcare, utilities, drainage and community facilities delivered alongside or before housing. |
“Residents and infrastructure before housing development.” |
|
Sustainable locations, compact growth and transport accessibility |
13 |
13% |
Respondents and consultees favoured well-connected locations close to services and public transport, although views differed between urban intensification, distributed growth and sustainable edge-of-settlement extensions. |
“Development should be easily served by public transport, walking and cycling infrastructure…” |
|
Housing need, affordability, mix and deliverable allocations |
14 |
13% |
A significant strand—particularly from developers and statutory consultees—called for sufficient deliverable housing land, a mix of site sizes and locations, and diverse, affordable and adaptable homes. |
“Housing should focus on quality and provision of secure, affordable and diverse homes…” |
|
Community consultation, partnership and local priorities |
17 |
16% |
Many responses said the strategy should be shaped through meaningful local consultation, partnership working and attention to existing community priorities rather than targets alone. |
“Sympathetic development with maximum local consultation.” |
|
Evidence-led, viable, deliverable and balanced planning |
23 |
22% |
Consultees and residents called for robust evidence, transparent site assessment and a balanced, practical, viable and deliverable strategy rather than a wish list or growth at any cost. |
“The strategy should focus on the right development in the right places, not growth at any cost.” |
|
Economic development, jobs and town-centre vitality |
28 |
27% |
Development was also linked to improving the local economy: create jobs, modern employment land and stronger town centres, and ensure housing supports rather than substitutes for economic regeneration. |
“Create jobs and housing in the town centres.” |
|
Limit, pause or oppose further outward development |
9 |
9% |
A smaller group wanted development limited or paused, particularly outside existing built-up areas or where infrastructure and environmental capacity are insufficient. |
“Do not develop when there is no infrastructure to support it.” |
|
Not directly answered / unclear |
7 |
7% |
A small number did not provide a substantive strategy or said further thought was required. |
“Not directly answered.” |
Summary of responses: protecting environmentally sensitive areas
Question: What should be our approach to ensuring that people do not harm the particularly environmentally sensitive parts of the Wyre Forest District?
Executive summary
The dominant approach was precautionary avoidance: clearly identify and protect sensitive areas, prevent development in them, preserve green belt and direct growth to brownfield or lower-risk sites. Respondents also strongly supported firmer enforcement and penalties, evidence-based mapping and buffer zones, education and community stewardship, and active monitoring by rangers. More detailed responses advocated managed public access, partnership with environmental organisations, and positive habitat enhancement through biodiversity net gain, green infrastructure and ecological connectivity.
|
Theme |
Responses mentioning |
% of responses |
Summary of what respondents said |
Representative comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Prevent development in sensitive areas and protect green belt |
45 |
42% |
The strongest message was avoidance: prohibit or tightly restrict development in sensitive areas, protect green belt/greenfield land and use no-development or buffer zones. |
“These should be clearly identified and protected from all development.” |
|
Brownfield-first and redirect growth to lower-risk locations |
20 |
19% |
Many respondents proposed directing development to brownfield, urban or less environmentally constrained sites before considering sensitive greenfield locations. |
“Development on green space should be a last resort…” |
|
Stronger enforcement, penalties and developer accountability |
20 |
19% |
A major approach was stronger and more visible enforcement, including fines, prosecution, monitoring of developers and action against fly-tipping, littering and environmental damage. |
“Enforce rules consistently and visibly.” |
|
Map, designate and buffer sensitive areas using robust evidence |
25 |
23% |
Respondents and consultees called for up-to-date evidence, clear mapping and designation of sensitive habitats, ecological corridors, landscapes and flood/water constraints, with published boundaries and buffers. |
“Identify, map and publish all sensitive ecological areas.” |
|
Education, awareness, community stewardship and reporting |
22 |
21% |
Many responses favoured education and stewardship through schools, public information, ranger events, citizen science, volunteering and easy ways for residents to report harm. |
“Education, teach the children and they’ll educate those at home.” |
|
Manage visitor and recreational pressure responsibly |
7 |
7% |
Some respondents wanted access managed rather than simply prohibited, using robust alternative recreation areas, paths, signage, seasonal controls, dog zones and visitor facilities to reduce pressure on fragile sites. |
“Manage visitor pressure through zoned access, boardwalks, seasonal restrictions, and dog control zones.” |
|
Partnership with environmental bodies, landowners and communities |
9 |
8% |
Partnership working with Worcestershire Wildlife Trust, Natural England, Forestry England, landowners, parishes and local communities was repeatedly recommended. |
“Follow advice from and consult local communities and organisations such as Worcestershire Wildlife Trust.” |
|
Enhancement, restoration, connectivity and biodiversity net gain |
17 |
16% |
Beyond preventing harm, respondents proposed habitat restoration and connectivity, biodiversity net gain, green infrastructure, woodland creation and mitigation or offsetting only where impacts cannot be avoided. |
“Protection should be built into planning policy from the outset, rather than relying on mitigation afterwards.” |
|
Monitoring, rangers and ongoing site management |
12 |
11% |
Several responses called for active management and monitoring through rangers, inspections, surveillance, maintenance and investment, not reliance on planning policy alone. |
“Keeping a very careful watch over those areas and encouraging residents to report possible harmful moves.” |
|
Not directly answered / question unclear |
8 |
7% |
A small number did not answer directly or considered the question unclear about whether it referred to development or public access. |
“This question is not well defined – what harm by people?” |
Summary of responses: town centres and shopping frontages
Question: What should be our approach towards town centres and primary, secondary, and local shopping frontages? Do the boundaries that appear on our policies map need to be changed and if so, how?
Executive summary
Responses generally supported regenerating and adapting town centres before expanding shopping boundaries. Frequent proposals included mixed residential and commercial uses, filling empty units, supporting independent shops, improving public realm and access, and reviewing boundaries only where evidence shows they no longer reflect current shopping patterns.
|
Theme |
Responses mentioning |
% of responses |
Summary of what respondents said |
Representative comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Regenerate town centres and address vacant units |
41 |
42% |
Responses referring to regenerate town centres and address vacant units. |
Encourage shops to return to the town centre. |
|
Mixed-use and town-centre housing |
17 |
17% |
Responses referring to mixed-use and town-centre housing. |
Develop into social housing |
|
Support retail, independent businesses and markets |
40 |
41% |
Responses referring to support retail, independent businesses and markets. |
No need for as many shops |
|
Retain current boundaries / no change |
8 |
8% |
Responses referring to retain current boundaries / no change. |
No change the towns will continue to shrink |
|
Review, shrink or update shopping boundaries |
29 |
30% |
Responses referring to review, shrink or update shopping boundaries. |
Bewdley boundaries need to be amended. |
|
Public realm, heritage, design and appearance |
23 |
23% |
Responses referring to public realm, heritage, design and appearance. |
Maintain heritage as far as practical (safe) Improve access for all users. |
|
Access, parking, transport and connectivity |
26 |
27% |
Responses referring to access, parking, transport and connectivity. |
Redevelopment of town centre, encouraging small businesses. |
|
Evidence-led and locally specific approach |
26 |
27% |
Responses referring to evidence-led and locally specific approach. |
Bewdley boundaries need to be amended. |
|
Not directly answered / no comment |
17 |
17% |
Responses referring to not directly answered / no comment. |
N/A |
Summary of responses: Issues missing from the review
Question: Are there any issues missing?
Executive summary
Many respondents said no additional issues were apparent, while substantive suggestions concentrated on infrastructure and transport, environmental and climate resilience, housing quality and affordability, economic regeneration, community safety and wellbeing, heritage, and cross-boundary effects.
|
Theme |
Responses mentioning |
% of responses |
Summary of what respondents said |
Representative comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
No additional issue identified |
41 |
53% |
Responses referring to no additional issue identified. |
no |
|
Infrastructure, utilities and public services |
16 |
21% |
Responses referring to infrastructure, utilities and public services. |
Infrastructure |
|
Transport, congestion and connectivity |
8 |
10% |
Responses referring to transport, congestion and connectivity. |
Major infrastructure review is essential including public transport. |
|
Environment, biodiversity, climate and flood risk |
17 |
22% |
Responses referring to environment, biodiversity, climate and flood risk. |
Protecting green spaces |
|
Housing affordability, quality and specialist needs |
10 |
13% |
Responses referring to housing affordability, quality and specialist needs. |
Flood management for new housing developments. |
|
Economy, jobs and town-centre regeneration |
9 |
12% |
Responses referring to economy, jobs and town-centre regeneration. |
Attractions to get people into the town centre. More shops may not be the answer. Too much competition from online shopping. |
|
Community safety, health and social inclusion |
10 |
13% |
Responses referring to community safety, health and social inclusion. |
Addressing noise which is escalating especially in the conservation area. You need to actually police this when events happen at weekends. |
|
Heritage, character, culture and creative arts |
11 |
14% |
Responses referring to heritage, character, culture and creative arts. |
Promotion, support & engagement in the Creative Arts. |
|
Governance, funding and cross-boundary issues |
5 |
6% |
Responses referring to governance, funding and cross-boundary issues. |
Connectivity to neighbouring authorities for purposes of identifying and addressing joint concerns. |
|
Not directly answered / unclear |
7 |
9% |
Responses referring to not directly answered / unclear. |
Not directly answered |
Evidence, data and studies suggested for the Local Plan
Question: Are you aware of any evidence, data or studies the council should consider to inform our new local plan?
Executive summary
Respondents identified a broad, practical evidence programme rather than a single study. The strongest body of named evidence concerned ecology and biodiversity, followed by housing/land supply, flood and water risk, transport, infrastructure, heritage and local place-based evidence. Statutory consultees supplied specific datasets and guidance, while residents frequently highlighted local wildlife records, traffic conditions, flooding experience and community knowledge. A substantial minority did not identify any additional evidence.
|
Evidence theme |
Responses mentioning |
% of responses |
Named evidence and studies suggested |
How it informs the Plan |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Ecology, biodiversity and green-infrastructure evidence |
14 |
16% |
Worcestershire Wildlife Trust data; Worcestershire Habitat Inventory; Biological Records Centre; LNRS; Biodiversity Action Plan; ecological surveys and species records. |
Map important habitats, ecological networks and development constraints. |
|
Flood risk, water environment and drainage evidence |
8 |
9% |
Environment Agency Flood Map for Planning; SFRA; surface-water mapping; River Basin Management Plans; River Severn catchment data; Water Cycle Study. |
Avoid unsafe allocations and test climate, drainage and water-quality impacts. |
|
Housing need, land supply, Green Belt and viability evidence |
10 |
11% |
Local Housing Need/Standard Method; SHMA/HEDNA; SHELAA; Brownfield Register; Green Belt/Grey Belt Review; whole-plan viability assessment; HBF Viability Crunch. |
Establish the scale, type and deliverability of housing and employment land. |
|
Transport, traffic and active-travel evidence |
14 |
16% |
County traffic/circulation studies; A456/A491 modelling; WCC LTP5; Ramboll review of Bromsgrove Strategic Transport Assessment; planning-application transport data. |
Assess cumulative congestion, connectivity and sustainable-access impacts. |
|
Infrastructure, utilities, education and digital capacity |
12 |
14% |
Infrastructure Delivery Plan; education sufficiency and pupil-yield evidence; developer-contribution policy; electricity-grid capacity; National Grid asset and expansion requirements. |
Ensure services and networks can support planned growth and are funded. |
|
Historic environment, heritage, landscape and design evidence |
9 |
10% |
Historic Environment Record; Historic Landscape Characterisation; NHLE; Heritage at Risk registers; Historic England advice notes; conservation-area appraisals; Landscape Character Assessment. |
Conserve heritage significance, landscape character and local identity when allocating sites. |
|
Economic, employment, retail and town-centre evidence |
8 |
9% |
Economic indicators; Employment Land Review; retail/town-centre study; footfall monitoring; Kidderminster masterplan; evidence on employment and business needs. |
Align development with jobs, regeneration, retail change and town-centre vitality. |
|
Health, wellbeing, sport and open-space evidence |
5 |
6% |
Public Health evidence; Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Strategy; Built Facilities Strategy; ageing-well research; Health Impact Assessment; open-space study. |
Plan healthy places and identify sport, recreation and demographic needs. |
|
Local plans, community knowledge and site-specific evidence |
13 |
15% |
Bewdley Neighbourhood Plan and Conservation Assessment; Bewdley Local Green Space Assessment; community objections; local flood/infrastructure experience; Stourport Civic Society alternative plan. |
Incorporate local conditions, lived experience and existing place-based work. |
|
National policy, demographic and cross-boundary evidence |
14 |
16% |
Census and demographic forecasts; emerging NPPF; Standard Method; Black Country unmet-need evidence; Statements of Common Ground; Local Government Reorganisation and Spatial Development Strategies. |
Keep the Plan legally compliant and aligned with demographic and neighbouring-authority pressures. |
|
No specific evidence identified / not directly answered |
30 |
34% |
Responses stating “No”, “not aware”, “not specifically” or “not directly answered”. |
Indicates no additional evidence source was suggested in the response. |
Summary of responses: Gaps in the current evidence base
Question: Based on the evidence base from the current local plan , are there any gaps in the current evidence base which could be filled for the next plan?
Executive summary
Suggested evidence gaps centred on updated environmental and ecological surveys, flood and water studies, infrastructure capacity, transport modelling, housing need and demographic change, economic and town-centre evidence, and heritage or landscape assessments. Many respondents either identified no gap or were unsure.
|
Theme |
Responses mentioning |
% of responses |
Summary of what respondents said |
Representative comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
No gap identified / unsure |
4 |
5% |
Responses referring to no gap identified / unsure. |
Don’t know. |
|
Updated ecology, habitat and biodiversity evidence |
9 |
12% |
Responses referring to updated ecology, habitat and biodiversity evidence. |
Impact on wildlife |
|
Flood risk, water resources and drainage evidence |
5 |
7% |
Responses referring to flood risk, water resources and drainage evidence. |
Further work may be required to understand habitat connectivity, the cumulative impact of development on biodiversity, the environmental value of urban green spaces, flood resilience and the contribution of green infrastructure … |
|
Infrastructure and public-service capacity |
13 |
17% |
Responses referring to infrastructure and public-service capacity. |
Infrastructure! |
|
Transport, traffic and connectivity modelling |
10 |
13% |
Responses referring to transport, traffic and connectivity modelling. |
WCC Highways traffic and travel modelling |
|
Housing need, land supply and demographic evidence |
10 |
13% |
Responses referring to housing need, land supply and demographic evidence. |
Yes, accurate housing needs assessments |
|
Economic, employment and town-centre evidence |
6 |
8% |
Responses referring to economic, employment and town-centre evidence. |
Population age and employment situation. |
|
Heritage, landscape, design and character evidence |
6 |
8% |
Responses referring to heritage, landscape, design and character evidence. |
Bewdley Design Code and Local Green Space assessment. |
|
Monitoring, delivery and cross-boundary evidence |
6 |
8% |
Responses referring to monitoring, delivery and cross-boundary evidence. |
Noise monitoring. |
|
Not directly answered / referred elsewhere |
7 |
9% |
Responses referring to not directly answered / referred elsewhere. |
See above. |
Summary of responses: desired vision for the district in 2046
Question: In your own words, please describe what you would like the district to be like in 2046? (e.g. environmentally friendly, safe, less crime, more housing options, more jobs available).
Executive summary
The desired 2046 vision combines a greener and more biodiverse district with safe, healthy and cohesive communities; attractive and distinctive towns; sufficient affordable and well-designed housing; stronger local jobs and town centres; reliable infrastructure and sustainable transport; and resilience to climate and flood risks.
|
Theme |
Responses mentioning |
% of responses |
Summary of what respondents said |
Representative comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Green, biodiverse and environmentally resilient district |
57 |
54% |
Responses referring to green, biodiverse and environmentally resilient district. |
More green space, no building. |
|
Safe, healthy, inclusive and cohesive communities |
45 |
43% |
Responses referring to safe, healthy, inclusive and cohesive communities. |
Safe with a busy town centre |
|
Thriving town centres, shops and local economy |
44 |
42% |
Responses referring to thriving town centres, shops and local economy. |
Safe with a busy town centre |
|
Affordable, diverse and well-designed housing |
42 |
40% |
Responses referring to affordable, diverse and well-designed housing. |
Green, sustainable and choosing quality or quantity |
|
Infrastructure, services and connectivity |
18 |
17% |
Responses referring to infrastructure, services and connectivity. |
Safer, appropriate infrastructure to support current population. Affordable housing on brown belt sites. |
|
Sustainable transport, walking and cycling |
26 |
25% |
Responses referring to sustainable transport, walking and cycling. |
Safe with a busy town centre |
|
Protect heritage, character and distinct settlements |
31 |
30% |
Responses referring to protect heritage, character and distinct settlements. |
Bewdley is lovely. Keep that vision. |
|
Regenerated, attractive and well-maintained places |
19 |
18% |
Responses referring to regenerated, attractive and well-maintained places. |
A vibrant small welcoming clean safe interesting town |
|
Opportunity, education and support for all ages |
15 |
14% |
Responses referring to opportunity, education and support for all ages. |
More rural development including housing and small employment opportunities |
|
Not directly answered / unclear |
9 |
9% |
Responses referring to not directly answered / unclear. |
Not directly answered |
Summary of responses: top priority for the Local Plan
Question: In your view, what should be the top priority for the Local Plan?
Executive summary
Top-priority responses were dominated by environmental protection and managing housing growth sustainably. Infrastructure capacity, brownfield and town-centre regeneration, affordable housing, transport, economic opportunity and listening to residents were also recurring priorities.
|
Theme |
Responses mentioning |
% of responses |
Summary of what respondents said |
Representative comment |
Source row |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Environment, green belt, biodiversity and climate resilience |
38 |
37% |
Responses referring to environment, green belt, biodiversity and climate resilience. |
The environment |
29 |
|
Infrastructure before or alongside development |
23 |
22% |
Responses referring to infrastructure before or alongside development. |
Infrastructure |
17 |
|
Housing need, affordability and appropriate delivery |
28 |
27% |
Responses referring to housing need, affordability and appropriate delivery. |
housing |
24 |
|
Brownfield-first and town-centre regeneration |
17 |
16% |
Responses referring to brownfield-first and town-centre regeneration. |
A&E services, Upper town regeneration. |
61 |
|
Economic growth, jobs and thriving centres |
19 |
18% |
Responses referring to economic growth, jobs and thriving centres. |
Employment |
82 |
|
Transport, congestion and sustainable accessibility |
7 |
7% |
Responses referring to transport, congestion and sustainable accessibility. |
Transport |
76 |
|
Community engagement and resident priorities |
7 |
7% |
Responses referring to community engagement and resident priorities. |
Delivering specialist housing for older people. |
109 |
|
Heritage, character and quality of place |
7 |
7% |
Responses referring to heritage, character and quality of place. |
Keep Wyre Forest rural. |
20 |
|
Balanced, sustainable and deliverable planning |
13 |
13% |
Responses referring to balanced, sustainable and deliverable planning. |
To focus on sustainable non-car based development |
90 |
|
Not directly answered / unclear |
7 |
7% |
Responses referring to not directly answered / unclear. |
Not directly answered |
101 |
Preferred consultation methods
Question: How would you prefer to be consulted? (please select)
Executive summary
Online consultation was the clear preference, selected by 56 of 94 valid respondents (60%). Public exhibitions or meetings were selected by 15 (16%), workshops by 13 (14%) and social media by 12 (13%). Several detailed responses favoured a blended approach using online consultation alongside face-to-face and targeted channels. Percentages do not sum to 100% because respondents could select or mention more than one method.
|
Consultation channel |
Respondents selecting / mentioning |
% of valid respondents |
Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Online survey / consultation |
56 |
60% |
Primary and most widely preferred channel. |
|
Public exhibitions / meetings |
15 |
16% |
Face-to-face public events and exhibitions. |
|
Workshops |
13 |
14% |
Interactive sessions with residents or stakeholders. |
|
Social media |
12 |
13% |
Digital outreach and targeted campaigns. |
|
Other — selected but unspecified |
5 |
5% |
“Other” selected without a method being stated in this question. |
|
Email updates / notifications |
3 |
3% |
Email consultation, stage notifications or registration as a consultation body. |
|
Written representations |
1 |
1% |
Formal written submissions at key stages. |
|
Direct discussion / stakeholder contact |
2 |
2% |
Direct discussion or ongoing stakeholder contact. |
Summary of responses: engaging underrepresented groups
Question: How can we better engage with underrepresented groups?
Executive summary
The most common suggestions were to go to people through trusted community organisations and accessible local venues, use a mix of online and offline channels, target social media and youth engagement, offer events at varied times and locations, simplify language and formats, and demonstrate how feedback changes decisions.
|
Theme |
Responses mentioning |
% of responses |
Summary of what respondents said |
Representative comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Work through trusted community groups and partners |
11 |
13% |
Responses referring to work through trusted community groups and partners. |
Libraries and charities. |
|
Face-to-face outreach in local places |
18 |
21% |
Responses referring to face-to-face outreach in local places. |
Public Exhibitions would help |
|
Use social media and digital channels |
21 |
25% |
Responses referring to use social media and digital channels. |
Social media |
|
Provide offline, paper, telephone and accessible alternatives |
6 |
7% |
Responses referring to provide offline, paper, telephone and accessible alternatives. |
Leaflets and clear communication about what is being planned. Listen to the concerns of the people... and stop building on green land |
|
Engage young people through schools and youth activities |
8 |
9% |
Responses referring to engage young people through schools and youth activities. |
Visitation to local community centres and clubs |
|
Accessible language, formats and support |
11 |
13% |
Responses referring to accessible language, formats and support. |
Public Exhibitions would help |
|
Vary timing, venues and provide practical support |
9 |
11% |
Responses referring to vary timing, venues and provide practical support. |
Undertake a range of engagement sessions including in person sessions and online workshops that are at a range of times to get a better range of participants. |
|
Target specific underrepresented communities using data |
7 |
8% |
Responses referring to target specific underrepresented communities using data. |
It depends who you consider to be underrepresented groups |
|
Build trust and show how feedback is used |
13 |
15% |
Responses referring to build trust and show how feedback is used. |
By communicate and Listening |
|
No further suggestion / unsure |
30 |
35% |
Responses referring to no further suggestion / unsure. |
Not answered |