Q-S5.2: Do you think new settlements should be part of the overall strategy?
Hatton Station would be a top choice location as it is served by local, regional and national rail services and could foreseeably become a key interchange. The canal also provides a ready made leisure cycle route to Warwick that could be widened and surfaced easily.
Long Marston - Open the railway.
Assuming that if you build a new settlement at Deppers Bridge everyone will mostly travel by train is a complete phallacy. Most residents will continue to use cars on poorly supported local road infrastructure, increasing local road pollution. In rural locations, climate should not override more immediate concerns such as access to local services such as schools and GPs.
New settlements need to be very carefully sited and Greenbelt land should be protected at all costs. The Greenbelt was put there for a very good reason and should not be just set aside in order to meet the supposed needs of government growth forecasts and predictions. Any new settlement will have a massive effect on the towns and villages close to it, therefore infrastructure will be a very important issue. Settlements have to be attractive places where real new communities can be established. Village greens should be incorporated together with shops, schools, medical centres etc.
Do not consider any new settlements anywhere near Bishops Tachbrook. There has been overdevelopment already.
Policies to protect biodiversity, open spaces, ancient wood lands must be robust These are the banks to protect the future of the planet. This means we have to think carefully about how we can house the growing population in affordable homes within reach of services and in a sustainable environment. Low level apartments will have to be considered but should not be considered with out good sized balconies for each apartment, air / ground heating systems and solar gain and accessible local green spaces. A new settlement must be carefully planned to reduce car use, deliveries. Extensive tree planting in town centres, green walls, planters to help clean the air in congested areas and reduce intense Summer heat in town centres.
Three of the options F1-3 (F3 has been named and assessed incorrectly) are considered to be near rail corridors, which unless BR build a new station (expensive) are not viable. Sustainable travel and economy would require the use of a car, as public transport is poor and the road network is already congested towards J12 on the M40 and even worse at J14.
Why is Meon Vale/Long Marsden placed on every option? Considering that it does not fall into the other considerations of biodiversity, environmental impact. Just look at the existing arrangement? A residential area is created at the gateway of an industrial storage facility. Development is limited for existing and future residents and therefore does not meet the criteria of the 20-minute distance from residence to work. It is also conflicting in terms of providing a safe environmentally secure residential area. What new development has international large scale lorries driving down a residential road past allotments and a playground with an illegal pedestrian crossing that is sure to encourage accidents than safety? Who thought of this? The developer, the politician? If a conurbation of 550 homes cannot be completed how can you expect a development of 4,000 homes?
Rail corridors and sustainable travel is a good idea - however requiring rail passengers to pay for parking means they are not using the parking at the train stations. Henley-in-Arden train station car park is almost empty most days as people don't want to pay for the parking. Being fairly rural also, a lot of people still have to drive to work anyway, nu offering free parking at some stations will help more people use train to travel. Reliability of train travel remains an issue,
It is wholly unacceptable to consider the development of a new settlement on greenbelt land as there are no exceptional circumstances that would justify doing so. It is therefore unacceptable to consider multiple new locations for settlements, as shown in the current consultation document, which run counter to the NPPF principles. If a new settlement is to be considered, this should only be on non-greenbelt land, as there are ample non-greenbelt options for new settlements. New infrastructure can be developed to support non-greenbelt sites and this is also likely to be easier to deliver, because of its likely proximity to existing infrastructure.
I feel that it is wholly unacceptable to consider the development of a new settlement within greenbelt land. There are not exceptional circumstances to doing so. It is unacceptable that despite the NPPF principles, multiple new settlement locations are illustratively suggested in the current consultation document. If a new settlement is to be considered, this should only be in non-greenbelt land. There are ample non-greenbelt options for new settlements. A new settlement in non-greenbelt land should be prioritised over any other development options in greenbelt land. New infrastructure can be developed to support such a non-greenbelt site.
It is wholly unacceptable to consider the development of a new settlement within Green Belt land. There are no exceptional circumstances to doing so. It is unacceptable that despite the NPPF principles, multiple new settlement locations are illustratively suggested in the current consultation document. If time and effort is to be invested in a new settlement this should only be looking at non-green belt land thus avoiding an un-winnable battle over exceptional circumstances.
Comment: S5.2 Yes, provided they are based on rail corridors Comment: S5.3 Yes, agree. Road traffic currently accounts for 72% of total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from transport (73% of passenger-kilometres) and rail accounts for less than 1%. Bus services do not secure modal change. Development based on rail is therefore essential in an area with high car ownership.
Q-S5.3 – Rail Corridors. I feel that the prioritisation of rail corridors may offer a sensible option for development. There is substantial scope to include development alongside rail corridors outside of the greenbelt. I feel development alongside rail corridors to the South of the region, explicitly avoiding greenbelt development should be supported. The plan outlines that an indicative 6000 new homes would be sufficient to support a new rail station, and there is ample geographical options to achieve this outside of the greenbelt. Additionally, this would reduce the likelihood of overcrowding existing areas/stations in locations with existing stations in the Greenbelt. Development in North Leamington is not appropriate to use Leamington Spa station as there is already heavy traffic congestion in people moving from the North to the South of the town. A new station in the greenbelt is unacceptable. The Climate Emergency must not be used as justification to develop on greenbelt land, this is a weak argument as there are other ways of mitigating against the climate emergency without developing on greenbelt.
I feel that the prioritisation of rail corridors may offer a sensible option for development. There is substantial scope to include development alongside rail corridors outside of the greenbelt. I feel development alongside rail corridors to the South of the region, explicitly avoiding greenbelt development should be supported. The plan outlines that an indicative 6000 new homes would be sufficient to support a new rail station, and there is ample geographical options to achieve this outside of the greenbelt. Additionally, this would reduce the likelihood of overcrowding existing areas/stations in locations with existing stations in the Greenbelt. Development in North Leamington is not appropriate to use Leamington Spa station as there is already heavy traffic congestion in people moving from the North to the South of the town. A new station in the greenbelt is unacceptable. The Climate Emergency must not be used as justification to develop on greenbelt land, this is a weak argument as there are other ways of mitigating against the climate emergency without developing on greenbelt.
Depends on the location. Warwick and Leamington have regular, reliable, rapid train services to Birmingham and London. The Henley railway line has an infrequent slow service to Birmingham with trains often cancelled. For this reason, we rarely now get the train from Henley to Birmingham with preference for car usage, I know we are not alone in this. It may look good on a map that Henley has a train station but in reality the service is poor, an unreliable service should not be the main basis for a potential location of growth. More information needs to be collated about local services prior to basing housing strategy on them.
Depends on the location. Warwick and Leamington have regular, reliable, rapid train services to Birmingham and London. The Henley railway line has an infrequent slow service to Birmingham with trains often cancelled. For this reason, we rarely now get the train from Henley to Birmingham with preference for car usage, I know we are not alone in this. It may look good on a map that Henley has a train station but in reality the service is poor, an unreliable service should not be the main basis for a potential location of growth. More information needs to be collated about local services prior to basing housing strategy on them.
No answer given
No answer given
New Settlements: I feel that it is wholly unacceptable to consider the development of a new settlement within greenbelt land. There are not exceptional circumstances to doing so. It is unacceptable that despite the NPPF principles, multiple new settlement locations are illustratively suggested in the current consultation document. If a new settlement is to be considered, this should only be in non-greenbelt land. There are ample non-greenbelt options for new settlements. A new settlement in non-greenbelt land should be prioritised over any other development options in greenbelt land. New infrastructure can be developed to support such a non- greenbelt site.
I feel that it is wholly unacceptable to consider the development of a new settlement within greenbelt land. There are not exceptional circumstances to doing so. It is unacceptable that despite the NPPF principles, multiple new settlement locations are illustratively suggested in the current consultation document. If a new settlement is to be considered, this should only be in non-greenbelt land. There are ample non-greenbelt options for new settlements. A new settlement in non-greenbelt land should be prioritised over any other development options in greenbelt land. New infrastructure can be developed to support such a non- greenbelt site
I feel that it is wholly unacceptable to consider the development of a new settlement within greenbelt land. There are not exceptional circumstances to doing so. It is unacceptable that despite the NPPF principles, multiple new settlement locations are illustratively suggested in the current consultation document. If a new settlement is to be considered, this should only be in non-greenbelt land. There are ample non-greenbelt options for new settlements. A new settlement in non-greenbelt land should be prioritised over any other development options in greenbelt land. New infrastructure can be developed to support such a non- greenbelt site.
New Settlements: I feel that it is wholly unacceptable to consider the development of a new settlement within greenbelt land. There are not exceptional circumstances to doing so. It is unacceptable that despite the NPPF principles, multiple new settlement locations are illustratively suggested in the current consultation document. If a new settlement is to be considered, this should only be in non-greenbelt land. There are ample non-greenbelt options for new settlements. A new settlement in non-greenbelt land should be prioritised over any other development options in greenbelt land. New infrastructure can be developed to support such a non- greenbelt site.
Question S5.3 I believe it is emotive and misguided to use the phrase “climate change emergencies”. Of course it is sensible to strive towards renewable energy and reduced carbon emissions, but given the present chaotic rush to net zero, in a time scale that will certainly prove to be unattainable, clear thinking and detailed planning is essential at all levels of government…local included. It is not justified to use “Climate Emergency” as a reason to build on Green belt land. Despite my above statement Rail Corridors do present a sensible option for development that will satisfy some aspects of reducing emissions, but only if we have an efficient workable rail system. Again I would reiterate that Rail Corridor developments should not be in Green belt land. The proposed development alongside rail corridors to the South of the region, outside of Green Belt should be supported.
Yes - only if further development of railcorridors
Answering this question is difficult because the Consultation Paper does not explain the criteria used to select the seven locations identified. There are other locations. We would look to see where the advantages of a new settlement can best be realized. The appraisal of the 7 sites identified for new settlements is too focused on the negatives. The Wood End site, with which we are particularly concerned is the only one that is not an essentially green field site: it already has significant development – mainly large houses in large plots. This will constrain what can be achieved, quite apart from being in a particularly sensitive part of the Green Belt – having regard to the NPPF objectives for the Green Belt. The existing services are on the southern edge and so would not be at the heart of a new settlement.
No answer given