BASE HEADER
Q-S5.2: Do you think new settlements should be part of the overall strategy?
Currently Warwickshire has suffered much loss of biodiversity, greenbelt, woodland, carbon absorbing trees and hedgerows and access to the countryside through extensive HS2 developments. These cannot be replaced and 'carbon offset' is not a realistic solution long term. Any further development along rail corridors would further threaten and diminish Warwickshire's dwindling countryside and bio diversity along side destroying further carbon buffering vegetation.
Any selected existing settlements should be large enough to provide all services and be capable of providing non vehicle accessibility. But new settlements seem an unlikely choice in the light of the response to V3-2 principally because affordable housing would dominate and conflict with the mixed tenure policy. Even though it is limited, the emissions analysis suggests this is not the most effective choice. At the level of detail of the analysis this seems a premature decision. See the responses to Q-S7.1 below
It is suggested that the potential travel patterns due to jobs and social activity should be overlaid on the current strategic rail routes to identify which locations can truly provide realistic travel times to the locations required, and any enhancements or modal connections that are required and should be built into the plan, to make the travel by rail attractive. A new settlement has the potential to deliver the majority of the housing needs, with the minimum effect on the environment, and without detrimental effect on the character of existing settlements, providing the settlement is of sufficient size to attract investment, and that transport infrastructure is planned and installed at the outset. In order to achieve this it is suggested that a form of Development Corporation incorporating all tiers of local government and public sector investors, would deliver the best outcome.
Ni roddwyd ateb
Locations of rail stations should be potential locations, not the rail corridors.
New settlements should not be considered where greenbelt land is developed. There is sufficient brownfield land that should be developed in preference to preserve the environment and character of the area. Rail corridors should be prioritised but only where greenbelt land is not damaged.
No Comment
Ni roddwyd ateb
I believe that rail transport may seem an attractive option, but take up will be a direct function of fare prices, including car parking and service frequency. Using Warwick Parkway as an example, the timeframe for Off Peak fares has been narrowed, car parking charges are now full price until 12.00 and the total cost of travel is now far less attractive than it was.
The answer to S5.2 is yes but ONLY if the infrastructure goes in early in the development. An example of where this has failed is Upper Lighthorne where already many properties are inhabited but there is no medical provision on the site.
Ni roddwyd ateb
Ni roddwyd ateb
BUT real connectivity is essential. Travelling for example via Stratford station to the south requires the train heading north before going south and is lengthy and currently infrequent.
Ni roddwyd ateb
Ni roddwyd ateb
Q-S5.2 No new settlements should be permitted on prime agricultural land. The pressures on current and future food production and supply mean that prime agricultural land should be highly protected. .............................................................................. Q-S5.3 Strongly disagree with the principal of using rail corridors for new settlements. Rail travel will never be a viable option as it will never be frequent or flexible enough for modern travel. It is completely unrealistic to believe that this would effect a move away from the use of cars. The increasingly high cost of modern vehicles will mean that people will want to maximise the use of such high cost assets. The identified potential new settlement at Hatton Station (B1) is in the A4177/B4439 corridor to the West of Warwick. This area is already under considerable pressure. The roads are an often used formal emergency diversion route for the M42 Motorway and even with upgraded infrastructure this corridor would struggle to cope with the level of development of housing and employment land being suggested. In addition this particular new settlement would not be separate enough from existing villages.
I feel new settlements should definitely be considered, but i don't understand why half of the settlements proposed are within greenbelt land, when there are vast areas of available land indicated in the 'New settlements: Potential Locations' map above. You have mentioned the climate change emergency as a reason to look closer to rail corridors, however, developing the proposed locations within greenbelt land would surely have a negative effect on the environment. With regard to looking closer to rail corridors, i feel that this is an option that would allow more scope for development further out of the greenbelt areas, but i don't believe that enough people use the rail network for it to be a priority. HS2 is already causing immense damage in and around villages/towns at huge expense; I believe building more settlements along side this will remove the remaining appeal and beauty of these areas.
Ni roddwyd ateb
Ni roddwyd ateb
New settlements should be built only after intensification and brownfield re-development has taken place. And when new settlements are built, they should be in locations where they are least detrimental to the landscape around. And only basing new settlements close to railways is wrong because new residents cannot be forced to use the railway service. Most will just get in their car, as is the case in the whole of the UK generally. People like their cars!
Ni roddwyd ateb
Ni roddwyd ateb
A focus on brownfield development. Please do not erode and destroy our precious green belt. Our rural and semi-rural areas must be protected, irrespective of rail lines. We should not be condemning a beautiful, precious location to be blighted by development because a rail line happens to run nearby.
New settlements in the right place have merit. Access to public transport is a clear driver for reducing emissions. However, arbitrarily locating new settlements near a railway line is not thought through or considered. Depending on the line, will depend on how viable it is - a new station for a small settlement on the London-Birmingham line just won't happen - which is why Fenny Compton station closed. New settlements should only be built with this as a driver if it is absolutely core to the design of the settlement and to the transport plan for the relevant line - simply building next to a railway and then having everyone drive to it makes no sense whatsoever and is not sustainable. F3 - Northeast of Knightcote is completely non-sensical as the land is undulating, the railway line considerably higher than ground level and land of distinct rural character. An extremely questionable site location and questionable motives. Further South near Fenny Compton or toward Banbury may be more sensible.
Explanation of response to S5.2: The proposal to build new settlement(s) in south Warwickshire of the ‘large village’ type might enable people to live, study, work and and relax within their communities thereby strengthening them. If carefully designed, these settlements could embody 20 minute neighbourhood principles. Such design should permit high housing density in the centres and exceed the suggested 40 dwellings per hectare, thus protecting the rest of the area from urban sprawl and unnecessary loss of greenfields. Therefore, this is probably the least-worst way to provide for the huge numbers of new homes mandated by central government. Explanation of response to S5.3: It would be ideal to have a railway station in a new settlement, so long as it is part of a broad strategy to encourage its use and so reduce car journeys. However, we are sceptical that this will be effective and it is far more important to design the settlement to provide enough facilities so residents choose to travel/ commute less frequently beyond the settlement.
Ni roddwyd ateb
Rail technolgy has not really moved on since the 1800s when it was developed. Its limitations have always been: Large heavy rolling stock using high levels of energy to move it before any passengers or frieght even board it. (regardless of runnignon green energy one day). It is inflexible as it must follow exisitng track infrastucture. It is a poor use of the land corridor it takes up. Far better would be road based small flexibled bus services using electricity or hydrogen propulsion. These can be flexed to meet demand patterns and serve the whole community not just a few fixed railway station locations.
Ni roddwyd ateb
Q-S5.2: Do you think new settlements should be part of the overall strategy? • We believe that new settlements offer viable alternatives to the growth of existing settlements and can avoid the coalescence of existing towns and villages with the attendant loss of identity and character. • They can be planned and sited with appropriate infrastructures for optimal sustainable development in future years.
I do not believe entire new settlements should be part of the overall strategy - this will result in the change of character of existing rural locations. A rail corridor is not a suitable preferred approach to identifying potential locations when the local services are unreliable and do not connect to some of the major centres of employment in the region. Only if a very frequent and integrated light rail system was guaranteed would it be pragmatic to consider this. Hatton Station does not have a shop, pub, community centre, village green, sports facilities, allotments, health facilities or school locally, nor do any safe walking routes exist to those. Walking locally to the train station involves walking along unlit roads; walking to a shop or pub means walking on unlit and muddy canal towpath. Development should be proportionate to existing size of population centres and should consider existing levels of infrastructure plus what can realistically be achieved via holistic and integrated change, rather than promoting building of residential property only.