No

Yes

Ni roddwyd ateb

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

Yes

Green belt sites should not be used. They should be protected. Brownfield sites should be identified and utilised.

No

No

Ni roddwyd ateb

No

Yes

Q-S5.2 - 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. 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 are 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.

No

Yes

Q-S5.2 - 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. 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 are 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.

Yes

Yes

The prioritisation of rail corridors offers a sensible option for development. There is substantial scope to include development alongside rail corridors outside of the greenbelt.

Yes

Yes

Ni roddwyd ateb

No

Yes

New Settlements: I feel that it is wholly unacceptable to consider the development of a new settlement within greenbelt 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 a new settlement is to be considered, this should only be in non-greenbelt land, of which there are numerous 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. 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. This would also 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.

Yes

Don't know

Ni roddwyd ateb

No

Don't know

Ni roddwyd ateb

Yes

No

I support rail corridors as potential locations - however, building new stations, and getting services to stop at those new stations, is not simple. Unless the relevant public bodies and operators can promise to deliver, it's not a credible option. If we are encouraging cycling, why not also look at 'canal corridors' whose towpaths are de-facto bridleways and can be used by bicycles?

Yes

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

Ni roddwyd ateb

No

No

F1 F2 and F3 would impact Bishops Tachbrook the worst. There is already considerable noise from the M40. Creating a settlement in those areas would increase traffic, emissions and increased noise from the railway. Yet again this question is binary yes/no. But I would say yes to some of them and no to others. Because I would say no to some I've been forced to answer no to this question. Many people would be forced to say yes which appears to give you a mandate to take these forward, but is in fact the nature of the questioning that forces people to assent to something they do not wholly agree with.

Yes

Don't know

The creation of new railway stations has previously been resisted by Network Rail. Even if this position were to change, these could have significant impacts on commuter road journeys, possibly to the detriment of existing settlements that are in close proximity to the new station.

Yes

Yes

Yes but rail between meon vale and Stratford has already been discounted which would be beneficial. Also, bus/train links need to be improved between rural locations, Stratford and key employment centres of Solihull, Birmingham, Warwick/Coventry.

Yes

No

Any new settlements should only be considered where there is an existing railway station. Speculation about the potential of having a station is totally unrealistic and is not sustainable. New settlements in the Green Belt should be resisted completely, unless they are served by an existing station, preferably on a mainline between Birmingham and London.

Yes

Yes

Ni roddwyd ateb

No

No

I am concerned that the rail option will not solve the congestion on the local roads and has the potential to further exacebate the problems we have now in the Woodend/Earlswood/ Fulford Heath/ Tidbury Green area. The size of the proposed settlement in Woodend would adversely effect the nature of this leisure and recreational space. Moderate expansionof current towns should be further considered especially the use of brown field resources. There is already an issue for children and young people getting to and from schools, both primary and secondary. The intent of developers has been evident, as farmland has been bought up speculatively, with the intent to continue lobbying to build massive estates choking the rural nature of this area.

Don't know

Yes

Ni roddwyd ateb

No

No

It is very silly to think that people will get the trains. I do not know anyone who commutes by train to work. Unless you work in a major town or city, it is unrealistic to expect people to commute by train. Many people now also work from home. Most people also have children and would be unable to take them to school and travel by train. Existing brownfield sites in already established cities and major towns should be developed. Green belt should be protected at all costs, especially for environmental factors.

Yes

No

Will future models of doing business still require mass commuting? If not, or even discouraged, rail corridors have little relevance.

No

No

I feel that it is wholly unacceptable to consider the development of a new settlement within greenbelt land. There are no exceptional circumstances for doing so. It is unacceptable that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) principles are NOT being adhered to, as multiple new settlement locations, in greenbelt land, 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 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 6,000 new homes would be sufficient to support a new rail station, and there are ample geographical options to achieve this outside of the greenbelt. Additionally, this would reduce the likelihood of overcrowding existing stations. Development in north Leamington would increase traffic to and from Leamington station so contributing to the already heavy traffic congestion in the centre 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

No

Yes

This may offer a sensible option for development. There is significant scope to include development alongside rail corridor outside of the greenbelt. development alongside rail corridors to the south of the region, explicitly avoiding greenbelt should be supported. Plan outlines 6000 new homes would be sufficient to support a rail station, and there are ample geographical options to achieve this outside greenbelt. This would also reduce overcrowding exiting areas/stations in locations with exiting stations in the greenbelt. Development in North Leamington is not appropriate to use Leamington Spa station as there is already very heavy traffic congestion in the people moving from the North to the South of the town. A new station in the greenbelt is not acceptable. Developing on greenbelt land will not help the Climate Emergency, far more so would developing on brownfield sites.

Yes

Yes

Ni roddwyd ateb

Don't know

Don't know

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.

Yes

Yes

Ni roddwyd ateb

Yes

Yes

Ni roddwyd ateb

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

Yes

As previously discussed SoA needs to develop to the North The southern developments are causing many insoluble problems. There could be development around the Stratford Parkway but that would lead to challenging the Green Belt. A light rail connection to Long Marston together with cycle routs could be part of a solution, but future large developments should be along the rail corridor.

Yes

Yes

Ni roddwyd ateb

Yes

Yes

Using rail as a potential option makes sense however this needs to be made affordable and convenient - currently if people have a car already they will use that. Can't rely on people using rail and road infrastructure also needs to be capable, road network around F2 is in poor condition and over-used currently. Any increased demand on that would be of further detriment to properties near to roads such as the houses near the A425 in Ufton.