Q-S5.2: Do you think new settlements should be part of the overall strategy?
No answer given
Population growth is not sustainable. A key policy to discourage population growth is to stop building housing. I recommend not building any more housing and instead implement further policies to discourage population growth, such as increasing council tax for large families.
While railways are extremely efficient and provide national connectivity, they only connect places on the line directly. For most individuals on a day to day basis they have no reliance on railways, and even general use of public transport is very limited and the Council should bear this in mind when considering policy. The Council shouldn’t look to provide disproportionate support to one particular factor, as many factors must be considered and balanced if a sustainable new settlement is to be created. There are many rural settlements that have no railway connection which are vibrant and there are settlements with a railway station which are not vibrant. A holistic picture must be had and development should be channelled to where it is needed. To have a sustainable settlement there are many factors that must be considered but these factors are highly sensitive to the settlement itself (i.e. is there industry, distribution, offices, a college etc and what mix this plays relative to local infrastructure and geography). It may be prudent to have a serious look at sharing out the much needed development around existing settlements (to support local needs such as housing, services and businesses) and rural areas rather than to put all the emphasis on new standalone settlement(s).
No answer given
A blended approach should be preferred as the cost of rail to daily users is not insignificant. Bus strategy would require ongoing subsidies with a regulated regime to minimise the cherry-picking of the more intensive routes and the resulting "one but out and one bus back to the settlement per day approach which would drive car usage of necessity. New settlements should be kept out of the Green Belt unless sufficient brown field sites can be identified. A 20 minute neighbourhood is suitable in some cases but with the aging demographic in South Warwickshire, the elderly and those with push chairs / wheel chairs would not find such neighbopurhoods acceptable and would resort to other modes of transport.
I would prefer existing settlements to be improved and densified as this has the potential to offer more to existing communities in terms of sustainable services, but if a settlement must be considered then locating it next to existing rail lines makes sense.
No answer given
No answer given
The wood end area is not suitable as the rail station has no footpath access due to lack of pavements and street lights, also you can't drive there due to the lack of a car park. The area doesn't have any infrastructure required to be the site of a new development and also the rural nature of the are would be completely ruined
Focus on brownfield development in existing large settlements.
A settlement of 6,000 houses creates too high an impact upon the existing infrastructure and a significant negative impact upon existing residents in the surrounding area. Therefore, new settlements are not appropriate. Using existing rail corridors is not appropriate as they are not all equal and fit for purpose. For example A1 has access to a very infrequent railway service which would not satisfy the demands and only railway corridors with fast frequent access to the local cities or centres of business should be included.
Completely new settlements with purpose built infrastructure to meet the needs of residents. Avoid the destruction of existing ancient settlements, villages or towns.
Looking at rail corridors for potential locations will just increase the density of existing housing because towns have developed around the railways in the past. With working from home there is less need to commute. What is required is new settlements away from existing settlements and with their own infrastructure , schools, shops, doctors etc and reliable bus services to reduce car use.
No answer given
Local trains in our area are very un reliable e.g. leam - Kenilworth - Coventry. Buses are much more reliable. If reliability can be over come then this is a good idea
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
Stick to road network and encourage electric cars
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
Rail corridors are very narrow & only serve a generally North / South spread. 90% of people work in small companies dotted all over the region, unless old railways are put back into use serving smaller communities then car travel for work & school remains critical.
No answer given
No answer given
Rail corridors look good on paper but how practical are they? In reality, unless there is a station already in place, it is unlikely they will happen. This restricts them to Wood End, Hatton and Lapworth. These three have the advantage of connections in place to Birmingham, Leamington and points south. Given the current situation of rail and its unions, I can't see any appetite for new investment. Remember what happened after the union issues of the late 1970s - minimal investment for the next 15 years. By that time, London will flexing its mussels and seeking to absorb any investemnt going.
More Cycle paths.