Army Rebasing at Larkhill South of The Packway

Common sense must prevail in this instance. To use infrastructure and facilities already in place. To keep the Garrison within the Garrison and not let Durrington be part of that Garrison. To use brown field sites that use to be barracks many years ago and not green field sites. The greenfield site between Durrington and Larkhill is an air space corridor.

There are plenty of open space land in the Centre of this Garrison to keep it "In house'! The agreement made some 46 years ago to stop construction in the inner spaces* should now be lifted as they present no danger to any English Heritage sites ion the area! However the planting of trees in the outer perimeter should continue as those planted some 50 years ago have been most successful. * Other than those around the Old first WW1 flying area being the oldest in the World! These areas should be made to identify and make better use of it!

#3: -

I quite agree with this writer!

We need to provide our military and their families with the best accommodation location we can.

To have families and soldiers close to camp south of the Packway would be the best place to have families accommodation. It would reduce the carbon footprint.

As well as the obvious issues about building along the A345, I am also concerned about the the amount of wildlife which will have habitats destroyed. There are large numbers of Skylarks which nest in the field and Swallows that return every year that feed on the insects from the crops. I am not against building new homes for the military, but I think that common sense should prevail and build them closer to the garrison, to keep them part of it. Not but turning Durrington into part of the garrison.

The married quarters need to be placed in Larkhill where their camp is. For their convenience and to stop any more cars on already busy roads.

Listen to the peaple who already live here. English Heritage rides roughshod over the needs of the area.

#4: -  

 

please do not allow Larkhill to merge with Durrington and become one enormous urban sprawl.

The key campaign issue is not about just allowing building South of The Packway as far as I am concerned. This is merely one option to achieve the aim of keeping Durrington and Larkhill separate. The preferred sites declared by the MoD for the Services Family Accommodation ( i.e. Army quarters) will result in Durrington becoming attached to the garrison. I am not anti-army and served in the gunners myself. I do not wish, however, to live in a community that is part of a super garrison consisting of numerous artillery units (4 additional regiments will move to Larkhill and the garrison military personnel will double in numbers). I urge everyone in Durrington to wake up to the threat to the independence and nature of our community and to encourage everyone they know to fight for Larkhill to remain separated from Durrington

Ironically, although Stonehenge is kilometers away from Larkhill, the DIO and EH are prepared to allow construction of this housing estate a few hundred metres away from the historic Durrington Walls, an earthed banked site which as ritual connections with Stonehenge. But they do not seemed to be concerned with this.

Having been a soldier, then officer for a total of 45 years , i feel I have the authority to comment on the planned building of the 500 homes in Durrington, it is madness in this day and age to build on greenfield sites, when there are numerous brownfield sites available, the area south of the packway is without doubt the best site, it will mask the old barracks that littered the area during the war, it will give soldiers car free access to thieir barracks and allow the families to use the current facilities in Larkhill, without the need for a second car. Durrington offers non of these advantages, building close to the the village will add to the urban sprawl that is fast becoming the blight of village life. I chose to live here because it was close to but not part of the garrison. 500 new army families will give Durrington a transit feel, it will not aid cohesion and intergration, it will do the opposite, we love our soldiers and cherish their commitment and lifestyle, but we do not want to be part off the garrison. Time for common sence to prevail.

This housing must not be allowed in Durrington! Nothing against the military whatsoever but it makes perfect sense for this development to go up at Larkhill. Durrington struggles with rush hour traffic already - can you imagine a potential extra 500 cars trying to get kids to school or to work?

it just doesn't make sense building on farmland and
other green acres alongside the A 345 road to MARLBOROUGH if ms Claire wants to represent us all in the next general election she would be well
advised to have these new army houses built on brownfield sites near to the exisiting garrison in LARKHILL.

I would dearly like the authorities to listen to the opinions of the local people who are very aware that young families need easy access to facilities such as schools, doctors, daycare and shops. The most logical place to build new homes is south of the Packway as all these amenities are in a short walking distance.
The proposed area adjacent to the A345 and the Larkhill roundabout is the furthest point from the above mentioned and therefore cars would be a necessity, which would create more traffic and congestion when taking and collecting children from schools and daycare centres.. Those without cars would be more isolated.

It makes complete sense to build the houses on the Packway site. In addition to the fact that the majority of the infrastructure is already there, residents will be able to walk or cycle to work, and to the local amenities. Despite studying English Heritage's lengthy response to the proposals (which consists almost entirely of the words 'may', 'might', 'could', 'possibly')I am unable to understand their objections. There is also the matter of the increased carbon footprint which would result from the selection of a site further away from Larkhill, caused by the increased need to travel. Has this been taken into account, and who would pay for its negation? Let common sense prevail.

It makes more sense to keep the army housing near to the facilities at larkhill and not in the fields next to durrington.

Having heard the news that the MOD intend to replace alot of regular soldiers with reservists, I feel that the MOD would rather have the housing outside the camp to make them more saleable if and when the soldiers are not required. So I feel that the housing should be as close to the camp as possible and leave the necessary gap between Larkhill & Durrington. Let the A345 be the boundary of Durrington. Where will the Helicopters be diverted to as this road is used for their flight path?

Keep military within a Garrison and not position them within a village. Down from the packway is perfect, easy and close access to camp and current amenities. Building in Durrington is going to cause the village to have busy roads causing more danger to walking school children.