Army Rebasing at Larkhill South of The Packway

the army needs the support of the locals and the locals and businesses need the support of the army. English heritage is neither.

put the houses in Larkhill they have plenty of spare land opposite the church and not in Durrington as the troops are coming back to Larkhill not Durrington, where is the infrastructure for doctors,education, and roads etc. all for the troops coming back but in Larkhill not Durrington.

By building new homes between Durrington and Larkhill the two villages become one major conurbation. There is no justification for building on this land and fails the NPPF sustainability criteria when site closer to the centre of the Garrison are available. If the government permits this development then it opens the door to private developers who have ambitions to build in open countryside.

Makes sense to choose this site as it is in prime location & has less impact on existing area!!

Having lived beside A345 road in Durrington for 38 years, I have witnessed many changes in and around this area, and to change use of agricultural schedule 1 land beside it for Army housing would be catastrophic for the wildlife that rely on it. The Skylarks, which Larkhill gets it's name from, will disappear along with Buzzards, Owls and other birds of prey. Deer, badgers, foxes, hares and rabbits have frequently been seen roaming from the ranges to sheltered in the crops, mature woodland and Martins Bushes that runs beside it. Bats and visiting swallows regularly use it as a feeding corridor.
This farmland and other proposed greenfield sites must have uncharted archaeology also on it, or does English Heritage think our ancient ancestors did not settle or use areas other side of A345 and B3086. Building material that has not yet be identified as ancient or more recent, have been found on the top soil. I thought the MOD supported conservation and archaeology on their land.
There are other demolished sites in past that they should consider, at the old SWW camp at Netheravon and Carter Barracks in Bulford as well as where old barracks stood in Larkhill Garrison. At the end of the day common sense should prevail for all concerned.

As an ex-Army wife, I have live in many married quarters and the best ones were the ones nearest to all the Army facilities. With husband away so often, I felt included and more secure being near the barracks.

Durrington will no longer be a village if all the proposed army houses are built south of the Packway. The Army has acres of land the other side of Larkhill going towards Shrewton

It's now or never..... Once they are built that's it!

Please ensure that the subject is thoroughly reviewed and all avenues explored before committing to a decision

We in Netheravon would welcome new housing on the Avon Camp site. The village has a long military association and having lost two bases would welcome military families. Many military children already come from nearby military bases to our school and unless the new housing is to be directly alongside or in the Larkhill military site it would not add hugely to the carbon footprint or usage of the A345.

The preferred site opposite the Stonehenge Inn is perfect for the 500 new houses..why cram them in opposite the church? Larkhill does not have the infrastructure, the shops are inadequate for the current population, why do you think we all travel to Amesbury or Durrington to shop?

Please listen to the people of Durrington and the Army at Larkhill. We welcome the Army but wish to have a workable solution that is right for everyone and path an acceptable and workable way for the Army Rebasing at Larkhill.

I feel that it is an essential part of our village that Larkhill does not meet up with Durrington on the A345. Please help make this rebasing workable between the Army and the people of Durrington. It is also essential for Army personnel to be within walking distance of their base and not be cut off if they have no transport. Even with transport any vehicle pull out to Larkhill would be quite hazardous.

Would not like to see Durrington meet up with Larhill on the A345. Army need to be near their own base and facilities

#38: Stonehengerocks - Army rebasing

Perhaps if there were more houses built at Larkhill they would also build better infrastructure and more shops so you would not need to travel to Durrington or Amesbury.  Most army families are only in post for 2 or 3 years whereas many people in Durrington have lived here all their lives and many more for years.  it is not the Army that we don't want here but we would like to keep are village as Durrington and not be joined to Larkhill. Please look at both sides.

I hope that any influence this petition has is used to persuade decision makers to physically go an look at the South of the Packway options, so that they can see these have no impact on the Stonehenge site. I also hope that it is used to influence the apparent unwillingness of Wiltshire Council members to directly speak to the World Heritage

I hope that the environmental impact of the option alongside the A345 is fully considered. Not just the fact that it is green belt, but the additional traffic and affect on wildlife also. When persuading Wiltshire Council to consider speaking directly to World Heritage (not just English Heritage) they should consider that digging anywhere on Salisbury plain will result in archaeologically significant finds, its not just south of the packway!

I am worried about the impact on traffic both along the A345 and through Durrington if some of the proposed areas are considered. South of the Packway will support the development of a coherent Larkhill community, rather than create a bolted on housing estate that is more linked to Durrington.

I don't want the village of Durrington altered by the building of army housing nearby.