The section on Churchill and the 'Mendip Springs Garden Village' contain the same level of wishful thinking as those on Banwell, in particular with regard to transport infrastructure and employment. I do NOT support these proposals, which would place a significant area of rural land under tarmac.

The proposals for a ‘garden village’ at Mendip Spring are premature and considered unsustainable. Until the JSP formal examination process has been concluded however, further consultation is only at best hypothetical and may be unachievable.

The Banwell and Churchill SDLs (strategic allocations) are still to be tested through the Joint Spatial Plan examination. As set out in our comments dated 8 January 2018 to the Joint Spatial Plan consultation, we have strong concerns regarding the proposed allocation of Banwell and Churchill garden villages

Local plan consultation assumes that JSP - Mendip Spring SDL has been approved.

Strongly opposed to Mendip Spring SDL.

The expectation that the garden village will be delivered in its entirety in less than 20 years seems overly optimistic, as it depends on the delivery of a new bypass, and junction on to the M5. Significant land assembly is necessary, requiring multiple ownerships. These constraints are significant, to the point that the University questions what, if any part of the SDL could be delivered during the plan period.

The same comments apply as for Banwell – consultation is premature. The Garden Village concept has not been proven or adequately justified in terms of viability and the location proposed is an unsustainable compared with expansion at the larger settlements. This part of the emerging plan and the West of England JSP remains unsound.

Any new walking/cycling routes need to be multi-user.

Opposed to the proposals for the Mendip Spring SDL - consultation is premature.

We are totally opposed to the gross over development in an inappropriate area. We fully agree with all the points made against it by CALRAG.