Online Response Form


List of answers to the specified question
Burwin investments (Mark Wingfield) There are always other challenges, but it is a question of priorities, and i believe the prioriety for Elmbridge right now is housing. 17 Dec 2016 11:28
Mick Flannigan Nowhere does the consultation address the root cause of our planning dilemma, which is OVERPOPULATION. Unless councils reverse that trend, no amount of development and planning is going to succeed. Of course, this requires political will from Parliament and central government. Policies need to be fundamentally changed, so I wonder what our local MPs are doing to bring this about?? (Nothing whatsoever, I suspect.)
The "solution" offered by all major parties is no solution at all. They simply intend to build, build, build – and then build even more, until we lose all our open space and we end up building towers into the sky. Central government has been bullying and bribing local authorities into providing ever more housing. We can't go on like this. It is ruining our towns, such as Walton, and eating into our open spaces. It is a scandal that EBC faces the threat of having its housing affairs removed and handed over to Surrey CC, of all people. (God forbid!) It is high time that local councils collectively revolted and told the government to get real.
Present policies and regulations make an absolute mockery of the local planning system. It is all governed by distant politicians and civil servants. They neither know nor care what is best for our community. We need to reverse the insane presumption in favour of developers/applicants. We also have to level the playing field, by allowing the public as well as developers the right of appeal against decisions. At present, far too many local decisions are overruled on appeal, and it is a one-way process. Inspectors have rendered meaningless the term "sustainable" development, by allowing construction in all sorts of inappropriate locations.
Elmbridge cannot keep accommodating more and more people. The council needs to pull up the drawbridge. EBC will always be fighting a losing battle, as long as our governments are committed to freedom of movement. We face endless inward migration, which is pushing house prices inexorably upwards. I don't believe that Waltonians are breeding like uncontrollable rabbits - so where is all the pressure on the housing market coming from? For whom, exactly, are we building all the hundreds and hundreds of new homes?
In my 38 years of living in Walton, I have witnessed the construction of thousands of homes. Has any of that succeeded in preventing the current pressure on the local housing market? No, not at all. Indeed, it has merely exacerbated the problems. Every new development encourages yet more inward migration. We have to say "enough is enough" and make it clear that our area is full up. If that deters people from coming here to live, so be it. They cannot expect the council to continue providing more and more homes, specifically to accommodate them.
We are told that the UK population is going to rise by nearly 10,000,000 in the next 25 years. That is intolerable madness. It is a recipe for conflict and crisis. Instead of working out how to prevent it, the authorities are merely working on how to absorb it. It's not possible to manage that successfully.
We are also told that according to the SHMA, Elmbridge needs to create 9,480 new homes in less than 20 years. That would ruin our borough. I repeat: for whom, exactly, are these homes required? The council keeps parroting that this number has been "objectively" assessed, so we are expected to take it as gospel. Residents are dismayed by this short-term planning. It will not prevent continual inward migration. Indeed, it will only encourage it. Building hundreds of new homes each year will solve nothing. It will merely lead to more and more building further down the line.
19 Dec 2016 13:56
A.B Cotterell Key to the future of Elmbridge, if it deserves to survive as a Borough, is the preservation of the environment, already under threat by back garden development. The only way forward in planning terms is to have higher density in brown field sites. 29 Dec 2016 08:59
Holton Homes (Clive Wingfield) it is essential to release weak green belt land to face this issue 02 Jan 2017 07:19
Tim Tostevin Existing Traffic congestion e.g. through Weybridge also needs to be borne in mind. 06 Jan 2017 09:27
FEDORA (David Cooke) As above.

Also this potential erosion of Green Belt is the thin end of the wedge.

One can imagine that every time more housing is needed a further parcel of Green Belt will be released.

The classification of Green Belt in terms of weakly, moderately and strongly performing areas is highly subjective considering only 2 of the 5 purposes for which it was created. The Knowle Park to Brick Pit area in particular prevents merging of the villages of Oxshott and Stoke D'Abernon.

Also the Knowle Park to Brick Pit area is particularly unsuitable for removal from the Green Belt because:
1. Access would have to be via Fairmile, Water, Littleheath or Blundel Lanes which are narrow and already overcongested.
2. There are ancient woodlands on part of the site.
3. The Brick Pit has wildlife and widely used recreational walks around it.
4. There is a public footpath through the site from Richards and Irene Road to the Stoke Road along the current edge of the Knowle Park estate.
5. There is a scout camp on the site requiring surrounding countryside.
6. The area contains fields used for grazing horses.
7. There is a high pressure gas main under some of the fields near the railway bridge.
06 Jan 2017 13:27
Deleted User The consultation document does not highlight the associated impact on infrastructure. While employment opportunities are good in the area, the bigger challenge is the stain on roads and public transport as well as schools. Considering many people in the area are schooling locally, schools that are significantly strained and not equipped for the already growing popoulation. Additionally, the roads and train links are not strong enough to sustain the additional weight of commuters or leisure drivers in the area. We already have one of the busiest lines to Waterloo and very strained roads especially with the A3 and M25. Considering in particular the long ditton proposal, housing is the start of a bigger problem. 08 Jan 2017 09:54
Rachel Warren Changing current planning permissions that seem to favour developers using existing sites for "luxury" large expensive homes over different types of housing
Key worker housing particularly for public sector employees
Maintaining a stock of affordable and social housing in the long term
Developing the range of housing available to older people who want to downsize
Maintaining the quality of life for residents by maintaining the Green Belt
Maintaining environmental benefits of existing Green Belt e.g. air quality, flood protection, wildlife habitats
08 Jan 2017 16:28
James Chowne One of the nice things about Elmbridge is the open spaces and low density housing. This should be a key element to maintain and protect. New development should focus on family, detatched housing to maintain the low population density. Affordable and 1-3 bed dwellings should be concentrated in areas where higher dwelling density is already accepted and part of the planning environment such as Kingston and Walton. 08 Jan 2017 20:09
Deleted User • To retain the quality of life for existing residents in Elmbridge
• To resolve the transport congestion in our area - Cobham/Stoke d'Abernon/Oxshott have severe constraints due to enclosure by A3/M25
• To avoid further development on our Green Belt
• To avoid further urbanisation and in-fill
• To maintain the environment and avoid further pollution
09 Jan 2017 08:55
Next pageLast page