Online Response Form

Responses

List of answers to the specified question
NameOptionTextDate
Peter Tottle All the local schools etc are full. We should keep green belt. 28 Feb 2017 11:42
Peter Tottle No, I disagree 28 Feb 2017 11:42
1939 (Elizabeth Ann) I don’t agree with Option 2 being the most appropriate option for new development on this Parcel 14…. and where is the opportunity to choose a “do nothing” option? This is Green Belt land and should be valued and cared for as such.
There is, I agree, a need for more affordable housing all over England. However, there are many brownfield sites that could be considered instead of precious Green Belt in Elmbridge. Many of these would offer good areas for development of pleasant, smaller, and more affordable homes. Their potential for the development of attractive community areas with schools, parks and playgrounds should be very carefully looked at. There is no good reason for destroying the Green Belt and its rich heritage, before other alternatives are considered. Once it is lost it is gone forever!
The Council’s own estimated figures show that only 50% of the housing planned would be needed by Elmbridge residents. Also, affordable housing in Elmbridge wouldn’t meet the needs of the people it would be designed for...there are no good job opportunities or good public transport links in this area to support people in social housing.
So with that in mind, we have to remember that once the Green Belt is taken away, it is gone forever! The rich green spaces that balance the health and feeling of well-being of us all will be lost to our youngsters and future generations.
If more organisations worked to improve industries and working conditions in the northern areas of the UK, our depressing unemployment figures would go down, and communities could settle and flourish further north than in the already congested, and expensive, areas of the country.
11 Feb 2017 16:28
1939 (Elizabeth Ann) No, I disagree 11 Feb 2017 16:28
1963 (Will Durston) The options have not been presented equally, which means I am unable to make an informed choice. Options 1 and 3 have been presented as scenarios rather than realistic options. I am strongly against the declassification of Green Belt land as proposed in Option 2. Once the Green Belt has been taken away, it can never be regained. 21 Feb 2017 19:45
1963 (Will Durston) No, I disagree 21 Feb 2017 19:45
1981 (Oliver Bath) We are NOT provided with enough information on the other two options to make a proper choice. The other options are presented as ‘scenarios’ rather than realistic options. The options have not been presented equally and, therefore, unable to agree that Option two. I also disagree with benefits outlines for option two. Also, option two involves declassifying Green Belt land to make way for development. Once the Green Belt has been taken away we will never ever get it back!!!!. As per CPRE London Media Release Feb 2017 “developers already have
rafts of land to choose from, much of which already has planning permission. Land supply is categorically not the issue here. We do not need to release Green Belt.”
22 Feb 2017 10:25
1981 (Oliver Bath) No, I disagree 22 Feb 2017 10:25
A C Hewett No, I disagree 03 Mar 2017 11:25
A C Hewett New housing is not an Exceptional Circumstance to allow Green Belt removal. A proper detailed assessment of brownfield sites should be the first priority. Increased urbanisation of the .more major urban areas in the borough would be better. EBC has not demonstrated any exploration with neighbouring boroughs. The Green Belt Review (ARUP) report fails to set out the process clearly and fairly. The Green Belt Review (ARUP) Purpose 3 assessments incorrectly score Parcel 14 and Parcel 20 too low. Parcel 14 and Parcel 20 would not be identified as 'Weakly Performing' if correctly scored. Planning constraints (infrastructure, traffic, etc.) make Chippings Farm unsuited for development. It is unlikely that any more affordable housing would be available for local residents. Traffic congestion on local roads would be a problem. Local infrastructure is already under pressure; Option 2 would make it worse. Parcel 20 is too far from the centre for sustainable development. 03 Mar 2017 11:25
Next pageLast page