Online Response Form

Responses

List of answers to the specified question
NameOptionTextDate
Peter Tottle More consultation with local people. 28 Feb 2017 11:42
Peter Tottle No 28 Feb 2017 11:42
1939 (Elizabeth Ann) Unmet housing need is not a justification for downgrading Green Belt land, and certainly not without the support of the local people who look after it, and treasure it. Green Belt is a policy for controlling urban growth and preserving the openness between settlements all around the country.
There needs to be more co-operation with other councils to find solutions, for example, with considerate and careful planning, brownfield sites could be well designed and attractive areas for development in the future.
11 Feb 2017 16:28
1939 (Elizabeth Ann) No 11 Feb 2017 16:28
1963 (Will Durston) In order to adjust the Green Belt boundaries, EBC will need the support of the local residents. I do not support this because housing development is not a justification to remove land from the Green Belt. Therefore this is not an exceptional circumstance that justifies the destruction of the local Green Belt. 21 Feb 2017 19:45
1963 (Will Durston) No 21 Feb 2017 19:45
1974 (Sefik Villasante) Don’t know 12 Feb 2017 18:05
1981 (Oliver Bath) As per the National Guidelines state that “unmet housing need is NOT a justification” to remove land from the Green Belt. Therefore, the provision of housing is NOT an exceptional circumstance that will
allow the destruction of Green Belt and heritage. Surely this is sufficient??? Also, there is clearly not enough evidence to suggest that the Council has given due consideration to other options
22 Feb 2017 10:25
1981 (Oliver Bath) No 22 Feb 2017 10:25
1st Cobham Scout Group (Patric… No 07 Feb 2017 22:12
Next pageLast page