Online Response Form

Responses

List of answers to the specified question
NameOptionTextDate
Peter Tottle Areas not suitable for development. 28 Feb 2017 11:42
Peter Tottle No, I disagree 28 Feb 2017 11:42
1939 (Elizabeth Ann) No, I disagree 11 Feb 2017 16:28
1939 (Elizabeth Ann) We have lived here for 45 years, and our family grew up here. Our youngsters and their children have made their homes in Manchester and further north. Being able to afford to live here is completely out of the question for them.
The villages of Stoke D’Abernon, Cobham and Oxshott are all separate historic and attractive community areas, each with its own character and charm. It is with dismay that we have read the points system and the resulting, unfair and inaccurate, assessments of these areas. These attractive historic villages and towns have nestled and thrived within their surrounding Green Belt, and are rich with wildlife and nature. As separate entities and distinct communities, each compliments the other.
The gardens are visited by a huge variety of wild life which has evolved and increased over the decades. Many birds and creatures, some ‘protected’, have increased within the rich woodlands and the flood plain, with its lake and ponds.
It is a very valued and intricate eco-system. Its rich and varied habitation and drainage ditches have been managed with care by Elmbridge Council’s Countryside Management Team for decades. It is rich with treasures ranging from old Oaks and Silver Birch to Green Woodpeckers, Great Crested Newts and Scarlet Elf Cap fungus. The wild life thrives by living and travelling around these areas of merging habitat, and the wildlife corridors should continue to be protected and should not be built on any more than they already have been! Residents and visitors to these areas are very lucky and privileged. Let’s continue to protect it and put our efforts into turning some brownfield sites into beautiful and workable places where people will want to live and work.
In my view, and almost without thought of the future, reckless numbers of large expensive houses have been squeezed into the area of Parcel 14 over recent years. It must stop before it is spoiled forever! Any more building works of large numbers of houses on this flood plain area will pollute the natural waters that flow from the drainage network into the lake and ponds. That in turn will poison the habitat and myriad creatures that live in, on and around the lake area.
I, and other nature lovers, have long lists of creatures that have increased here over the decades. They live and visit all over these wildlife corridors of Green Belt and gardens that nurture them.
Amazing numbers and species thrive here on Parcel 14: Birds (from owls and buzzards to Woodpeckers and Long-tailed tits); Butterflies (from Blue, Painted Lady to Red Admiral and Tortoiseshells); Bats, Insects, Reptiles, Newts (Great Crested, Palmate and Smooth); Deer etc. Also, on the lake and ponds there are: Swans, Tufted Ducks, Great Crested Grebes, many species of Fish, Dragonflies, fresh water molluscs etc. etc.
Building on, and thus poisoning, this flood plain area would immediately undermine and destroy the incredible collection of wildlife and their habitat. This area should be given a much higher positive assessment score.
This area was being assessed some years ago, with a view to it possibly qualifying as a Local Nature Reserve. It was already, to quote a letter from the Council “a designated site of Nature Conservation Interest at a County Level, one step below SSSI status and ensures the site is listed in the Local Plan. There is a long term aim to designate the site as a Local Nature Reserve.” However, funding dried up and it was shelved until a time when it may be prioritised for further consideration. There are records and photographs by many people in the area to support any further investigation.
11 Feb 2017 16:28
1963 (Will Durston) I do not accept that there are exceptional circumstances in this instance. The methodology and assessment of which land is no longer meeting the purposes of Green Belt is subjective and flawed. The Green Belt should be protected regardless of the circumstances, and declassifying it sets a dangerous precedent for the future and for other Green Belt areas.
I strongly disagree with Area 58 being included in the proposals for development, on the grounds that it does meet the purposes of Green Belt by checking the unrestricted urban sprawl of the large built-up area of Greater London / the neighbouring borough of Kingston.
21 Feb 2017 19:45
1963 (Will Durston) No, I disagree 21 Feb 2017 19:45
1974 (Sefik Villasante) I don’t know 12 Feb 2017 18:05
1981 (Oliver Bath) No, I disagree 22 Feb 2017 10:25
1981 (Oliver Bath) I strongly disagree with area 58 being included fort these reasons.
-It forms a VITAL part of the green lung entry into Elmbridge...without it we're a sprawling metropolis with poor planning and no regard for quality of life.
-This area DOES meet the purposes of Green Belt by preventing neighbouring towns/villages from merging into one another. Without it, Hinchley Wood and Long Ditton Village mergeinto one completely, which in turn then merge into Hook and Tolworth. It performs a vital
function and should never have scored a ‘1’ (out of 5) for this purpose.
-As part of the Green Belt, it provides valuable open space for the local community - dog walkers, runners, school seasonally based field trips, etc, and is a well-loved and well-used space. Without Green Belt status, this entire area would be available for development, which
would deprive the local community of this valuable asset. Further enhancement should be looked at to secure this important open space, rather than development opportunities
-It's a nature reserve as well.
22 Feb 2017 10:25
1st Cobham Scout Group (Patric… No, I disagree 07 Feb 2017 22:12
Next pageLast page