Online Response Form


List of answers to the specified question
1939 (Elizabeth Ann) There has been very little time for the public to air their views on these important matters, most of us only having been made aware in the last three weeks of the consultation process, and the deadline is very imminent.
It is a bit bewildering and alarming to read varying numbers relating to the likely building applications that threaten to be put forward....for example, is it "9480" houses or "1000" houses on each of two parcels of Green Belt; 9 or 16 Travellers' sites?
This area has been filled with high value homes - what's to stop these developers building more of the same if they had the chance?
11 Feb 2017 16:28
1981 (Oliver Bath) This new Local Plan (Strategic Options Consultation document) contains numerous flaws and inconsistencies. The methodology is subjective and flawed. The entire premise of the consultation rests on the requirement to build 9,480 new homes. The probability of this forecast being correct needs to be understood – is it enough to remove Green
Belt status forever? Particularly in light of the Government's concerns around the lack of a standard methodology to assess housing need. It would be a very very sad day if this went ahead.
22 Feb 2017 10:25
A C Hewett The Cobham area needs more housing, but the Consultation paper is not clear on what type or where. The Strategic Areas would not necessarily release the land for necessary and desirable development. The Consultation is unclear on how many homes would be delivered by removing Green Belt status. Until the nature of potential development is known it is not possible to assess relative priorities. 03 Mar 2017 11:25
A C R Elliott Until the nature of potential development is known it is not possible to assess relative priorities. 07 Mar 2017 16:29
A Flack no 03 Feb 2017 14:15
A K Pringle I am specifically objecting to the development of The Local area 58 for the following reasons :

1. The projections for housing needs are very questionable following the recent referendum, with population change trend now difficult to predict. Other statistics and demands assumed cannot be substantiated (eg number of people working in Elmbridge wishing to live in Elmbridge)
2. Housing that is being projected as a requirement for Elmbridge is mainly going to deal with demand coming from other boroughs and not Elmbridge population needs. Smaller family homes and social housing will have high child ratios, so I believe current statistics underestimate pressure on local services
3. Elmbridge is a special case as significantly a green belt borough meeting the requirements of green belt and restricting the urban sprawl from London to home counties
4. Any new private housing built will not be affordable as this is Elmbridge, such that any one, two or three bedroom houses will not be within the price range of affordability for those individuals that Elmbridge Council are trying to assist
5. The local area 58 has special and community uses, such as a nature reserve, hockey club, cricket club, cemetery, allotments, etc. If green belt designation is removed, future risk increases for this council owned land if designated only as green space
6. The current local services are inadequate for existing population. There is a shortage of GPs, school places, other services which Elmbridge do not have within its scope to commit to
7. Any proposal for additional infrastructure may not be delivered. Also if to be delivered, for example a medical centre, what good is this if there are not the GPs available. We have GP practices today, but the issues is shortage of GPs not buildings
8. The site is too small for additional schools and all primary and secondary schools are already over-subscribed. Also there is no understanding if any new school would impact adversely the existing residents in terms on revised school catchment area changes
9. The current pollution levels are too high. A large development would add significantly to local pollution
10. The current roads could not cater for a large development which is restricted by the Kingston by pass. Congestion is already high around the surrounding areas in rush hour and specifically near the schools. This proposal would make this even worse
11. Any proposal to upgrade the local roads would not be in keeping with the local environment. We do not wish to lose grass verges, trees and the green belt characteristic with unavoidable, non-maintained street furniture and over painted roads
12. Surrounding boroughs are increasing housing near Hook roundabout, Tolworth towers, etc All this will put too much pressure on roads and local services
13. There is no local railway station, no bus service and so commuters will be impacted further at Hinchley Wood and surrounding railway stations with shortage of trains and parking already
14. Kingston Hospital is already over stretched. All this additional housing will add to worsening services and A&E
15. The proposed development overwhelms Long Ditton in size, population, change in demographics, local services, traffic, etc
16. The green belt area, nature reserve and One Tree Hill are areas of natural beauty and enjoyed by local residents as a needed amenity
17. This section of green belt has done a very good job of stopping Hook and London joining Elmbridge, so even if breached, this only makes the remaining green belt more valuable not less
18. Additional development will add to local flooding risks both for A3, water overflow to local housing and Thames flood plain. This area already has drainage issues
19. This green belt land is not weak performing and the by-pass does not in itself make this green belt separate from the adjacent Telegraph Hill which is not weak performing. This land is all part of the local area and acts as the first green belt gateway from SW London
20. Any expansion at Heathrow will impact road congestion as Hampton Court bridge is the key local river crossing. This will impact further traffic on Kingston by-pass in area of Hook roundabout
21. I understand national guidelines and recent white paper state green belt should be sacrosanct. Elmbridge Council should take all steps to build on brown field sites and to increase density if necessary within town centres rather than to build on green belt which would be permanent
22. Any reclassification of green belt to green space is unacceptable and Elmbridge will not be able to prevent future development once this reclassification has occurred. Building on this green belt puts higher risk on other green belt in future
23. Elmbridge is not high density or generally an area of smaller type homes. Smaller homes and apartments are provided in local areas such as Surbiton for example. In reverse, Elmbridge provides larger family homes for those moving up the housing ladder, so the housing strategy currently works.
24. Changing Elmbridge characteristics and demographics in targeted areas to meet unrealistic and non-proven housing need projections is unreasonable on the existing population and not what the majority of local taxpaying residents want nor need
25. Elmbridge has been disproportionately allocated too much housing to build at 9,000 plus compared to surrounding boroughs
26. Building large estates to enable better infrastructure planning is unfair on local residents who take all the negative impacts of the housing targets, as it makes it easier for Elmbridge Council to justify the development even though it cannot guarantee the infrastructure
27. Elmbridge will not collect pro rata the needed income from this housing proposed, due to nature of housing proposed. Therefore this will burden Elmbridge finances further and worsen the existing services
28. Housing statistics eg brown field potential are not complete as does not consider some existing sites eg Long Ditton Thames Water filter beds on Surbiton boundary not assumed in estimates
29. Children in Claygate and parts of Hinchley Wood and Thames Ditton will not get Hinchley Wood school places as they would now, such that such children will need to travel unreasonable distances for schools eg Chessington and Ewell, as is the case already for those on the fringes

Please can you therefore take all above points as clear objections both to the Local Plan option 2 scenario and the incorrect classification of local area 58 as weak performing.
15 Feb 2017 08:30
A Littler Greater well-being and better health should be the goal and measure of an area, not wealth maximisation.
Government at all levels should be working to make us happier - there are plenty of good evidence-based surveys that indicate what makes people happy. Danny Dorling's work is of good standing in this area and very readable.
Some longer-term ambitions of strategic planning in Elmbridge are necessary to achieve a sustainable environment and no worse a life for future generations.
18 Feb 2017 10:12
A S Cooper Road congestion - pressure on the Hampton Court Way mornings and late afternoons during the week and Saturdays mean long queues and delays even now - before your plan for thousands more houses with their attendant extra vehicles. This includes the roads from Thames Ditton and Sandown, Esher, passes the Scilly Isles, passes College roundabout and goes all the way up to Hampton Court, to Kingston and by the river up to Hampton. I have had to turn back and cancel my journey several times in the last 6 months. It has become very significantly worse over the last couple of years. I would say it was saturated.

Try taking a car to do a food shop in Surbiton or Molesey on a Saturday. Huge tailbacks, no parking, heated tempers and no room to move in shops. This says facilities are already full.

Flooding - under the rail bridge on the Hampton Court Way and outside St James' Park development opposite Victoria Park regularly floods after heavy rain. This will, of course get worse with more development and more dwellings.

Following this consultation, I would like to see a change in approach from my local council. Instead of you telling us central government priorities, I expect you to tell central government what local people's priorities are.
08 Feb 2017 11:15
A.B Cotterell It seems to me that Area 58 has been chosen as a soft option by the planners. No consideration has been given to the impact that development will have on an environment already under threat. Moreover, the high level of pollution around the A3 ought to rule out the building of houses nearby. Area 58 should stay as it is: Green Belt. The sprawl of London need to be halted here. If more homes are to built anywhere in Elmbridge it should be on brown-field sites and in greater density. This protects the environment and delivers housing, affordable and otherwise. 29 Dec 2016 08:59
A.B Cotterell Consider the unfortunate people. The children in particular, who are going to live by the A3 with the maddening noise and the polluted air. Think of the consequential burden on the NHS as a result of the very poor quality of life. In the rush to destroy the little green sites left we don't give through to the foxes, hedgehogs, birds and wildlife in general. We should look harder at brownfield sites. 24 Feb 2017 12:07
Next pageLast page