View Response

Response Details

Response Details
From Alan Gaskell
Date Started: 27 Jan 2017 14:08. Last modified: 27 Jan 2017 16:33
Status Complete
Response ID #518630

1

Agree that the challenges set out in section 2 of the consultation document are the key challenges facing Elmbridge?

 

  • Yes, I agree
  • No, I disagree
  • I don't Know

Please explain your answer
I acknowledge that we face tough demands on land in the south east and the overarching challenges as set out are correct. However there are other matters requiring examination that should feature as "key".

2

Do you consider there are other challenges that we should be addressing?

 

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don’t know

Please explain your answer
The challenges set out in S2 appear to relate to future development. There are challenges that emanate from what we all live with at present.
1.Address the traffic congestion arising from existing households, schools and employment.
2.Avoid "backland development" impacting on neighbours, oversized houses being built on existing plots which damages the quality of the environment.
3.Examine more closely existing brownfield or underdeveloped employment land that could be replaced by a high percentage of medium to high density affordable homes, possibly with other infrastructure elements such as doctors surgeries.

3

Do you consider any particular challenge or challenges that are more important than the others?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don’t know

Please explain your answer
Infrastructure is lacking - schools, doctors surgeries, traffic congestion.
Air quality and noise pollution levels already unacceptably high given A3 & M25 proximity. 
Protection of natural habitat. 

4

Agree that Option 2 is the most appropriate option?

  • Yes, I agree
  • No, I disagree
  • I don’t know

If you disagree, please explain why and what other option would you support and why?
Having read the evaluation document it seems that the scoring is dramatically flawed. It takes very little to amend figures on some parcels of land to come up with very different answers. For example, Parcel 14 scores poorly in spite of being an extension to existing built up areas with 75% of its boundary abutting developed areas, having constraints such as flooding and ancient woodlands. Areas 18 and 52 have even lower scores and are not highlighted for development

5

Do you consider the suggested exceptional circumstances are sufficient to support the amendment of the Green Belt boundary?

 

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don’t know

Please explain your answer
Elmbridge is a special area, they are the Council's officers own words. There has to be more lateral thinking to resolve the problem provided by Government.
Losing Green Belt is not an option. Once gone it is gone and Elmbridge recognised this by refusing Parcel 20 for development and restricting the amount of housing currently under construction on Parcel 14, both known about after the Governments directives.
Liaise with adjoining Surrey Boroughs to address the issues more widely. For example however much it is contentious, look at Wisley Airfield with Guildford BC but make the development links use the A3 with its M25/A3 junction improvements and not minor roads

6

Agree that, given the appropriate exceptional circumstances, these three key strategic areas are appropriate for removal from the Green Belt?

 

  • Yes, I agree
  • No, I disagree
  • I don’t know

Please explain your answer
The assessment shallow and flawed. The whole method of scoring the parcels of land borough wide is inconsistent and the appear to be errors in scoring.
How can Parcel 14 be included when there are fundamental reasons to retain the land:
This Green Belt currently prevents the merger of “neighbouring” areas of Stoke d’Abernon and Oxshott. Cobham, Stoke d’Abernon and Oxshott are distinct communities and the NPPF specifically identifies this as a reason to retain Green Belt
The Green Belt Review scoring is wrong – parcel 14 is only 2.5% built on and therefore should be 4 or 5 not 2.
Parcel 14 is not “semi-urban”. How can 2.5% of development make the land anything more than semi-rural, if not rural.
Knowle Hill Park was restricted to limited development as part of the current consent under construction by EBC.
The roads and drainage just could not cope with the increased development.
Ancient woodlands are present on Parcel 14 and are sacrosanct, together with the recognised buffer zones. This must be an Absolute Constraint.
There is a flood area which is an Absolute Constraint in other areas.

Parcel 20 has already been refused planning consent and can only accessed from the Portsmouth Road which is congested by the American School, and will be worsened by the new Cobham Free School

7

Do you know of any sites within any of the three key strategic areas that could be considered for future development?

 

  • Yes
  • No

Please explain your answer
Why would I be expected to propose sites within the 3 strategic areas that have already been proposed!!
The Council should check the assessment prepared by Arups and reevaluate other land, and should concentrate on underdeveloped brownfield/employment land where it might be appropriate to link housing with employment areas....more sustainable.

8

Do you consider that other areas of land should be removed from the Green Belt including those that are moderately or strongly performing?

 

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don’t know

Please explain your answer
Green Belt is there for a reason, and has been safeguarded over generations for the benefit of the residents and future residents. The Council must reassess the built up areas to achieve the housing goals.

9

Do you agree that we should seek to provide more of a balance in terms of the size of new homes being built?  

 

  • Yes, I agree
  • No, I disagree
  • Don’t know

Please explain your answer
«No response»

10

Given the over delivery of homes with 4 or more bedrooms should we try to limit their delivery in future?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don’t know

Please explain your answer
«No response»

11

Should we seek to increase minimum densities at sustainable locations in the urban areas, such as in town centres and at train stations, above 40 dwellings per hectare, where this would not impact on local character?

  • Yes (If yes, what density do you think would be appropriate?)
  • No
  • Don’t know

Please explain your answer
Note the key words in the question "would not impact on local character". The density must be appropriate and considerate to the environment.

12a

Within the three key strategic areas we will be exploring opportunities for accommodating our development needs taking into account site constraints, land ownership, compliance with other planning policies and the need to support sustainable development.  If potential housing sites are identified within these areas, do you consider it appropriate to

a. deliver at higher densities i.e. above 40 dwellings per hectare, in order to maximise delivery?

 

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

Please explain your answer
The areas 14 and 20 are totally unsuitable for further development if the development has any impact on infrastructure, visual amenity and character of the area.

12b

Within the three key strategic areas we will be exploring opportunities for accommodating our development needs taking into account site constraints, land ownership, compliance with other planning policies and the need to support sustainable development.  If potential housing sites are identified within these areas, do you consider it appropriate to:

b. Support lower density developments that maintain the open character of an area and reflects the surrounding character

 

 

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

Please explain your answer
The sites could support very low density expansion to the existing buildings however the openness of the remaining space, visual impact on existing residential and existing green areas such as the Brick Pit lake, the impact on traffic and the loss of Ancient Woodland are all extremely important factors to be enforced as part of a development brief.

13

Agree with our approach to continue to apply Policy CS21 of the Core Strategy e.g. consider on a case by case basis whether local circumstances are sufficient to warrant the requirement of affordable housing contributions on all sites where there is a net increase in housing and where it is viable?

 

  • Yes, I agree
  • No, I disagree
  • I don't know

Please explain your answer
Note, be forceful against the developers cry for reductions due to viability (even if land prices have to take a reduction to reflect this). What is being done with the income receipts for developers contributions since the Policy was introduced?

14

Are there any other aspects of Government policy which you think we should consider with regard to meeting the accommodation needs of non-travelling Travellers?

 

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

Please explain your answer
«No response»

15

Do you consider there to be any other specific housing needs that are an issue within Elmbridge and that we should seek to address as part of the new Local Plan?

 

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

Please explain your answer
Ensure that there are sufficient needs for the elderly where the housing accommodation is Local Authority based.

16

Do you agree that the Council should seek to protect our most important and strategic employment areas from redevelopment to uses other than offices, warehousing and factories?

 

  • Yes, I agree
  • No, I disagree
  • I don't know

Please explain your answer
These areas are a fundamental opportunity for mixed use development to include affordable housing. There should be more analysis of these areas.

17

If not, what degree of flexibility do you consider would be appropriate with regard to alternative uses in such areas?

Pressure on land owners to come up with lateral thinking solutions and EBC to support at planning stages

18

Do you think that there are any exceptional circumstances that would support the amendment of the Green Belt boundary at Brooklands to support the further development of employment uses at this site?

 

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

Please explain your answer
Yes if the existing residential is not significantly impacted and the National Listed Monument retains it buffer zones.

19

Other than Green Belt what other barriers do you consider could prevent further development at Brooklands?

«No response»

20

We will seek to maintain our broad support for tourism related development as set out in the Core Strategy. However, to recognise the importance of Sandown Park Racecourse as both a sporting and exhibition venue should we:

Encourage the redevelopment of Sandown Racecourse to provide improved and extended conference and hotel facilities?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

Please explain your answer
I would have said no due to the impact of the racecourse on traffic congestion, however the potential loss of Kempton Park does place Sandown higher in the rankings for tourism and therefore more commercial development might be required. However the infrastructure should be improved as part of any development...not just retained as the result of "consultants proof that nothing needs to be done"

21a

Maintain our policy of focussing new retail development to town and village centres?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

Please explain your answer
Our existing town and village centres must retain their vibrancy. One problem that needs addressing is car parking. The more housing, the more cars. The two go hand in hand. The solution is to control the amount of additional housing.....

21b

Continue to protect primary shopping areas from other uses as set out in the current Core Strategy?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

Please explain your answer
Provide more mixed use developments to strengthen the core areas, which in turn contributes to a sustainable provision of affordable housing.

21c

Consider allowing other important uses in primary high street shopping frontages such as doctor’s surgeries, dentists and libraries?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

Please explain your answer
Yes yes yes!! We need more community based uses and especially healthcare uses.

22

Should the Council continue to give a high level of protection to all open spaces and designate those spaces that meet the criteria for Local Green Spaces?

 

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

Please explain your answer
All green spaces contribute to the environment and the special place that Elmbridge is today. Please let us hold onto that characteristic.

23

Do you agree with our approach to biodiversity and mitigating the impact of new development on the Thames Basin Heaths habitat?

 

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

Please explain your answer
«No response»

24

Do you agree that our strategic and pro-active approach to supporting our heritage assets is appropriate?

  • Yes, I agree
  • No, I disagree
  • I don't know

Please explain your answer
«No response»

25

If not, what approach do you think we should take?

«No response»

26

Do you agree that the Council’s current approach to considering design and character is appropriate?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

Please explain your answer
The Council's approach is to be too easy to please developers when it comes to scale and appearance of development.

27

If not what approach do you think we should take?

There are Council Policies and they are weakly interpreted for what appears to be an easy ride and easy CIL contributions. Planning Committee Members need to be more in tune with the quality of our environment.
If there is to be more development in the Borough there needs to be more pressure put upon developers and their team to come up with designs, contemporary or traditional, that reflect the character of the area. Designs have to be more innovative to address housing needs, not just follow the established pattern.

28

Should we look at including a policy providing more detailed advice on what is required to limit the cumulative impact of small scale development on flood risk?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

Please explain your answer
«No response»

29

Do you consider the existing policies seeking to reduce the impacts of new development with regard to delivering more sustainable travel patterns outlined above are still appropriate?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

Please explain your answer
If we are to have more housing, the existing policies need updating to ensure that the most sustainable travel patterns are applied, and traffic congestion is made no worse.

30

Are there other approaches we should consider?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

Please explain your answer
«No response»

31

What do you consider to be the essential infrastructure items required to support new communities e.g. the potential development of the 3 key strategic areas?

The proposed strategic areas are generally in unsustainable locations with respect to transport links, and will contribute to a worsening of traffic problems. Bus services are poor or non existent; only Parcel 14 has reasonable connectivity with Cobham and Stoke D'Abernon railway station but that is only suited for commuters.
Much better to place large areas of housing in strong sustainable locations.

32

What smaller infrastructure improvements do you think could be made within your local area to address some of the negative impacts arising from new development?

«No response»

33

We recognise that there may be other issues or options we have not considered that you would like to raise. If there are we would like to hear these and consider them as part for this consultation. Please use this space to write anything else you would like us to consider.

 

Rather than suggest that there are other issues or options, EBC should concentrate on fully re-examining the work that has been done.
It is flawed with inconsistencies in scoring and proper understanding of the areas examined. To have these options approved and taken forward without fully examining the consequences would be seen as putting pressure on the next stages to find solutions to meet the targets as reports and evidence can be manipulated to meet the expectation. That is not the way to maintain the character of Elmbridge. WE MUST NOT LOSE OUR GREEN BELT to satisfy Government.

34. Files

«No files»