View Response

Response Details

Response Details
From A S Cooper
Date Started: 08 Feb 2017 11:15. Last modified: 22 Feb 2017 09:53
Status Complete
Response ID #520505

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
NO. The key challenge is to preserve the quality of life for your residents in the face of pressures to harm it. I would even say it should be local government's role to IMPROVE it. This quite obviously does not mean building thousands of homes on its green spaces. I cannot support any proposal to build on greenfield sites. Or any proposal - like this one - which would fundamentally compromise future development on green belt land.

2

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

 

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don’t know

Please explain your answer
YES. Apart from the preservation of our green spaces for all, I see quality of life as including working with others to promote or develop basic infrastructure and services such as access to healthcare, education, law and order, sanitation and transport - and , yes, leisure and recreation. These all need significant investment before contemplating expanding the population on brownfield developments. However, short of any new investment, I see a slow but steady degradation of these services. Indeed, the proposal to build on green belt would actively remove leisure and recreation options.

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
YES. As stated above, it is critical that local government works with others to develop the sort of infrastructure that would support any further brownfield development - and to continue to preserve greenfield sites for the enjoyment of all. These are critical factors before any 'exceptional' considerations can be said to apply.

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?
NOT AT ALL. None of the three options is acceptable as each propose building on greenfield sites. The consultation questionnaire is biased from its starting point, and the progression of questions seems designed to herd the consultee down the route of accepting that significant local green space will be built on and that the concept of green belt is fatally compromised for later incursion. The other 'options' on offer are really threats to take our allotments, parks and playing fields, or have central government step in with something even more draconian.

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
NOT AT ALL. I have yet to be persuaded that 'exceptional' developments justify an increase in local population by further brownfield development on top of the already huge developments and expansion locally in recent years, let alone breaching forever the principle or indeed the actuality of building on green belt land. The council needs to do substantially more work with others to improve the existing infrastructure of services before I could be persuaded of any further, limited, sensitive development that did not include green belt land.

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
NOT AT ALL. For the reasons stated above. The questionnaire is beginning to get irritating in its remorseless direction of travel and lack of truly open-ended questions. It is not sounding like a neutral invitation to give personal views from genuinely concerned people. It does not matter who has 'assessed' sections of green belt as 'weakly performing' because this is not a relevant factor for green belt designation. The reason land is designated green belt is that is NOT developed in any way and that it stops urban sprawl. These factors are still the relevant ones.

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
NO - for the reasons given above. Are you really seriously saying that the fact that thousands of additional new homes have already been built locally in recent years counts for nothing and that you still propose to take green belt land now and compromise the rest for future development? I'm afraid this does not inspire me with confidence that your proposals are limited or sensitive to local concerns. They are just short term, knee-jerk reaction to outside pressure to build as much as possible, wherever possible, regardless of what existing residents think. There is no long term, sustainable plan to limit development or preserve the character of Thames Ditton let alone develop the intrastructure that would be needed to sustain what looks increasingly likely to be another London Borough (or more likely annexed to one).

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
NO. NO. NO. Green belt land is the only type of land that local people can still protect. By surrendering it we lose that too. And surrendering only a small part of it means surrender of the principle for the rest which will be offered up the next time central government snaps its fingers.

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
I refer to my previous answers on the need to build services to support any further development on brownfield sites and to continue to protect green belt land.

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
I refer to my previous answers on the need to build services to support any further development on brownfield sites and to continue to protect green belt land.

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
I refer to my previous answers on the need to build services to support any further development on brownfield sites and to continue to protect green belt land.

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
NO. Thousands of new local brownfield dwellings have already been built in recent years and we need investment in infrastructure to enable any more to be contemplated on any brownfield sites. The reasons green belt land is protected against development still apply (witness the pressure behind the current consultation) and protected designation should therefore continue.

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
NO. Thousands of new brownfield dwellings have already been built in recent years and we need investment in infrastructure to enable any more to be contemplated on any brownfield sites. The reasons green belt land is protected against development still apply (witness the current consultation) and protected designation should therefore continue.

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
NO. I refer to my previous answers on the need to build services to support any further development on brownfield sites and to continue to protect green belt land.

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
The special status of 'Travellers' is given surely because they are travelling. Travelling status cannot apply to those who do not travel! Travellers who put down roots cease to be 'Travellers' and should be treated just like anyone else.

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
«No response»

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
«No response»

17

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

«No response»

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
«No response»

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
«No response»

21a

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

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

Please explain your answer
«No response»

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
«No response»

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
«No response»

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
I cannot overstate the importance to living in Elmbridge of its green, open, leafy spaces on which the community can look and in which it can walk, breathe and relax. I would oppose any plan to compromise this and would support any council plan to preserve this state.

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
NOT SO FAR. Planning approval to demolish the homes of famous artist Terence Cuneo in Esher Road and the investor of the Spitfire Engine in Embercourt Road and to destroy Cigarette Island adjacent to Hampton Court Palace in favour of a high rise business development and hotel are acts of cultural vandalism.

25

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

Clearly, acknowledgement that these wonderful and unique places play a crucial part in making the area what it is and in the enjoyment of living here - and protecting them against their destruction in favour of further development.

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 character of our local communities has already been blighted by huge and largely unsympathetic development. This has included building on fields and schools, garden-grabs, inserting new houses and roads behind existing ones, replacing pubs with blocks of flats, demolishing single character buildings and replacing them with blocks of flats or new roads of dwellings. It has also included in recent years many huge developments such as:
• the old Milk Marketing Board site on Weston Green;
• the old MOD site by the A309 (now Hinchley Park);
• the Lynwood Road development by the Thames Ditton recreation ground;
• the filter beds on the road to Surbiton (now St James' Park);
• the Hampton Court Crescent development and east of Sadlers' Rise on the Hurst Park fields by the River Thames;
• the site of the old Bishop Fox school in West Molesey;
• opposite Sandown Park in Esher off the A307;
• the site of the old Harrow pub by Esher College; and
• off the Reigate Road next to Nescot College, Epsom.
It does not seem to matter how many new homes are created - more is always required. This has to stop.

27

If not what approach do you think we should take?

I refer to my previous answers on the need to build services to support any further development on brownfield sites and to continue to protect green belt land.

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
«No response»

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?

There is no such thing as sensitive, sustainable or supported building or development on green belt land. Green belt means no building or development and this would include the building of any infrastructure required to support the existing local population. Local government cannot build to capacity on brownfield sites and then make a case for taking green belt to provide the hospitals, doctors, water plant, roads and businesses to support what has been built. Development in existing brownfiled sites should be properly planned to accommodate supporting services without recourse to taking protected green belt land. If that has not been done then poor council planning cannot be made to justify it.

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.

 

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.

34. Files

«No files»