View Response

Response Details

Response Details
Date Started: 29 Sep 2019 16:33. Last modified: 29 Sep 2019 17:32
Status Complete
Response ID #752619


Have you read the Options Consultation document?

You must provide an answer to this question.

  • Yes
  • No


Which area do you live in?

You must provide an answer to this question.

  • Claygate
  • Cobham
  • Esher
  • Hersham
  • Hinchley Wood
  • Molesey
  • Oxshott
  • Stoke D'Abernon
  • Thames Ditton and Long Ditton
  • Walton
  • Weybridge
  • Other

If other, please specify (200 maximum characters)
«No response»


Place-making and the continued success of well designed, well-functioning places is fundamental to developing a growth strategy for the borough. What are the key characteristics that make your area a great place to live? (Maximum 500 characters)

Claygate is unique it is a peaceful village, surrounded by Green Belt, farms, woodland and pasture. It is a rural community, with easy access to countryside and open spaces, footpaths, bridleways, recreation grounds, commons and allotments.
Claygate is rare, it has: small businesses, thriving high street, baker, fishmonger, butcher, good transports links, schools, restaurants, pubs, strong community, volunteer groups, scout huts; churches, village halls; sports facilities.


What changes would you like to see in the borough over the next 15 years? (Maximum 500 characters)

Protect Claygate's Green Belt and it's amenities. Improve but do not expand.

Claygate works and is desirable due to moderation - it has everything but does not have too much of anything.

Introduce more businesses or schools or houses it will fail. Roads, transport & amenities are at breaking point. More houses means more people, more people means more facilities & more infrastructure. More facilities & infrastructure will destroy what makes Claygate great.



This options consultation document sets out 5 options for housing growth for the borough.  These are:

Option 1-intensify urban area
Option 2-optimise urban area and 3 area of Green Belt release
Option 3-optimise urban area and large Green Belt release
Option 4-optimise urban area
Option 5-optimise urban area and small areas of Green Belt release


Which option will best suit your area?

  • Option 1
  • Option 2
  • Option 3
  • Option 4
  • Option 5
  • Other

Please tell us why you have chosen this option (Maximum 600 characters)
Option 4 is the most environmentally friendly option. The Green Belt must be preserved. The environment cannot be comprised any further.

The loss of Green Belt would be devastating for the environment and would result in more pollution. The countryside, commons, open spaces and habitats around Claygate would be lost forever.

Too much building or increasing the number of dwellings would put too much pressure on already over-stretched services, would increase traffic, increase pollution, increase noise pollution.


Please give details of any alternative ways you think we could meet the government’s ambitious housing target for Elmbridge of 623 new homes each year for the next 15 years. (Maximum 600 characters)


Options such as providing smaller & affordable homes on brownfield sites, above flats or linked to community facilities need to be considered. However, this should not be done: at the expense of sacrificing entire communities; or pushing local infrastructure passed their breaking point; or introducing changes that lead to new record levels of pollution.

Successive governments & local councils make the mistake that improving the community & progress means expanding. This always leads to boom & bust. Focus on improving what we have & sustainabilty, not cramming more into areas which can't cope


How do you think we should plan for the new homes we need in your area?

  • Higher densities
  • Green Belt release
  • A mixture of higher densities and Green Belt release
  • Other

Please provide any comments here (Maximum 500 characters)
There is no "one-size-fits-all" answer. Any development must respect the environment, local community & infrastructure without creating more pollution & threatening further climate change.

If existing sites can be utilised without creating more pollution or over-stretching existing infrastructure then it would be prudent to investigate further. However, there comes a time when expansion is not possible without destroying the green belt, local habitats and the very character of a community.


Are you aware of any planning issues that need to be addressed in our detailed day-to-day planning policies?

  • Yes
  • No


If yes, please specify which planning issues

  • Density
  • Design / Character
  • Building heights
  • Parking
  • Conservation Areas
  • Historic features (e.g. listed buildings)
  • Sustainability / renewable energy
  • Flooding
  • Open spaces
  • Other

Please provide an explanation of the issue(s) (Maximum 400 characters)
Improve what we already have & stop trying to cram more houses, businesses, schools etc into areas which cannot cope.

Any development will mean more people. Transport, infra-structure and environment cannot cope.

Improve transport. Improve reliability & frequency of trains to instantly take pressure off the roads and with minimal environmental impact.


Do you have any comments to make in relation to this Options Consultation? (Maximum 600 characters)

I think the scope of this consultation is too limited. You cannot have a single consultation that covers all of Elmbridge. Elmbridge is too diverse.

Limiting the number of characters of text that you can type in to these sections is extremely short-sighted. You are restricting what people have to say and restricting how they can express themselves.


Did you respond to the previous Local Plan Strategic Options Consultation in 2016?

You must provide an answer to this question.

  • Yes
  • No