A New Local Plan: The Options Consultation

Responses

List of answers to the specified question
NameOptionTextDate
Gaye Glover I do not feel qualified to comment on this type of question at my age but must trust Elmbridge to act with integrity, as this such an important matter affecting future generations too. 01 Oct 2019 17:26
Thomas Trautmann Ignore the government.

Just say no!
01 Oct 2019 17:15
Cobham Conservation and Herita… Empty properties for more than 2 years should pay an additional tax per annum & enforcement order then imposed if neglected, acted upon! 01 Oct 2019 16:51
Edna Tipping There are too many 2nd homes which are unoccupied - this should not be allowed. Stop approval of over large houses on land which could be used for smaller units. 01 Oct 2019 16:47
Paul Walker Spread development more evenly in the borough. Cobham seems to be unfarily targeted particularly in options 2 and 3 01 Oct 2019 16:38
B A Kelly There is no need to meet the 623 and 9300 targets, as they are fundamentally wrong, with no supporting evidence. Elmbridge currently has 3000 more dwellings than households. 01 Oct 2019 16:26
Anne Durrant Build on brownfield sites. 01 Oct 2019 16:20
Piers Elliot The government target is formula-driven and not sensitive to local factors and should be rejected. It is not justified by local evidence. Densification should be limited to town and village centres and proximity to shops and frequent transport hubs. Intensification should be only in areas already dense. 01 Oct 2019 16:16
Mary Worsfold We cannot meet these targets which are unrealistic and are unnecessary. 01 Oct 2019 16:13
Graham Horder Build smaller houses. 01 Oct 2019 16:03
First pagePrevious page Next pageLast page