View Response

Response Details

Response Details
From Geoffrey Bills
Date Started: 19 Aug 2019 12:20. Last modified: 19 Aug 2019 12:20
Status Complete
Response ID #739792


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)

Semi rural character.Recognisably and distinct and seperate part of Surrey not South West London of which the Green Belt areas also play an essential and indispensable part.


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

I would like to see Claygate among other similar areas like Oxshott secede from Elmbridge under a new rural district Surrey Borough.On the basis that I don't feel that Elmbridge in any way reflects the character or the need to conserve the character of such areas.Elmbridge being a clearly urban thinking borough with a mostly urban based demographic from Walton to Molesey to Thames Ditton.As such is clearly intent on aligning itself with London in terms of its future development strategy.


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)
None of the options provided are in any way suitable or sustainable regarding the conservation of Claygate's character and Green Belt.


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)


I do not recognise nor agree with Elmbridge trying to meet the so called 'ambitious' target for Elmbridge which adds weight to my view that we as a,semi rural district,not an urban one,need to secede from this unsuited to us council and create a new one which reflects the area's needs with conservation being the most important.The figure having clearly been arrived at by a housing demand assessment carried out in cooperation with the London Borough of Kingston and effectively thereby driven by the GLA's demands.Not Surrey County Council which 'should' be the relevant policy maker here not GLA.


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)
We do not 'need' this amount of 'new homes' in this area.Nor can we provide them without turning the area into just another urban sprawl like Chessington and all the other parts of North Surrey which have gone before to add to London's unsustainable expansion.


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)
The 'issues' are simply that of recognising that the Green Belt policy locally was put in place to stop the further expansion of London's urban environment.With the emphasis being on 'stop' not circumvent.


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

As above.I feel that the whole plan should be subject to judicial review or at least just thrown back at the government.In clearly being a GLA driven 'stitch up' in which cross borough boundary 'cooperation' has been deliberately corrupted into a deliberate attempt to circumvent Green Belt policy regarding stopping further expansion of London.In addition to illegally putting a non London Borough under GLA development policy.Elmbridge clearly being a quasi wannabee London borough in that regard in enthusiastically cooperating with it to the detriment of areas like Claygate.


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

You must provide an answer to this question.

  • Yes
  • No