View Response

Response Details

Response Details
From Mick Flannigan
Date Started: 19 Aug 2019 12:24. Last modified: 19 Aug 2019 15:54
Status Complete
Response ID #739795


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)

It's NOT a great place to live. Too much industrial traffic and too much development.


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

Close down the waste operations at Weylands. Promote better shops and greater footfall in the Heart of Walton. Do away with parking charges. Reduce industrial traffic roaring up and down Rydens Road.


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)
If some part of the green belt must be sacrificed, it ought to be around Cobham. Walton has already taken more than its fair share of development. All the other options to a greater or lesser extent mean yet more development of Walton and a greater loss of green belt land. I particularly object to any prospect of releasing Green Belt land at Esher Rugby Club.


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)


Don't even attempt to meet it. The target is misguided and unrealistic. Large scale development around here would mean yet more "migrants" from other boroughs - and even from London. The best way to prevent increasing population and yet more demand on our housing market is to say NO to yet more development. The Government's target must be resisted, by getting all other boroughs to reject it. Central Government can't put ALL local authorities into special measures!


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)
Reject the government's unrealistic target and stop the increase in the local population...especially around Walton.


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)
Too many developments are being permitted without adequate provision for parking. Walton has already reached saturation point, in terms of density. Town centres are in danger of becoming high rise jungles. Developments have been permitted even though they don't suit the locality in terms of size, style, etc.


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

There is no option to chose "none of the above". The housing needs target is excessive and needs to be challenged.


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

You must provide an answer to this question.

  • Yes
  • No