Online Response Form

Responses

List of answers to the specified question
NameOptionTextDate
Rachel Warren There should be more consultation about declassification of the Green Belt at national level.
There should be a coherent national strategy for housing development rather than piecemeal approach by local authorities as a result of central government demands
08 Jan 2017 16:28
James Chowne All greenbelt and open spaces should be protected. If any development is required this should be in urban areas like Walton and Kingston as those areas have already been changed from the natural environment. An increase in density in those areas is preferable to the inexcusable further destruction of countryside and existing open spaces. 08 Jan 2017 20:09
Deleted User I would like to register my strong opposition to any development in the Green Belt around Cobham.

The infrastructure in and around Cobham is already at breaking point and there is absolutely no justification to build large scale developments on green belt land around Cobham as this would result in a massive reduction in the quality of life for all existing residents.

• Object to the fact that the questionnaire does not provide the opportunity to select either of the other options or provide a "do nothing" option
• We disagree that the provision of housing is an Exceptional Circumstance that will allow the destruction of our Green Belt and heritage
• We understand that the Council's own figures show that only 50% of the housing planned would be needed by Elmbridge residents
• Once the Green Belt has been taken away it will NEVER be regained. This will result in encroachment of countryside and removal of green spaces
• The Council has not sufficiently explained or justified why it cannot build on brownfield land and a thorough assessment of brownfield sites should be the first priority
• Increased urbanisation of the more major urban areas in the borough. The Council should seek to develop social/affordable housing near to the major sources of employment and nearer to better service provision
• Opportunities should be explored near to established fast transport links with easy transport access. An example would be the fast Woking/Walton/Esher line
• Building social/ affordable housing in Parcel 14 and Parcel 20 is very unrealistic - this is one of the most expensive parts of Elmbridge and placing social/ affordable housing in this area will not meet the needs of those folks who need easy access to job opportunities and good public transport links, neither of which exist in this area
• The Council has not demonstrated that it has sufficiently explored options with neighbouring boroughs
09 Jan 2017 08:55
Anna Davies These green belt areas are meeting the purposes of the green belt and are essential for the local communities. The proposed areas cannot support an increase in population. We are already at saturation point. 09 Jan 2017 09:04
Jamie Mainwaring The plans could lead to:
• The complete merging of Hinchley Wood and Long Ditton, connecting them with Hook to create one super conurbation.
• The total loss of our green public space, nature reserve and allotments - a bio-diverse, open space which is used daily by residents and which helps stop the spread of Greater London into Elmbridge.
• The creation of major new access roads through our communities: for example the reconfiguring and widening of Manor Road and Bankside in HW and Woodstock Lane near Squires in LD.
• Extreme pressure on local infrastructure – for example on GP and hospital appointments and on primary and secondary school places.
• Even more parking and traffic chaos in rush hours and school run times.
• The complete erosion of our community identities and way of life, and a resulting drop in property prices.
09 Jan 2017 12:00
Deleted User Perhaps a hybrid of 2 and 3 may be the best especially with reference to area 47 (Highly performing Green Belt}.

I would argue that there is a green belt strip of some 100 meters highly hedged and consisting of unused paddocks/grassland. There is a clear building line running westward as well as Aurora to the east with what is currently an eyesore site to the east of us, between us and Aurora. The paddocks are not visible from the road apart from through the open and ugly cleared land to the east.

The area closest and adjacent to the road could well be utilized to build 2 or 3 houses as well as providing existing access onto the dual carriageway for those and any homes built to the east. The hedging would remain providing a green curtain hiding the new houses, consistent with the need for housing but yet with no adverse impact on the appearance, in fact if the land east were to be developed it could improve the general demeanor of the area. I would suggest that this area 47, by its position, and current appearance should be considered for reclassification
There would be no adverse visual impact on the view from the park, in area 23, into area 47 as high hedging/treeline would camouflage any structures.There would be only one access point onto the main road but 2-4 more residential units available with no detrimental effect on the general look or feel of the area. The land is also protected from flooding by the existing flood defenses.

Food for thought I hope?
09 Jan 2017 12:36
Deleted User Oxshott and Cobham are not areas of great industry and I believe that part of the beauty of the local area is the fact we are not overcrowded and land is not overdeveloped. I also believe that the greenbelt acts as a safeguard against encroachment. 09 Jan 2017 18:10
Kate Hedman I believe that Option 2 violates the tenets of the the Green Belt designation as this is not in my view an "exceptional circumstance" nor do I believe that this proposal would have the support of the community. I would support Option 1 as it seems to protect the Green Belt as well as the integrity of our existing community. 09 Jan 2017 20:26
Deleted User Think need to find another alternative to all options. All hugely unsatisfactory 09 Jan 2017 21:26
John Girdley The construction of social/affordable housing in parcels 14 and 20 is unrealistic. This is one of the most expensive areas of Elmbridge and will not meet the needs of new residents who require easy access to job opportunities, good public transport links and local health care facilities, none of which are readily available in the area. 10 Jan 2017 10:46
First pagePrevious page Next pageLast page