Online Response Form

Responses

List of answers to the specified question
NameOptionTextDate
Hugh Singer • Propose that Option 1 (increased urbanisation) should be the most appropriate option
• I 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 Government’s White Paper reinforces the strong protection of the Green Belt
• 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. The Government’s White Paper emphasises that Councils need to explore brownfield land and higher densities in urban areas before exploring Green Belt land
• 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. This is also supported in the Government’s White Paper
• 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 people 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
23 Feb 2017 14:37
Hugh Singer No, I disagree 23 Feb 2017 14:37
Jane Carr -I 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
- 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. The Government's White Paper emphasises that Councils need to explore brownfield land and higher densities in urban areas before exploring Green Belt land.
-We understand that the Council's own figures show that only 50% of the housing planned would be needed by Elmbridge residents.
-We disagree that the provision of housing is an Exceptional Circumstance that will allow the destruction of our Green Belt and heritage
-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. This is also supported in the Government's White Paper
-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 areas of land in Elmbridge and placing social/ affordable housing in this area will not meet the needs of people who need easy access to job opportunities and good public transport links, neither of which exist in this area
-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 Government's White Paper reinforces the strong protection of the Green Belt
-The Council has not demonstrated that it has sufficiently explored options with neighbouring boroughs
16 Mar 2017 13:54
Jane Carr No, I disagree 16 Mar 2017 13:54
Jean Barker Not enough comparable information given on all the options.
A greater exploration of brown field sites should be undertaken.
24 Feb 2017 12:52
Jean Barker No, I disagree 24 Feb 2017 12:52
John Baker New housing is not an Exceptional Circumstance to allow Green Belt removal.
A proper detailed assessment of brownfield sites should be the first priority.
Increased urbanisation of the more major urban areas in the borough would be better.

The Green Belt Review (ARUP) report fails to set out the process clearly and fairly.
The Green Belt Review (ARUP) Purpose 3 assessments incorrectly score Parcel14 and Parcel 20 too low.
Parcel 14 and Parcel 20 would not be identified as 'Weakly Performing' if correctly scored.
Planning constraints (infrastructure, traffic, etc.) make Chippings Farm unsuited for development.

Chippings Farm/Fairmile
It is unlikely that any more affordable housing would be available for local residents.
Traffic congestion on local roads would be a problem.
Local infrastructure is already under pressure; Option 2 would make it worse.
08 Mar 2017 13:47
John Baker No, I disagree 08 Mar 2017 13:47
Julia Jelinek there is no "do nothing" option on questionnaire
· I disagree that the provision of housing is an Exceptional Circumstance that will allow the destruction of our Green Belt and heritage
· 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 absolutely 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
· Building social / affordable housing in Parcel14 and Parcel 20 is very unrealistic - this is one of the most expensive parts of Elm bridge and placing social/ affordable housing in this area will not meet the needs of those 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
27 Feb 2017 14:16
Julia Jelinek No, I disagree 27 Feb 2017 14:16
First pagePrevious page Next pageLast page