Online Response Form

Responses

List of answers to the specified question
NameOptionTextDate
Deleted User See accompanying report 21 Mar 2017 14:10
Deleted User No, I disagree 21 Mar 2017 14:10
Deleted User I disagree because I don’t think that the three green belt areas which it has been decided are performing weakly should be considered in isolation or in totality, however, I don’t think that all of these areas should necessarily be retained. I am, however, concerned that there is an element of ‘they are more urban already so it doesn’t matter what the local people think. 21 Mar 2017 13:38
Deleted User No, I disagree 21 Mar 2017 13:38
Deleted User • I strongly disagree. Option 2 is not the most appropriate option at all
• Firstly, the proposed plans are not aligned with the Government’s whitepaper on housing as published on 07/02/2017. The whitepaper states a clear intent to protect Green Belt land and expresses a preference for higher density and medium rise buildings and urban development on existing sites.
• Secondly, the Council has neither explained nor properly explored other options. Options 1 and 3 appear to have been dismissed without providing supporting, relevant evidence. Exceptional circumstances have not been demonstrated.
• Thirdly, the scoring mechanism used to classify Green Belt land into strong, moderate and weak performing is completely intransparent. The document appears to be designed and ‘loaded’ to wrongly take residents down one path.
• Fourthly, over 50% of housing stock is for those who may or may not come to Elmbridge in the future based on highly uncertain assumptions, especially in view of Brexit and the Government’s focus on reducing immigration.
• Lastly, the current housing density of Cobham, Oxshott and Stoke d’Abernon is approx. 9hph. To propose an increase to 60+hph is completely unrealistic and unsustainable in view of the existing infrastructure challenges. What traffic modelling has the Council done to understand the impact on congestion?
21 Mar 2017 13:15
Deleted User No, I disagree 21 Mar 2017 13:15
Anthony Williamson Yes, I agree 21 Mar 2017 12:55
Deleted User  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
 Propose that Option 1 (increased urbanisation) should be the most appropriate 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 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
 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
21 Mar 2017 12:22
Deleted User No, I disagree 21 Mar 2017 12:22
Duncan Crane The options provided are not mutually exclusive and the assessment of each is subjective and incomplete. None of the options address the overriding challenge or objective as I identified in my answer to question 1. I am only familiar with Local areas 20 and 14 so my comments refer to these specifically but may well also apply to the other area proposed.

Specifically areas 14 and 20 are remote from the appropriate services needed to support a successful sustainable mixed community and, if built, are likely to become unaffordable within a generation for the reasons set out in response to question 1. The reasons that make these areas weakly performing as green belt (in the view of the council) are also those that would make them weakly performing within the local communities. I would argue therefore that areas 14 and 20 are not sustainable.
21 Mar 2017 12:00
First pagePrevious page Next pageLast page