Online Response Form


List of answers to the specified question
Deleted User Politicians have pledged to support the country's Green Belt and support its protection. The National Planning Policy Framework and the 2015 Conservative Manifesto states that ministers attach great importance to the Green Belt, will maintain existing levels of protection and only allow change under "EXCEPTIONAL CIRECUMSTANCES", but it seems that local authorities interpret these rules in a far more lax manner than they should.
Green Belt is only 13% of the land area of the country, the current built areas of the country is 10% - therefore there is a huge amount of land that isn't green belt that can be built on.
Gavin Barwell MP was interviewed on the Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2 on 7th February 2017 and quoted that "green belt land should only be release for housing in exceptional circumstances and councils must look at all other options to meet housing needs before they take land from the green belt and an independent inspector has to inspect that judgement to check that his has been done"

There are better options available to us – for example:

1. The use of existing sites that developers are holding onto that is untouched, even though it has planning permission on it, and should be used as a matter of priority.
2. Long term empty houses could, and can, provide extra much needed houses.
3. CPRE research shows that there are enough brownfield sites available and suitable for building at least a million new houses.

I believe that any development on greenbelt represents a loss to society of an extremely valuable resource which can never be replaced; our children and local residents use this area extensively.

If the council insists on developing on a green field site, when all other solutions have been exhausted, I have attached a report with a viable and more sensitive solution to developing Area 58.
21 Mar 2017 10:58
Deleted User No, I disagree 21 Mar 2017 10:58
Deleted User Whilst we generally support the aim of Option 2, the supporting text makes it clear that the Option has been devised to focus upon housing needs rather than also taking into account the economic development needs in the Borough. For example, supporting paragraph 3.10 explains that it seeks to balance the needs for housing. This appears to suggest that that the needs for other uses, such as retail, have not influenced the overall development strategy. Therefore, the strategy should be revised to ensure that all needs are taken into account when devising the Local Plan. 21 Mar 2017 10:53
Deleted User No, I disagree 21 Mar 2017 10:53
CALA Homes (Hannah Turley) Given the quantum of development required over the plan period, it is likely that EBC will need to consider a range of strategic options to ensure that objectively assessed needs are satisfied. As such, the Council will need to consider all reasonable opportunities for achieving sustainable development and likely incorporate the inclusion of brownfield and greenfield sites across the Borough.
Given the objectively assessed need of 9,480 dwellings is a minimal figure given there may be a requirement for EBC to assist in meeting neighbouring authorities unmet need, there is a need to ensure that all opportunities for delivering additional housing is robustly assessed. As such, there will be a need to implement a range of the options being consulted on within the Issues and Options consultation although reviewing the density of unimplemented schemes will assist in increasing the number of dwellings coming forward in the short term (given the majority of the unimplemented permissions will be deliverable within the next five years) - which would in turn assist the Council in retaining a five year supply moving forward. Paragraph 3.9 (Option 1) considers a rather exaggerated approach to density referencing the need for development of over 300 dwellings per hectare. However, the Council should consider that a marginal increase in the density of unimplemented schemes would not only deliver an increase in housing delivery but unlikely affect the quality of the built environment nor be at odds with the prevailing character of the area. This approach is set out within Options 2 and 3 and the Client is supportive and considers that this should be explored further.
Whilst increasing density on unimplemented sites within the urban area will assist in meeting the OAN, it is unlikely that this will sufficient to meet the overarching housing and economic needs and thus other options will need to be consider will need to be incorporated into the Local Plan strategy. With regard to Imber Court, it is considered that the Council should consider the opportunities for increasing the density of this site given its sustainable credentials and given a modest increase in density will not impact on the character of the wider but would increase the capacity of the site and provide scope for a wider mix of dwellings.
21 Mar 2017 10:51
Carter Jonas on behalf of BGL… Yes, I agree 21 Mar 2017 10:25
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 10:16
Deleted User No, I disagree 21 Mar 2017 10:16
Deleted User The current Strategic Options consultation (16 December 2016 to 24 February 2017) seeks views on the
options for meeting development needs through the production of the New Local Plan. The document
identifies the key issues currently faced by Elmbridge as a result of the pressures for more available land
to build homes, offices, warehouses and associated infrastructure to meet the Borough’s development

Section 3 – ‘Meeting the Key Challenges’ focuses upon the overriding need for housing, and sets out
three possible options for the delivery of new development. These can largely be summarised as below:
 Option 1: Maintain the existing Green Belt boundaries, and concentrate all housing development in
the urban area. This would require developments of very high densities, with buildings of over seven
storeys across the borough. This is not a suitable solution which would have detrimental impacts on
the existing urban environment, and result in a significant lack of an appropriate mix and type of
 Option 2: Try and meet the development needs, whilst maintaining appropriate densities. Only
increase densities in the urban area, and amend Green Belt boundaries where the designation is at
its weakest provided the locations are sustainable and without constraints. This would enable the LPA
to meet more of their housing need and maintain the character of individual towns, however it may
lead to development in less sustainable locations.
 Option 3: Meet the full housing need by increasing the density of development on sites in the urban
area where appropriate, and amend Green Belt boundaries regardless of their strength in serving the
Green Belt purposes. Whilst there are benefits to meeting the housing need, this could lead to loss
of significant Green Belt, and result in urban sprawl and coalescence, putting pressure on

The Council’s preferred option is Option 2. The Council says that this will try and meet housing need, but
also protect the Green Belt, in accordance with Government advice. In coming to this conclusion, it is
stated that government guidance has been followed to assess whether Green Belt land continues to meet
the purposes.

Proposed Alterations to the Green Belt Boundary
Several exceptional circumstances have been listed reasoning why alterations to the Green Belt boundary
should be made through this local plan process. These are not repeated here; they are set out in detail
at paragraph 3.15 of the consultation document.

One of the key concerns is the lack of ability to deliver affordable housing, and a better mix of housing,
rather than solely large detached houses. If a loss of specifically identified sites within the Green Belt was
allowed, this would enable some larger sites to come forward, with the correct mix of 1, 2, 3 and 4+ bed
houses, and affordable housing provision.
21 Mar 2017 10:16
Deleted User Furthermore, we consider that the character of the Borough as a series of towns and villages separated by areas of green space needs to be preserved and enhanced. Green Belt areas should in general be conserved. Equally, it would be destructive of the character of the place to allow rampant urbanisation of our towns and villages as would be implicit in policies that allowed or encouraged building new homes at densities in excess of the 150 dph that was allowed at The Heart in Walton. To our mind, that rules out the adoption of Option 1 of those put forward for consideration. Option 3, which appears to be a general free for all of Green Belt areas would similarly be likely to see unnecessary and excessive destruction of the spaces between our communities which are a key feature of the landscape.

Some form of middle path, as suggested in Option 2 would seem to be the logical way forward. However, the first step has to be a more realistic growth target that allows development to proceed without destroying the openness of Green Belt areas which we need to act as checks on urban sprawl and the coalescence of separate
communities, and that does not lead to building at densities 'that are out of character with the way our communities have developed over the last 50 years and more.
21 Mar 2017 09:50
First pagePrevious page Next pageLast page