Online Response Form

Responses

List of answers to the specified question
NameOptionTextDate
Burwin Investments (Mark Wingfield) I agree with option 2, because a small percentage loss of Greenbelt, in this instance 3%, is a small price to pay. If the existing urban area was to be intensified using option 1, i believe that this would be far more harmful to residents and the environment. 17 Dec 2016 11:28
Mick Flannigan EBC has put forward three options, of which Option 2 is clearly the one preferred. It is certainly the "least worst" option…….but I think it is somewhat disingenuous. By making the other two options so drastic and so appalling, EBC is cleverly herding us all into accepting an option which is itself unattractive and arguably unjustified. 19 Dec 2016 13:56
A.B Cotterell Apart from the other options being poorly explained, the whole basis of 'weakly performing' Green Belt areas is unsound. There are no tangible benefits to Option 2, only unfortunate consequents for the quality of village life. 29 Dec 2016 08:59
Deleted User Green Belt was introduced just before and after the war to stop the sprawl of urban London spreading over the whole South East and has been very successful in doing that for over 70 years. It provides an extremely valuable leisure amenity and green lung helping with air quality and quality of life for residents.

One cannot expect it to be prime farm land that is not its function, so it is ridiculous to say it is "weakly performing" as the consultant’s report is reputed to say. It is in fact doing exactly what it is supposed to do and giving good amenity value and stopping continuous urban sprawl.

The Government criteria is that it should be used for housing only in "exceptional circumstances" and since it is a valuable amenity and asset for the community, the present need for more low cost housing, which we all accept, cannot be considered exceptional. We have been struggling with this problem for at least 20 years and no doubt will be struggling for the next 20 or more. We should not try to solve it by starting down the slippery slope of using valuable Green Belt land and our successors would not thank us for it.

Elmbridge has allowed new redevelopments with higher density for some years which notably did not provide low cost housing (or not much). Brownfield land could be found and, where it does not damage the amenity of adjacent lower density housing the Council should find a way to ensure lower cost higher density housing, with emphasis on low cost.

If possible the Council should press Government to allow them to re-start building Council houses as this seems the only way to ensure low cost housing in areas such as Elmbridge.
Any solution must also consider the impact on infrastructure as you rightly acknowledge, building more houses also suggests more people – our roads are already congested beyond belief, god schools full or over-subscribed, doctors and dentists in short supply etc etc….any such housing investment must therefore demonstrate how it will adequately address these factors.. which I suspect is nigh on impossible. The consultation paper only barely begins to consider these facets.

In short you Elmbridge will not be such a great place to live if these plans are enacted and the character and amenity of defined villages / settlements will be lost.

Option 1 should be considered but only alongside adequate consideration of detailed infrastructure need and the associated investment.

In order to minimise traffic problems consideration must be given to the full range of options to deal with ‘’pass through’’ traffic (not caused by residents). Key roads which are already well over design capacity - such as the Oxshott road - should in my view be made into toll roads and the funds raised ploughed into wider infrastructure needs to defray the related investment burden.
03 Jan 2017 09:14
Daniel Cullen Amending green belt boundaries would affect the character of the areas in question and remove the qualities of Elmbridge that makes the Borough appealing, as well as changing the landscape in an area that attracted residents in its current form.

Option 1 is preferable, increasing densities in sites that are already developed without altering the character of Green Belt areas. The redevelopment of areas including allotments and playing fields would have a lesser effect on the character of the areas, especially if relocated to sites within the existing Green Belt.
05 Jan 2017 13:30
Deleted User Greenbelt should be as originally intended 05 Jan 2017 19:32
Jayne Parsons I support EBC's option 2 and the Green Belt assessment especially identifying Dark Green around Fieldcommon Estate and Molesey Heath and the Light Green for Cobham and Long Ditton. This is critical to maintain the effectiveness of the Green Belt and protection of Walton on Thames/Hersham and Molesey.

Also I wish to request the part of Molesey Heath which is the ex sewage pumping station land should now be absorbed/included in the Dark Green Belt as it has now blended into the Heath and forms a natural continuation of the much needed open space by the river Mole, providing a respite from the industrial estate and over development in recent years of several high rise blocks of flats in the nearby proximity of Pool Road and Island Farms Road, West Molesey.
06 Jan 2017 08:22
FEDORA (David Cooke) I would question the number of new houses needed.

Your previous planning policies have led to the preponderance of overlarge houses. More land will not correct this, only more rigorous application of granting permission for the right size of dwellings.

If forced by government to provide more housing it should be by more intensive development of urban and brownfield sites even if this means taller buildings.
06 Jan 2017 13:27
Deleted User We have quite a bit of land that just looks wasted. But this should mean housing should be spaced so to keep some benefit of the space. 08 Jan 2017 09:54
S McCarthy Something has to give if land is to be made available but any new development must be community led, not by profit hungry developers 08 Jan 2017 14:59
Next pageLast page