Online Response Form

Responses

List of answers to the specified question
NameOptionTextDate
K Furber Yes, I agree 16 Dec 2016 20:43
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
Burwin Investments (Mark Wingfield) Yes, I agree 17 Dec 2016 11:28
Deleted User Yes, I agree 17 Dec 2016 13:08
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
Mick Flannigan I don’t know 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
A.B Cotterell No, I disagree 29 Dec 2016 08:59
Holton Homes (Clive Wingfield) Yes, I agree 02 Jan 2017 07:19
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
Next pageLast page