Online Response Form

Responses

List of answers to the specified question
NameOptionTextDate
Zuzana Perry 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.
EBC has not demonstrated any exploration with neighbouring boroughs.
Planning constraints (infrastructure, traffic, etc.) make Chippings Farm unsuited for development.
It is unlikely that any more affordable housing would be available for local residents.
Traffic congestion on local roads would be a problem.
13 Mar 2017 08:07
Zuzana Perry No, I disagree 13 Mar 2017 08:07
Zdenek Cerny Believe that either Option 1 or even Option 3 would be preferable in that it would not result in a total wipe out of GB land in a particular area with a consequent creation of a continuous urban sprawl in that area (e.g. Area 58). Instead, the development would be more evenly spread across all areas and would allow maintaining substantial parts of the existing GB as a barrier against urban sprawl. 20 Feb 2017 17:11
Zdenek Cerny No, I disagree 20 Feb 2017 17:11
Yomi Akin I don't really think anyone who is considering option 2 has any concern for the environment. Declassifying Green Belt areas on the basis that there are nonperforming or weakly performing is absurd. the responsibility to make green areas perform lies with the council and really requires some clever thinking. Thinking outside the box not ticking inside the box. Increased pressure on highways is a major concern and Reliance on other Local Planning Authorities to meet residual needs is that passing of the buck or "Fly tipping" of major problems I referred to earlier. It shows a lack of concern for the consequences of your actions.

We need better information about the other options. i see no mention if using Greenbelt areas to things like pony treks, communal picnic areas, Nature trails or other things that will benefit the community as a whole and benefit families and the community as a whole.
Option 1 still has sprinklings of redevelopment associated with it that is not clearly defined and option 3 is so vague as below

-Increasing densities only on sites in the urban area only where it is considered
appropriate and does not impact on character; and
-Amending Green Belt boundaries regardless of the strength of Green Belt and
allocating sites in these areas for development.

and THAT IS IT !? what does that mean? one could almost argue it it is stilted to promote their preferred option.
20 Feb 2017 21:00
Yomi Akin No, I disagree 20 Feb 2017 21:00
Yoko Crow - Object to the fact that the questionnaire doesnot 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
24 Feb 2017 09:46
Yoko Crow No, I disagree 24 Feb 2017 09:46
Yatin Prema I wish to refer to Consultation questions 1,4,5 & 6. I support EBC’s evaluation and the selection of option 2. The Green Belt assessment, especially identifying Dark Green where Drake Park is proposed and the Light Green for Cobham and Long Ditton, is critical to ensure the effectiveness of the Green Belt. Maintaining Walton on Thames, Hersham and Molesey identity is so critical. 30 Jan 2017 10:17
Yatin Prema Yes, I agree 30 Jan 2017 10:17
Next pageLast page