Online Response Form


List of answers to the specified question
Deleted User see 4 09 Jan 2017 12:36
Deleted User Oxshott and Cobham are distinct communities and greenbelt prevents surrounding towns merging into one. I believe that our infrastructure would not cope with the increased population levels as set out in your proposals 09 Jan 2017 18:10
Kate Hedman Our local parcel of Green Belt is not "weakly performing". Stoke D'Abernon and Oxshott are two distinct communities and the Green Belt strongly provides the purpose of "preventing neighbouring towns merging into one another". Beyond the implications of re-designating the Green Belt the strain on our current infrastructure and schools would be an undue burden. Given the current development already planned for the Cobham High Street, additional development in such close proximity would aggravate an already traffic logged high street and the surrounding roads would therefore become more traveled and more dangerous. Finally, as stated above, when we moved here we chose our house because of the nature of our community and the aesthetic appeal and peace and quiet provided by the current Green Belt designation. The proposed development would certainly change these things significantly and could, in fact, impact the value of our property in such a way as to hurt our family financially. 09 Jan 2017 20:26
Deleted User See answers above about preservation of green belt and character of Elmbridge / Cobham 09 Jan 2017 21:26
John Girdley Housing London Overspill is not the concern of EBC tax payers. EBC should have protecting the Green Belt as a priority, not an amendment which will facilitate it's loss.

Green belt boundaries will need to be revised in order to make changes to local roads before any housing plans are contemplated
10 Jan 2017 10:46
Deleted User You might consider that these “exceptional circumstances” are not sufficient to amend the Green Belt boundary because:
The Consultation Documents state that Green Belt boundaries should only be adjusted “with the support of local people”. The Council does not have this.
National Guidelines state that “unmet housing need is NOT a justification” to remove land from the Green Belt. Therefore, the provision of housing is NOT an exceptional circumstance that will
allow the destruction of Green Belt and heritage.

There is not enough evidence to suggest that the Council has given due consideration to other options.
10 Jan 2017 12:40
Deleted User I don't think the total loss of an entire green belt public space can be justified by any exceptional circumstance. 10 Jan 2017 13:08
Deleted User Green belt should not be touched, once u start.. where will it end. 11 Jan 2017 11:10
Michael Gadbury No – National Guidelines state that "unmet housing need is not a justification"
No – the Consultation Documents state that Green Belt boundaries should only be adjusted "with the support of local people". The Council does not have this
No – the Alternative Options paper does not demonstrate that the Council has given due consideration to other options e.g. Urban intensification, working with other councils
No - The Strategic Options paper has only explored 3 parcels of so called weakly performing Green Belt. The work should have been completed at a much lower level. Who is to say that the next levels of your identified weakly performing Green Belt Parcels are not more suitable and have more developable areas?
No - I believe that the Council is taking the easy way out in targeting Green Belt and should re-focus on brownfield sites. Consideration should be given to increasing the densities on these sites.
11 Jan 2017 16:36
William Fellows Inmet need on its own does not constitute exceptional circumstances 12 Jan 2017 13:13
First pagePrevious page Next pageLast page