Online Response Form


List of answers to the specified question
A Flack what about making more effort to build on brown fill sites 03 Feb 2017 14:15
A Flack No 03 Feb 2017 14:15
A Littler No 18 Feb 2017 10:12
A Littler These sites are all too remote from community facilities to be suitable for small housing units. We don't need more big houses.
The development would be ribbon development - along the Kingston By-Pass/Woodstock Lane, Portsmouth Road, Blundel Lane, Water Lane. It would make a huge visual difference in these areas to those using the roads, the railway and footpaths.
Ancient woodlands, commons and allotments are important and are irreplaceable in the very short time-frame of this exercise. The biodiversity resource in Elmbridge would be irredeemably fragmented and damaged.
These sites have a high amenity value - indeed, that is greater than their agricultural value.
Polyapes has a very high recreational value, not only for young people in Elmbridge, but also for those from elsewhere in the UK who use it, especially Kingston upon Thames. It is readily accessible by rail and footpath and is a safe and tranquil space where young people can be young people, learn about themselves and others, learn new skills, unrestricted by noise-sensitive near neighbours and street lighting.
18 Feb 2017 10:12
A S Cooper NOT AT ALL. I have yet to be persuaded that 'exceptional' developments justify an increase in local population by further brownfield development on top of the already huge developments and expansion locally in recent years, let alone breaching forever the principle or indeed the actuality of building on green belt land. The council needs to do substantially more work with others to improve the existing infrastructure of services before I could be persuaded of any further, limited, sensitive development that did not include green belt land. 08 Feb 2017 11:15
A S Cooper No 08 Feb 2017 11:15
A. Fletcher • 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.
• The Government White Paper emphasises that Councils need to have fully demonstrated all other options before exploring Green Belt land. Elmbridge Borough Council have not demonstrated this
• 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 - We 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.
24 Feb 2017 09:51
A. Fletcher No 24 Feb 2017 09:51
A.B Cotterell Without the support of Local people, there is no reason to adjust the Green Belt: in Long Ditton everyone I have spoken to is dead against any amendment to its status. 29 Dec 2016 08:59
A.B Cotterell No 29 Dec 2016 08:59
First pagePrevious page Next pageLast page