Online Response Form

Responses

List of answers to the specified question
NameOptionTextDate
Burwin investments (Mark Wingfield) I believe that the council have done all the due diligence necessary to support their recommendation for amending the Greenbelt. This way, the greenbelt is better protected in the future. 17 Dec 2016 11:28
Mick Flannigan The green belt is there for a very good reason. Releasing certain parts for development would be the thin end of a very sinister wedge. Once we lose that green space, we'll never get it back again.
At least somewhere other than Walton has been identified for development. If we have to sacrifice any green belt at all (because EBC has chosen to kow-tow to central government dictates), then I am relieved that the focus is now on other parts of Elmbridge. During the public consultation, I have seen a highly revealing pie chart prepared by or for EBC. It illustrates that Walton has absorbed SIX TIMES more housing development than Cobham! I wish nothing against Cobham and its people, but plainly Walton has already absorbed far more than its share of the burden.
19 Dec 2016 13:56
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
Holton Homes (Clive Wingfield) we have a growing population and land needs to be released and rather in a controlled manner 02 Jan 2017 07:19
Daniel Cullen There is no need for the development of affordable housing in an area that is chosen by residents due to the high proportion of large four bedroom + houses, affordability should not be considered important in an area that is largely chosen as a place of residence due to the size quality of housing and surrounding landscape 05 Jan 2017 13:30
FEDORA (David Cooke) The demand for new houses is not an exceptional circumstance. It will persist for many years. Are we going to tarmac over the whole country? 06 Jan 2017 13:27
Rachel Warren There is widespread opposition to this plan. There has been insufficient consideration and consultation of other options. There is no coherent overall strategy in place. 08 Jan 2017 16:28
V Braun I hesitate to support the claim that "One of the worst levels of affordability in the country coupled with an under supply of affordable homes" is an exceptional circumstance that can lead to the amendment of the Green Belt boundary. The Borough's proximity to London is what is causing the housing demand, and the Green Belt's role is exactly to protect the space around London. You can't use the cause as an excuse to attack the mitigation. 08 Jan 2017 19:36
James Chowne Low affordability of housing is a result of high desirability of Elmbridge as a place to live. Building many more houses would significantly change the environment and cause unacceptable damage to the borough. The current mix of housing is appropriate for the area and combined with the open spaces should not be changed as this would be to the detriment of the feel of the local environment. 08 Jan 2017 20:09
Deleted User • National Guidelines state that "unmet housing need is not a justification"
• The Consultation Documents state that Green Belt boundaries should only be adjusted "with the support of local people". The Council does not have this
• 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 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
• 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.
09 Jan 2017 08:55
Next pageLast page