Online Response Form

Responses

List of answers to the specified question
NameOptionTextDate
K Furber Don’t know 16 Dec 2016 20:43
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
Burwin Investments (Mark Wingfield) Yes 17 Dec 2016 11:28
Deleted User Yes 17 Dec 2016 13:08
Mick Flannigan No 19 Dec 2016 13:56
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
A.B Cotterell No 29 Dec 2016 08:59
Holton Homes (Clive Wingfield) Yes 02 Jan 2017 07:19
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
Next pageLast page