Online Response Form

Responses

List of answers to the specified question
NameOptionTextDate
Barbara Waterfield Regarding consultation questions 1,4,5 & 6, I agree with the evaluation and choice of option 2.

The assessment of green belt land is essential for protecting dark green land , as in Walton, Hersham and Molesey, to avoid merging these areas.

As it is, I feel that these areas are suffering from over development. The traffic is getting very heavy, leaving side roads to join main roads is quite difficult and dangerous.
Parking is also becoming a significant problem.
01 Feb 2017 18:39
Barbara Waterfield Yes 01 Feb 2017 18:39
Gill Money No – National Guidelines state that "unmet housing need is not a justification", I don't feel that the background material has demonstrated 'Exceptional Circumstances'. The Consultation Documents state that Green Belt boundaries should only be adjusted "with the support of local people". The Council does not have my support or that of my neighbours. 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 Housing White Paper emphasises that Councils need to have fully demonstrated all other options before exploring Green Belt land. I do not feel that Elmbridge Borough Council have demonstrated this. 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 granularity. Who is to say that the next levels of EBC's 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 ways of increasing the densities on these sites.
16 Feb 2017 17:36
Gill Money No 16 Feb 2017 17:36
Hugh Singer • National Guidelines state that “unmet housing need is not a justification”
• The Consultation Document states that Green Belt boundaries should only be amended in exceptional circumstances “with the support of local people”. The Council does not have this support.
• 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 position.
• 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?
• 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.
23 Feb 2017 14:37
Hugh Singer No 23 Feb 2017 14:37
Jane Carr No 16 Mar 2017 13:54
Jean Barker It is doubtful that the local population would be support any interference to the green belt boundary described in Area 58. 24 Feb 2017 12:52
Jean Barker No 24 Feb 2017 12:52
Julia Jelinek • 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.
· I think that the Council is taking the easy way out in targeting Green Belt and should absolutely re-focus on brownfield sites. Consideration should be given to increasing the densities on these sites.
27 Feb 2017 14:16
Next pageLast page