Online Response Form

Responses

List of answers to the specified question
NameOptionTextDate
Deleted User o Methodology and assessment is subjective and flawed. Inconsistency with the scoring and categorisation across all the parcels of land
o Strongly disagree with Parcel 14 (Knowle Hill Park, north Blundel Lane) being included for the following reasons:
o This Green Belt currently prevents the merger of “neighbouring” areas of Stoke d’Abernon and Oxshott
o Cobham, Stoke d’Abernon and Oxshott are distinct communities – EBC’s own Flood Risk Assessment recognises them as separate entities
o The Green Belt Review scoring is wrong – parcel 14 is only 2.5% built on and therefore should be 4 or 5 not 2. It is also Rural not Urban
o Description of Parcel 14 as “semi-urban” is very subjective and patently untrue – it is semi-rural or Rural.
o Description of Parcel 14 as having “weak links” to the strongly performing parcel 10 is untrue and solely due to Blundel Lane and the railway line
o Previous owners of the Knowle Hill Park area had higher protection than Green Belt (via a section 52 agreement). This was removed by the Council – there is no justification for why this has changed
o Infrastructure, particularly roads would not cope
o It is surrounded by a railway line that has an automatic barrier which closes every few minutes.
o We believe this should be subject to review and independent audit verification as insufficient weighting has been given to the points detailed below:
i. Ancient woodlands are present on Parcel 14. These need to be surrounded with buffer zones and wildlife corridors
ii. The verified presence of Greater Crested Newts which are protected by both U.K. and EU legislation.
iii. It is also a natural habitat for bats, beetles, adders, buzzards, deer and owls.
iv. Knowles Hill Park as its name suggests is on a hill and the presence of a flood plain at the bottom of the hill has not been recognised or scored
v. We also maintain these are actually Absolute Constraints and need to be recognised and scored as such
o Millgate have put their 45 acres in perpetuity. The developable area is not available. The Scouts and others have said their land is not available.
o Protective Covenants prevent the areas of Blundel lane being accessed.
o There is a stream and major sewage works alongside Blundel lane.
o There are mine shafts from the old brick works.
o Basically 90%+ of the developable land is out of reach for these housing purposes
• Strongly disagree with Parcel 20 (next to Portsmouth Road, Cobham) being included for the following reasons:
o Parcel 20 acts as a vital separation between Cobham and Esher
o It protects against ribbon development along the Portsmouth Road (A307)
o The Common Land and Site of Special Scientific Interest in this area must be protected
o Development on such a large scale would change the character of Cobham and damage local community cohesion
o The infrastructure couldn’t cope
o The Green Belt Review undervalues this land which has only 4.6% built structures on it.
21 Mar 2017 16:03
Deleted User No, I disagree 21 Mar 2017 16:03
Deleted User I am writing in my capacity as the Member of Parliament for Kingston & Surbiton, and as a
Surbiton resident, to object in the strongest possible terms to your proposals to reclassify the
Green Belt designation for "Local Area 58" thereby allowing significant housebuilding on the
site. I would not normally comment on a planning-related matter outside Kingston, but this
consultation relates to a piece of land directly on the border of my constituency and where
the proposals will have a deleterious effect on my constituents.
This letter sets out the reasons for my answers to questions 4- 8 on the Elmbridge Local Plan
Strategic Options Consultation.
Elmbridge Council has now acknowledged that it has no power to remove the Green Belt
status of, or allow development on, the Southborough High School's playing fields that are
included in Local Area 58 on the plan in your consultation. It is not acceptable that this land
was included as part of the plan in the first place, and I am pleased that Kingston Council has
confirmed that it has no plans at all to remove the Green Belt status of that land.
Turning to the remainder of the land (i.e. that which is in Elm bridge Borough), my objections
to Elm bridge Council's proposals (Option 2) are twofold- they involve building on the Green
Belt and would add significant pressure to services in Kingston.

Green Belt
• The proposals would lead to mass development on the Green Belt to which I am
opposed, as are Kingston's Conservative Council, the Mayor of London and many
Kingston Borough residents. This would be a sad loss of valuable green space;
• The current guidance on the Green Belt, which the government recently re-affirmed,
only permits development in defined exceptional circumstances. I am not convinced that those exceptional circumstances pertain in Elmbridge at the present time.
Kingston and other london Boroughs are encouraging housebuilding on brownfield
sites and intensifying development on non-Green Belt land to tackle the undoubted
housing crisis, and I doubt Elmbridge has exhausted these options before resorting to
building on the Green Belt.;
• Local Area 58 is not "weakly performing" greenbelt. It includes a number of amenities
used by Kingston Borough residents including (but not limited to) the allotments, the
Hockey Club and the fields in Local Area 58 which they use for walks and recreation,
especially Stokes Field Nature Reserve.

Pressure of Kingston's services
• There can be no doubt that mass housebuilding on Local Area 58 would put significant
additional pressure on Kingston's already stretched services, for which Kingston
residents would never be compensated fully;
• Residents in the new developments would undoubtedly want to use Surbiton Railway
Station and/or the M25. This would cause a big increase in traffic volumes through the
quiet residential streets of Southborough and on the already packed A3 and A243,
affecting the residents of Surbiton, Tolworth, Hook, Chessington and Malden Rushett;
• Residents in the new developments would be likely to want places at Surbiton or
Tolworth schools, GP surgeries and other services which are already approaching
capacity;
• As the relevant planning authority, Elmbridge Council would receive s.106 I
Community Infrastructure Levy funding from developers to mitigate these additional
pressures, and would be likely to enter some sort of agreement with Kingston Borough
Council, but the money offered will never compensate Kingston in full for the
additional pressures development on local Area 58 would place on its services.
For these reasons, I would like to repeat my objection, in the strongest possible terms, to your
proposals to reclassify the Green Belt designation of " local Area 58" .
I would also like to present the following petition, which has received signatures from the 931
Kingston Borough residents listed in the attached document.

We the undersigned residents of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames strongly
object to the proposals in Elmbridge Council's Strategic Options Consultation to designate
"Key Strategic Area 58" for development. This is Green Belt land and development in this
area would have an impact on Surbiton and Tolworth's already stretched infrastructure and
services which will never be covered by payments from the developer to Elmbridge Council.
I hope my response, together with the petition I have organised and the many other
objections I know you have received from Kingston and Elmbridge residents, will persuade
you to drop your plans to allow development on Strategic Area 58.
21 Mar 2017 15:46
Deleted User No, I disagree 21 Mar 2017 15:46
Deleted User See accompanying report 21 Mar 2017 14:10
Deleted User No, I disagree 21 Mar 2017 14:10
Deleted User See answers at 5 and 6. I am not against loss of the green belt per se and from my address area 58 is the area I know best. Long Ditton is already one of the most developed areas in should be regarded as sacrosanct the borough and further potential development will have an even greater impact on the small remaining area of green space at a time when we are all being encouraged to take more exercise. The retention of One Tree Hill, which is used along with Stokes Field, should be regarded as sacrosanct.
I realise we can’t bury our head in the sand and say no to all development but I question the wisdom of developing an area so close to the busy A309/A3 Hook Underpass, combined they form an effective 8 lane highway and from a noise and pollution point of view that can hardly be considered healthy. Access to both roads is already difficult with frequent long long delays any development will have a significant impact. Even from Ditton Hill Road the noise levels during busy periods are noticeable so heaven knows what it would be like for people living close to the roads. I suppose that some will think that to put affordable housing or sheltered housing there will not matter.
21 Mar 2017 13:38
Deleted User No, I disagree 21 Mar 2017 13:38
Deleted User A very clear and emphatic no. The assessment is subjective and flawed. There is inconsistency in the scoring across all the parcels of land and no data on other so-called “weak performing” parcels and developable land.

I object to Parcel 14 (Knowle Hill Park, Fairmile Park, north of Blundel Lane) being included for the following reasons:

• Parcel 14 currently prevents the merger of “neighbouring” areas Cobham, Stoke d’Abernon and Oxshott which are distinct communities. The Council’s own Flood Risk Assessment recognises them as separate entities.
• The Green Belt review scoring is incorrect. Parcel 14 is only 2.5% built on and should be 4 or 5 (not 2). The description of parcel 14 as “semi-urban” is highly subjective and untrue. It is semi-rural or just rural.
• Parcel 14 has flooding and therefore flood plains along Blundel Lane. However the existence of flood plains which is a crucial function of the area in question has been completely ignored by the assessment.
• Ancient woodlands are present on Parcel 14. These need to be surrounded with buffer zones and wildlife corridors. Parcel 14 is home to Greater Crested Newts which are protected by both UK and EU legislation. It is also a natural habitat for bats, beetles, adders, buzzards, deer and owls.

I object to Parcel 20 (next to Portsmouth Road, Cobham) being included for the following reasons:

• Parcel 20 acts as vital separation line between Cobham and Esher.
• It protects against ribbon development along Portsmouth Road (A307).
• Development on such a large scale would change the character of Cobham and damage local community cohesion.
• The Green Belt review misleadingly undervalues this land which has only 4.6% built structures on it.
• A new school of 1200 students will open at the top of Fairmile Road in summer. With this new school in place, the area already will not be able to cope.
21 Mar 2017 13:15
Deleted User No, I disagree 21 Mar 2017 13:15
Next pageLast page