Online Response Form

Responses

List of answers to the specified question
NameOptionTextDate
Burwin Investments (Mark Wingfield) I have read all the evidence based documents, and can understand how the council have come to recommend these there areas. 17 Dec 2016 11:28
Mick Flannigan I cannot understand those who dismiss the green belt as a "failed and outdated experiment". God only knows where we would be without it. I abhor development on any part of the green belt. However, under pressure from central government, EBC has been bullied into releasing three areas of green belt land. Those selected areas are the obvious ones to be sacrificed. In particular, the areas around Cobham are arguably dispensable, as there is much more open space over that way. There is also a far more open road network (e.g. Portsmouth Road), compared to the snarled-up roads around Walton and Hersham. If there is irresistible pressure to sacrifice some of the green belt, then it is high time that the Cobham area was made to bear some of the brunt. Walton/ Hersham/Weybridge have already coalesced and there is no particular reason why Cobham should be privileged and spared. Compared with Walton, the Cobham area has a far lower population density at present. 19 Dec 2016 13:56
Deleted User In order to meet the shortfall of housing in the area the Council has explored development options, during this process it identified that the land at Thames Ditton may be suitable for housing development.

Please accept this letter as full support of your proposals to remove the Green Belt status from the land which will enable the owner to apply for planning permission for domestic houses to assist in reducing the shortfall of domestic homes in and around the South East of England.
22 Dec 2016 15:25
A.B Cotterell With reference to the recently published A New Local Plan, and in particular the section devoted to Long Ditton, we really must say as long-term residents that we find the suggestion of building new homes on the village's Green Belt quite unacceptable. It would swamp the community, place undue pressure on its already overloaded road system and be seriously detrimental to the quality of life of the inhabitants. Even more, any such development would effectively merge Long Ditton with the suburban sprawl of Kingston upon Thames, blurring Elmbridge's eastern boundary forever.

Your definition of 'weakly performing Green Belt' areas is dubious and unexplained. It seems to us that the Planning Policy Team has simply selected locations where it believes local opposition will be less determined. This will not, however, be the case with Long Ditton. It is in fact utterly inappropriate to even consider using the Green Belt area shown in Figure 8 since number 1 (the pavilion), 2 (the sports ground), 3 (the hockey club), 4 (the allotments), 5 (the cricket ground), 6 (the cemetery), 7 (Kisimal School), 10 (the manor house) and 11 (the local nature reserve) constitute Long Ditton's lung, in the very heart of the village itself.

It needs to be said that the field of 8 (Ditton Hill Farm and Nurseries) perform a similar function, although their proximity to the A309 makes this Green Belt area perhaps less critical.
If extra houses are to be built anywhere in Long Ditton, the only area which could reasonably be used is to the south, east and west of 9 (Squires Garden Centre). Development anywhere else on the village's Green Belt would be ecologically disastrous. There is little enough natural space for wildlife as it is. Further encroachment would turn Long Ditton into nothing more than a continuous housing estate. We have already observed a decline in the number of species in our own back garden, which we prefer to retain in order to allow some animals, birds and insects to survive.

We therefore oppose the loss of Green Belt in the village and especially the area to the north of 9 (Squires Garden Centre).

The Green Belt is something we lose at our peril, no matter housing pressure there is little enough space now for wildlife without more houses. Long Ditton needs to remain, in a protected area 58.
29 Dec 2016 08:59
Holton Homes (Clive Wingfield) the Blundel Lane site if in used land serving no purpose and would be ideal for this purpose 02 Jan 2017 07:19
Daniel Cullen Redevelopment of Green Belt land in Local Area 14 (North of Blundel Lane) and the implementation of housing would greatly effect traffic on roads already used heavily as a link between Oxshott, Stoke D'Abernon and Cobham. Additionally the increased population of the area would put greater stress on health services in the area as well as schooling provision. State primary schools in Cobham and Oxshott are already oversubscribed and due to the proposed housing being affordable it can be assumed that new housing would results in more applications to these state schools. It is unlikely that any development of infrastructure would be able to reduce the effect of over 400 new homes being built. Furthermore the increased risk of flooding in areas near to Local Area 14 (especially housing on Blundel Lane) should be cause for concern, as should the effect on the appeal and value of houses in the area.

I am unable to confidently address the remaining two key areas due to a lack of familiarity with them.
05 Jan 2017 13:30
FEDORA (David Cooke) We need to maintain green areas amongst our communities. 06 Jan 2017 13:27
Deleted User I think you should consider a better spread of the housing location. The plan does not consider how densely populated the Kingston borough is, and therefore offers a biased view of green belt 08 Jan 2017 09:54
Rachel Warren I do not agree that the Local Area 58 is poorly functioning. I have used this land regularly for walks with my family and as an area for outdoor learning whilst a primary teacher in Long Ditton. It is loved by local residents and provides the only local "wild" space where children can play and learn about the outdoors.

I also have concerns about the impact on local schools and infrastructure given the existing problems with school places, traffic and parking.
08 Jan 2017 16:28
V Braun The 3 proposed areas are adjacent to strongly or moderately performing Green Belt areas; so assuming that the protection of those areas remain - the overall damage done within that geography is limited. 08 Jan 2017 19:36
Next pageLast page