Online Response Form

Responses

List of answers to the specified question
NameOptionTextDate
K Furber Yes, I agree 16 Dec 2016 20:43
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
Burwin Investments (Mark Wingfield) Yes, I agree 17 Dec 2016 11:28
Deleted User Yes, I agree 17 Dec 2016 13:08
Mick Flannigan I cannot understand those who dismiss the green belt as a "failed and outdated experiment".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
Mick Flannigan I don’t know 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
Deleted User Yes, I agree 22 Dec 2016 15:25
A.B Cotterell No, I disagree 29 Dec 2016 08:59
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
Next pageLast page