Online Response Form

Responses

List of answers to the specified question
NameOptionTextDate
Amy Leftwich Other options have not been sufficiently explored to be sure that this is the only option. The way this green belts were graded seems arbitrary to me and surely needs to be done in consultation with the local population. 24 Feb 2017 13:52
Amy Leftwich No, I disagree 24 Feb 2017 13:52
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, I agree 01 Feb 2017 18:39
Gill Money I believe that the methodology and assessment used to select these sites is subjective and flawed. The scoring and categorisation across all the parcels of land is inconsistent. I 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 the distinctly different "neighbouring" areas of Stoke d'Abernon and Oxshott
o Cobham, Stoke d'Abernon and Oxshott are distinct communities – EBC's own Flood Risk Assessment and Design Guidelines recognise 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.
o Description of Parcel 14 as "semi-urban" is very subjective and patently untrue – it is semi-rural.
o Description of Parcel 14 as having "weak links" to the strongly performing parcel 10 is solely due to Blundel Lane and the railway line, the areas merge visually when visited;
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 in the background materials for why this has changed
o Infrastructure, particularly local roads, would not cope
o I believe this suggesting should be subject to independent audit as insufficient weighting has been given to the points detailed below:
i. Ancient woodlands are present on Parcel 14. These should 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, hedgehogs and owls.
iv. Knowle 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. These are Absolute Constraints and need to be recognised and scored as such.
I also 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 and 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 as evidenced in the recently published report by The Walton Charities.
o The road infrastructure couldn't cope
o The Green Belt Review undervalues this land which has only 4.6% built structures on it. This should result in a score of 3 or 4.
o The area provides a habitat for a variety of wildlife, rare birds, six types of reptiles and insects such as the silver studded blue butterfly Plebejus argus found on the Esher common SSSI site.
16 Feb 2017 17:36
Gill Money No, I disagree 16 Feb 2017 17:36
Hugh Singer 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.
o Description of Parcel 14 as “semi-urban” is very subjective and patently untrue – it is semi-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 Infrastructure, particularly roads would not cope
o I 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, hedgehogs and owls.
iv. Knowle 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
• 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
23 Feb 2017 14:37
Hugh Singer No, I disagree 23 Feb 2017 14:37
Jane Carr No, I disagree 16 Mar 2017 13:54
Jane Carr Complex. See Greenbelt partnershop's itemised list:

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.
o Description of Parcel 14 as "semi-urban" is very subjective and patently untrue – it is semi-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 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, hedgehogs and owls.
iv. Knowle 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
• Strongly disagree with Parcel 20 (next to Portsmouth Road, Cobham) being included for the following reasons:
o Development on such a large scale would change the character of Cobham and damage local community cohesion
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 The infrastructure couldn't cope
o Parcel 20 acts as a vital separation between Cobham and Esher
o The Green Belt Review undervalues this land which has only 4.6% built structures on it. This would result in a score of 3 or 4.
o The area provides a habitat for a variety of wildlife, rare birds, 6 types of reptiles and insects such as the silver studded blue butterfly Plebejus argus found on the Esher common SSSI site
16 Mar 2017 13:54
Next pageLast page