Online Response Form

Responses

List of answers to the specified question
NameOptionTextDate
Deleted User • We believe that urban regeneration is the way forward and that more joined up thinking and cooperation across boundaries is required in order to find an optimum solution
• The Council has admitted it has not assessed the viability or contribution of the moderately performing sites and this seems an oversight that must be urgently corrected
• Providing infrastructure for the three identified sites is considerably more complex and expensive than linking one larger site in a logistically better positioned area
• Any plan of this complexity cannot be considered in isolation and hence we fundamentally disagree with an approach that just singles out housing
• It is worth reiterating that housing is NOT an exceptional circumstance to remove Green Belt and does not meet with the majority support of the residents
• We must also strongly object and put on the record that the nature of the questions is in our opinion manipulative and self-serving seeking to justify the Council’s recommendations and is thus not consultative but merely ticking boxes
• The Arup consultants work is flawed throughout, not least the scoring execution
21 Mar 2017 16:03
Deleted User No 21 Mar 2017 16:03
Deleted User I am a Local Resident living near/adjacent to Parcel 36, and/or a frequent use of the woods on Seven Hills Road. I am writing to strongly disagree with Elmbridge's assessment that Parcel 36 is weakly performing green belt. This is a small scale but vital piece of land in the community, and I object to any proposed change in the green belt status of Parcel 36, and any future development of housing, due to:

LOSS OF AMENITY

Overlooking/loss of privacy to many homes in the area. Visual amenity impaired. Out of keeping with the many adjacent residential locations and would be unduly obtrusive in the setting, ruining the
character of the location and eroding the quality of the local environment. Preventing access and social activity on current land. This part of Seven Hills Road is the main route into the Weybridge- it sets and promotes the scene of "leafy Elmbridge" for most visitors arriving from London, M25, and the South.

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

Loss of trees, and unnatural landscaping. Affecting endangered species such as: bats, hedgehogs, butterflies, toads, deer and many birds including owls and buzzards, all seek food and shelter in the
Seven Hills Road woods.

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT

Increased population density with no increase in local services and infrastructure. Disturbance and noise during development. Increased traffic problems, vastly reduced air quality post development, as
trees perform a vital role in reducing pollution. Increased noise from Seven Hills Road with no trees. Weybridge infrastructure is already saturated due to the over development of small flats with two cars.

NECESSITY

Other, much more suitable, sites exist in Elmbridge district and adjoining Boroughs. No need to destroy a small area of dense woodland and impact an already overcrowded Weybridge community.

PROCESS

The weighting / ranking given to Parcel 36 across then tree scoring criteria is subjective and inconsistent with Parcel 37. There is no explanation as to why a decision was made to split the land east / west instead of north/sooth. Previous successful planning decisions have been made to develop the north segment of Parcels 36 and 37 where tar fewer trees and existing infrastructure exists. The Seven Hills Road woods (south segment of 36 and 37) has never been developed on.

In summary I feel Parcel 36 is strongly performing for its position and size and I ask you to please take these objections into consideration during any future consultation or planning application.
21 Mar 2017 15:55
Deleted User No 21 Mar 2017 15:55
Deleted User No 21 Mar 2017 15:46
Woolf Bond Planning (strvwn Brown) See covering letter.

Plans and particulars are enclosed in support of the proposed Green Belt release and allocation of land to the rear (east) of Claygate House, Littleworth Road, Claygate, Esher,Surrey as follows:
i. Duly completed Response Form
ii. Location Plan 16322/C07B (OSP)
iii. Site Constraints Plan 16322/COBD (OSP)
iv. Illustrative Block Plan 16322/C09C (OSP)
v. Landscape Statement No. CSN3230/01 C (CSA) (February 2017)
vi. Flood Risk and Drainage Strategy Note 035678 (Buro Happold) (February 2017)
vii. Preliminary Transport Appraisal (Motion) (February 2017)

Footnote 1 - Forming part of Area 45 as defined in the Council's Green Belt Study.

Our clients own the circa 4ha site edged red on Local Plan No. 16322/C07B, comprising the land and buildings associated with Claygate House. As shown on the Local Plan Proposals Map, the
western part comprising Claygate House is within the defined settlement area, whilst the land to the rear (east) which includes hardstanding areas and private land is currently within the Green
Belt. This boundary is clearly shown on Plan no. 16322/C09C.

The supporting plans and particulars confirm the suitability of releasing land to the rear (east) of Claygate House from the Green Belt to provide for a development of circa 77 dwellings (Plan
16322/C09C refers). In addition, the land forming the western part of the site (the non-Green Belt part) also has potential as a future development site. It has already been identified by the Council in is Housing Land Availability Document (Sept 2016) as being suitable for approximately 55 dwellings.

Given the findings in the supporting Landscape Statement that the eastern part of the site performs a weak Green Belt function, and is better related to the surrounding urban character, there is a strong planning case to support the release of the land from the Green Belt to provide for an allocation of circa 77 dwellings.

General
As summarised above, our clients have a controlling interest in land at Claygate House which is edged red on 16322/C07B attached and extends to approximately 4ha. It comprises several buildings, extensive hardsurfacing, car parking areas and ancillary land.

Approximately 2.4ha of the site to the rear (east) of Claygate House is currently located within the Green Belt. This is clearly shown on the accompanying plans; and it is this part of the site that we are promoting for development in response to the spatial options consultation. However, the western part of the site, within the defined settlement area (and not subject to Green Belt policy), is also available for development and could come forward as part of a future scheme. This redevelopment potential has already been identified by the Council, with Claygate House (the building) included in the Council's Land Availability Assessment (Sept 2016) for 55 dwellings.

On the basis of our technical appraisal, we are of the view that the 2.4ha Green Belt part of the site (comprising the land to the rear (east) of Claygate House) could accommodate approximately
77 dwellings together with associated landscaping and a means of access from Littleworth Road and/or Raleigh Drive. Illustrative Block Plan 16322/C09C is attached which shows how the site could be developed following a review of the Green Belt.

The accompanying plans and particulars have been prepared to show the suitability of releasing the land to the rear (east) of Claygate House from the Green Belt and providing for a development
of circa 77 dwellings.

There are two separate areas of the site with various development options to be considered. For the purpose of this document, and for the avoidance of doubt, it is principally the eastern part of
the site, which is located in the Green Belt, and extending to approximately 2.4 ha that is promoted for development through this spatial options consultation through a review of the Green Belt
boundary.

Access and Sustainability Technical Note
The Claygate House site has two points of access from Littleworth Road to the west; and a pedestrian/cycle link to the south.

The accompanying Transport Appraisal prepared by Motion considers the potential to create a vehicle access from Raleigh Drive/Rythe Road to the south of the site.

The Technical Note identifies that the site is located within walking distance from local services and facilities, including bus services. The train station and local amenities in Claygate are within 750m (paragraph 2.19 refers) which is a mere 1 0-minute walk from the centre of the site. Bus route K3 also serves the site with the nearest bus stop on Milbourne Lane, which is located circa 300m south of the site. The route provides local service between Esher High Street and
Roehampton Vale, stopping at several train stations and with direct connections to Central London.

The existing access serving the office buildings on site is from Littleworth Road. In order to access the remaining part of the site, considerations have been given to the provision of an additional access point from Raleigh Drive to the south of the site. The existing priority junction in this location operates with Raleigh Drive and Loseberry Road having priority over Rythe Road which gives way. This arrangement is illustrated in the appendix A of the Technical Note.

The fourth arm on this junction could be created to allow for access to land proposed to be released from the Green Belt (to the rear (east) of Claygate House). The potential of the existing pedestrian access to be converted into a vehicular access is deemed appropriate and feasible. A proposed mini-roundabout arrangement is included in appendix B of the Technical Note, while the appendix C shows a potential arrangement for a crossroads arrangement of the junction. Both options include the provision of pedestrian footpath.

To conclude, the site location is such that journeys by sustainable modes would be an attractive option to residents travelling to local facilities, or by public transport to other destinations for employment or leisure opportunities. Appropriate vehicular access can be achieved by providing a new access road into the site from Raleigh Drive to the south.

In accessibility terms, it is concluded that the site affords a sustainable development opportunity for housing development.

Flood Risk Assessment
The accompanying Technical Note prepared by Buro Happold has assesses the development potential of the Green Belt site to the rear (east) of Claygate House in relation to flood and drainage considerations.

The eastern part of the site currently within the Green Belt, to which the supporting plans and particulars principally relate, extends to approximately 2.4ha and is located within Flood Zone 1.

There is some potential for surface water flooding according the Environmental Agency water flood map, although this can be mitigated by the introduction of a suitable sustainable drainage
strategy which would also result in the minimising of the surface water flooding of the neighbouring properties.

Landscape. Visual and Green Belt Assessment
The Landscape Assessment prepared by GSA and submitted in support of this representation assesses the suitability of the 2.4ha part of the site currently within the Green Belt as having an overall medium to low landscape quality, sensitivity and value, owing to its partially developed nature and proximity to existing housing, and containment from the wider landscape to the north.

This is also supported by the Councils assessment in that it is identified in their study as forming part of Area no. 45 (The Appendix 4 - Green Belt Boundary Review Parcels - Absolute Constraints Assessment) This concluded: "the area meets the Purpose 3 weakly due to the fragmented nature of the Green Belt and the prevalence of man-made/industrial uses, in particular in the western section of the Strategic Area".

Although not specifying the Claygate House site directly, the assessment of the area refers directly to the private (now principally redundant) private open space area which is located to the rear (east) of Claygate House.

In terms of assessing the contribution to the Green Belt, the Landscape Assessment notes that the current Green Belt boundary crosses the site in an irregular and arbitrary manner, including
parts of the existing car park, the tennis court, bowls green and swimming pool. It is added that development of the site would be well contained and would allow the Green Belt boundary to be redefined along the northern boundary of the site with hedgerow and line of mature trees creating a much stronger and more defensible boundary.

The settlements of Claygate and Esher have already coalesced and development of the site
would infill land within the built up area, whilst maintaining the separation between these
settlements to the north. In this respect, the development of the site would infill partially developed
land without resulting in an extension of the settlement, and would further reinforce the logical
and natural Green Belt boundary.
An appropriately designed development would integrate well with the existing settlement edge
and would not adversely impact upon the settlement edge nor would it conflict with the five
purposes of the Green Belt as set out at paragraph 80 of the NPPF.

In the context of the Green Belt tests set out in the NPPF (Para 80 refers), development of the
site for housing would be acceptable having regard to the five Green Belt purposes as follows:
• It would not result in unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
• It would not lead to coalescence;
• It would prevent more peripheral countryside locations from encroachment; and could
strengthen the Green Belt Boundary
• There is no "special" character to be preserved; and
• It would provide for a mix of deliverable homes, including helping to meet the need to
supply family sized dwellings to meet identified needs to complement higher density
schemes for flatted forms of development on previously developed land within urban
locations.

The Landscape Assessment report concludes that a sensitively designed development could
contribute to delivering housing numbers without any significant landscape and visual effects,
subject to removal of the eastern part of the site from the Green Belt.

Indicative Masterplan
The submitted Site Constraints Plan (Ref. 16322/COSD) indicates the extent of Flood Zones
across the wider site. The majority of the Flood Zone 1 area, and this least constrained part of
the site, comprises the eastern land parcel the subject of our representations seeking the removal
of the land from the Green Belt.
Illustrative Block Plan 16322/C09C identifies that the eastern land parcel could be developed for
approximately 77 dwellings, with access from Raleigh Drive to the south and a landscaped buffer
to the north and thus reinforcing the urban edge and creating definition for the wider Green Belt
beyond.
The scheme can provide for a range of dwelling types and tenures in order to meet identified
housing needs, including affordable housing.

To conclude, the land at Claygate House is located in a sustainable location and its allocation for
housing development following a review of the Green Belt boundaries (in so far as it applies to
Area 45) is supported by the accompanying technical studies. Moreover, the land is surrounded
by existing development on its eastern, southern and western boundary and therefore the infill
development of the site would represent a more logical settlement boundary without affecting the
character and openness of the existing Green Belt or unnecessary coalescence of settlements.

Against the above background, including on the basis of the Council's evidence base2, there are
no known constraints to releasing the eastern land parcel (to the rear of Claygate House) from
the Green Belt as a housing allocation for approximately 77 dwellings in helping to meet identified
housing needs during the early part of the plan period (following a review of the Green Belt
boundaries). In addition, the opportunity also exists to facilitate the early development of the
western part of the site either as a planning application and/or as an allocation (given the Council's
assessment of this part of the site in its Housing Land Availability Assessment (Sept 2016) as
being suitable for 55 dwellings).
On the basis of the foregoing, the entirety of the 4ha site is available and suitable, whilst
development is achievable within the current five-year period - subject to the release of the
eastern land parcel from the Green Belt.
21 Mar 2017 15:42
Woolf Bond Planning (strvwn Brown) Yes 21 Mar 2017 15:42
Deleted User I would like to take this opportunity to put on record the Metropolitan Police’s strong objection to any further layers of protection being put on this site for the following reasons;

- The site is a secure site used by the Metropolitan Police as a sports facility and it must remain so for it to continue to carry out its function. As a result views into the site from public and private vantage points are minimal. The site is not really open space, it is private land with an established use.
- The police use the land primarily as a sports and recreation facility however the land does still serve operational needs of the Met Police. As we have found out in recent applications on the site, the Green Belt policies have made it incredibly difficult for the Met Police to alter the situation on site. A further layer of unnecessary protection could render the site unsuitable for their needs and may require the Met to move on to other premises outside of these protected zones.
- Major developments have been granted next to this site, it would seem odd to protect a field or two surrounded by development that does not serve the general public and would not result in different settlements merging.
- The Met Police believe the site performs badly against the Green Belt tests and would support any suggestion by the local Council to remove its Green Belt Status, especially given how much trouble they are encountering at present to add an net increased stable block of 55sq m. This resistance is not conducive to their continuing to operate from the site.

In short, the Met Police believe that the site performs badly against the tests of the Green Belt for the following reasons

• to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas – this site serves no purpose in this regard
• to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another – the site serves no purpose in this regard
• to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment – the site sits within an existing urban area and does not encroach or stop encroachment into the countryside
• to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns – the site does nothing to preserve the special character of historic towns
• to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land – this site is urban land and has an established use on it

Given the above we would request that any suggestions of added layer of protection are removed from this site and that discussions are bought forward to remove this site from the Green Belt as soon as possible.
21 Mar 2017 14:47
Deleted User Yes 21 Mar 2017 14:47
Deleted User See accompanying report 21 Mar 2017 14:10
Next pageLast page