Online Response Form

Responses

List of answers to the specified question
NameOptionTextDate
Deleted User • I believe that urban regeneration is the way forward and that more joined-up thinking and co-operation across boundaries and between Boroughs is required in order to find the best solution.
• 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 I fundamentally disagree with an approach that just singles out housing.
• I reiterate that housing is NOT an exceptional circumstance to remove Green Belt.
21 Mar 2017 11:46
Deleted User No 21 Mar 2017 11:46
Save Cobham Green Belt (Keith… • 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 11:14
Save Cobham Green Belt (Keith… No 21 Mar 2017 11:14
Birds Hill Oxshott Estate Co.… The removal of appropriate Green Belt land should avoid the intensification of existing urban areas. The benefits of new housing must be assessed against the five long established purposes of the Green Belt. 21 Mar 2017 11:06
Birds Hill Oxshott Estate Co.… Yes 21 Mar 2017 11:06
Deleted User The area around Brooklands is land that also ought also to be removed from the Green Belt due to the exceptional circumstances as set out in our answer to Question 5. This area is identified in the Green Belt Boundary Review (GBBR) March 2016, as Area 25. This encompasses incorporates land within the former Brooklands Circuit, extending from the Brooklands Community Park in the south to the Brooklands Hotel and Mercedes Benz World to the north. It is primarily previously developed land, with much of the former airfield still visible, along with the new developments to the north and the test track for Mercedes Benz World.
The GBBR assesses the area against three purposes consistent with the first three bullets of paragraph 80 of the NPPF. It concludes that the site performs strongly as it is acting as a barrier to potential sprawl (purpose 1), and by establishing an important gap between towns (purpose 2). However, under purpose 3 on assisting in the safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, it is awarded a score of 0/5 and stated that it does not meet this purpose and has a distinctly 'urban character'. Indeed, it is the only area that has been assessed that is awarded a score of zero (paragraph 5.2.2.3). Irrespective of the low score under purpose 3, due to the strong scoring of purpose 1 and 2, it is concluded in Section 5.3 that the area performs strongly overall. It is considered that the GBBR is too generous in its scoring of Area 25 under Purposes 1 and 2. Therefore, we contend that the Area is a strong candidate to be removed from the Green Belt through the Local Plan review process due to the exceptional circumstances that exist. These circumstances are already recognised by the Council elsewhere in the Strategic Options Consultation and we have provided further circumstances above.
Firstly, we disagree that the local area is on the edge of a distinct large built up area and that it would prevent the outward sprawl of a large built up area into open land, since this conclusion ignores the characteristics of the geography. The Brooklands area is a distinct area of Elmbridge, characterised by a mix of industrial, commercial, retail and indeed residential development that has been constructed within or on the edge of the former Brooklands Circuit. Indeed, this development is located both to the east and west of Area 25, as is evident from mapping of the area. The eastern area includes residential and commercial development to the east of the River Wey. So, in effect, the general Brooklands area is artificially split by awarding Green Belt status to Area 25.
Addressing the area to the east of the River Wey, this development cannot be logically described as part of Weybridge, due to its distinct characteristics and the fact that the private St George's Hill estate acts as a barrier to its integration with Weybridge. Nor does it form part of Byfleet to the south, due to limited direct links. Indeed, functionally and practically, it forms a separate part of Elmbridge, known as Brooklands. Therefore, by retaining the Green Belt status for Area 25, the Council is maintaining the disjointed strategic planning approach to this area, preventing the logical integration of the western and eastern elements of Brooklands. Indeed, this is happening already in the northern part of the Area, with some significant developments encroaching on the area and 'linking' the two areas. Therefore, any suggestion that this area would prevent neighbouring towns from merging has little credence. The fact is that the area of Green Belt is prevents the proper integration of an existing area of Elmbridge (i.e. Brooklands) that is plainly distinct from neighbouring settlements.
Irrespective of our views, this is not what is concluded in the GBBR. Indeed, n paragraph 6.2.2, the GBBR makes the puzzling conclusion that Area 25 is important to the integrity of the Green Belt by providing a strategic link to land to the north in Runnymede and also to the south (east of Byfleet). However, it then concludes
that there is potential for sub-division of the northern and southern elements of the area
(with the boundary at Wellington Way).
Needless to say, all of parcel 25 has experienced some form of development, although
some elements more dense than others. If, as the GBBR advocate, consideration is
given to the removal of the northern element of Parcel 25, this would automatically
undermine the reasons that the GBBR gives for awarding this area of Green Belt value
(i.e. the link). Whilst we think the conclusion in the GBBR is mistaken since it does not take into account there is a significant amount of development that has already been constructed in the northern element of Area 25 and thus undermining the logic of suggesting the entirety of the link is important. However, it does seem somewhat
contradictory to then suggest that part of the area might also be removed from the Green Belt. Any removal of Area 25 would undermines the key reason given in the GBBR to value this area of land under Purposes 1 and 2 anyway. Therefore, even under the logic displayed in the GBBR, there are compelling reasons to
remove all of Area 25 from the Green Belt and rely on other local policy designations to manage development.
21 Mar 2017 10:53
Deleted User Yes 21 Mar 2017 10:53
Carter Jonas on behalf of BGL… The exercise that the Council has undertaken and the findings of Arup’s analysis is robust. As
such, the removal of other areas from within the Green Belt would not be justified.
21 Mar 2017 10:25
Carter Jonas on behalf of BGL… No 21 Mar 2017 10:25
First pagePrevious page Next pageLast page