Online Response Form

Responses

List of answers to the specified question
NameOptionTextDate
Amy Leftwich Once you start building on green belt land you set a precedent and so much history, nature, green space will be lost. These are crucial to the local environment and maintaining the current character of Elmbridge. 24 Feb 2017 13:52
Amy Leftwich No 24 Feb 2017 13:52
Brooklands College (Gail Walker) The need for a complete rethink of the Weybridge site was specifically picked up in the Department of Education’s recent ‘Surrey Area Review’. In relation to the Brooklands Weybridge site, the final report states that “While the college meets most of the financial benchmarks, the need to develop the college estate will put continued and longer term pressure on finances…” It goes on to say that the College should “explore land sale options, looking at developing a different model to address the needs of the infrastructure on the Weybridge Campus, whilst addressing the needs of the community.”

Regenerating the site to meet modern educational needs will require some rationalisation of our space requirements and a significant upgrading of our buildings and infrastructure, together with some enabling development to assist with the capital financing. The location of the site adjacent to Weybridge railway station could make it suitable for some housing development, which would in turn also assist Elmbridge in meeting its housing targets. The close proximity of the station would also minimise the impacts of traffic on the local road network compared to other potential housing sites.

We would therefore request that, as part of your New Local Plan, you give consideration to the need for Brooklands College to develop its Weybridge site to enable it to provide for the educational needs of the local community into the future. We are not asking for a revision to the Green Belt boundary, although this is something that you may wish to consider. We are however asking you to amend the Plan to reflect the College’s need for some enabling development and the suitability of this site for some housing development, given its proximity to Weybridge station. We would in turn ensure that any proposals for development would be to the highest design standards, reflecting the importance and sensitivity of this Green Belt site.
10 Feb 2017 15:16
David and Cheryl Meggitt 2) Re weakly performing green belt; point out that location 70 is situated within Flood Zone 2 and currently offers a great local amenity, providing a large range of sports and cultural amenities for a wide catchment of people. 06 Feb 2017 12:40
David and Cheryl Meggitt Yes 06 Feb 2017 12:40
Elizabeth Wilcox 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 the 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 the three 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/south. Previous successful planning decisions have been made to develop the north segment of Parcels 36 and 37, where far 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 14 Mar 2017 10:00
Elizabeth Wilcox No 14 Mar 2017 10:00
Gill Money Urban regeneration should be the way to deal with the housing shortage and more joined up thinking and cooperation across boundaries is required in order to find an optimum solution. Elmbridge cannot deal with this issue in isolation.
• EBC has has not assessed the viability or contribution of the moderately performing sites and this oversight should be corrected
• Any plan of this complexity cannot be considered in isolation and hence I fundamentally disagree with an approach that just singles out housing, the location of jobs and transport links must all be included to create a single well planned whole
• Housing alone is NOT an exceptional circumstance to remove Green Belt and does not meet my support
• I am finding the questions in this form difficult to answer as they seem to be driving me towards only one conclusion - that three areas of Green Belt must be removed. I want to see other options discussed more openly, even if it slows the process.
16 Feb 2017 17:36
Gill Money No 16 Feb 2017 17:36
Hugh Singer • I 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
23 Feb 2017 14:37
Next pageLast page