Online Response Form


List of answers to the specified question
Peter Tottle No 28 Feb 2017 11:42
1939 (Elizabeth Ann) a. There should be no more high density building in the area of Parcel 14. It is already overstretched, and it would be completely out of keeping with the current environment.
This area is one of the most expensive in Elmbridge, and it would be a mistake to try and build social housing here. The people who need to be helped with social housing could not afford Elmbridge prices nor would they be supported with jobs or services in this area. The economics of building this type of housing here is unrealistic.

Parcel 20. The infrastructure here is totally insufficient and the Portsmouth Road is already heavily polluted. The open land alongside it helps to counteract this.
11 Feb 2017 16:28
1939 (Elizabeth Ann) No 11 Feb 2017 16:28
1963 (Will Durston) No 21 Feb 2017 19:45
1963 (Will Durston) The current infrastructure in Long Ditton / Hinchley Wood (Area 58) is insufficient to support high density housing. The schools cannot cope with current numbers, yet alone further demand. Commuter volumes using Surbiton station have dramatically increased over the last 10-15 years and the rail network is unable to deal with peak demands during the morning and evening rush hours. 21 Feb 2017 19:45
1981 (Oliver Bath) In relation to area 58 - Again, infrastructure is insufficient. Council says it's committed to sustainable development. Will adversely affect our air quality. Why not build social housing closer to sources of employment?? 22 Feb 2017 10:25
1981 (Oliver Bath) No 22 Feb 2017 10:25
A Emery No 21 Feb 2017 12:16
A Emery Infrastructure totally insufficient to support high density housing.

Existing residents will be far worse off if any development goes ahead.
Hinchley Wood school is already struggling with current numbers from feeder schools - why should existing residents miss out? People who have specifically moved to the area to gain entry to the school will be disadvantaged.

Surbiton Station is already exceeding capacity.

The Council should seek to develop social/affordable housing near to the major sources of employment and nearer to better service provisions.

Market forces will ultimately dictate prices as usually happens.
Placing social/affordable housing in this area will not meet the needs of those people who need easy access to job opportunities and good public transport links, neither of which exist in this area.

Development will adversely affect air quality in an area already polluted by nearby roads.

This would mean an even higher density of housing than the existing nearby Hinchley Park development.
21 Feb 2017 12:16
A Flack No 03 Feb 2017 14:15
Next pageLast page