Online Response Form

Responses

List of answers to the specified question
NameOptionTextDate
Deleted User  Do not believe Parcels 14 or 20 should be developed. The analysis is
subjective and flawed
21 Mar 2017 12:22
Deleted User No 21 Mar 2017 12:22
Duncan Crane Please see the response to questions 1,4, 5 and 10 above. Note I do not believe the case has been made for development of the three areas in question. 21 Mar 2017 12:00
Duncan Crane No 21 Mar 2017 12:00
Deleted User • As I’ve explained in questions above, I do not believe Parcels 14 or 20 should be developed at all. The analysis of both parcels is subjective and flawed. 21 Mar 2017 11:46
Deleted User No 21 Mar 2017 11:46
Save Cobham Green Belt (Keith… • Do not believe Parcels 14 or 20 should be developed. The analysis is subjective and flawed 21 Mar 2017 11:14
Save Cobham Green Belt (Keith… No 21 Mar 2017 11:14
Birds Hill Oxshott Estate Co.… The density of the proposed development should reflect the prevailing local context of the site and their accessibility to local services and public transport provision. As edge of settlement sites, the prevailing context will generally be of a lower density.

Public opposition to development on any Green Belt land is likely to be high, even if that land is of the lowest quality imaginable, largely as result of years of poor quality overly dense new developments. It is important that the development that is delivered on such land is of a high standard that does not attract such opposition nor encourage heightened resistance in the future.
21 Mar 2017 11:06
Birds Hill Oxshott Estate Co.… Yes 21 Mar 2017 11:06
First pagePrevious page Next pageLast page