Online Response Form

Responses

List of answers to the specified question
NameOptionTextDate
Mick Flannigan REFUSE planning applications, if they are going to add to pressure on roads and public transport services. 19 Dec 2016 13:56
Holton Homes (Clive Wingfield) addressing the housing is key 02 Jan 2017 07:19
FEDORA (David Cooke) As above 06 Jan 2017 13:27
James Chowne By maintaining a low housing density, levels of transport pollution will also be kept low. 08 Jan 2017 20:09
Deleted User Work with government to find other areas outside Elmbridge that can deliver its objectives for new housing. Find a middle ground between the unpalatable options proposed and the risk of "doing nothing" - push the government to change policy 09 Jan 2017 21:26
John Girdley Plan for vehicles and improve local bus services. 10 Jan 2017 10:46
Deleted User All new development should provide a realistic amount of parking for the amount of cars that many houses have, not just the minimum It is quite feasible for houses to have 3 or 4 cars with grown up children living longer at home and that is putting increasing pressure on local roads. That means more parking spaces which means less space for housing but it needs to be allowed for. Also, housing developments should be focussed in areas where there is less pressure on local roads. 10 Jan 2017 17:22
John Millward Fleixble minibus based services (dial-a-ride?) 12 Jan 2017 16:01
Raymond Coe Have you considered park and ride schemes 12 Jan 2017 17:44
Deleted User Some alternative suggestions which I think would be even better locations would be re-classifying the industrial areas in West Molesey and Hersham. These would be preferable re-developing green-belt. Alternatively re-developing the the Painshill area which is right on the A3 junction or even the Silvermere Golf Club area, although I would introduce/improve road access to the A3/M25. Another alternative would be to allow 'higher developments along the water front' in places like Walton. 15 Jan 2017 20:07
Next pageLast page