Online Response Form

Responses

List of answers to the specified question
NameOptionTextDate
1939 (Elizabeth Ann) There has been very little time for the public to air their views on these important matters, most of us only having been made aware in the last three weeks of the consultation process, and the deadline is very imminent.
It is a bit bewildering and alarming to read varying numbers relating to the likely building applications that threaten to be put forward....for example, is it "9480" houses or "1000" houses on each of two parcels of Green Belt; 9 or 16 Travellers' sites?
This area has been filled with high value homes - what's to stop these developers building more of the same if they had the chance?
11 Feb 2017 16:28
1981 (Oliver Bath) This new Local Plan (Strategic Options Consultation document) contains numerous flaws and inconsistencies. The methodology is subjective and flawed. The entire premise of the consultation rests on the requirement to build 9,480 new homes. The probability of this forecast being correct needs to be understood – is it enough to remove Green
Belt status forever? Particularly in light of the Government's concerns around the lack of a standard methodology to assess housing need. It would be a very very sad day if this went ahead.
22 Feb 2017 10:25
A C Hewett The Cobham area needs more housing, but the Consultation paper is not clear on what type or where. The Strategic Areas would not necessarily release the land for necessary and desirable development. The Consultation is unclear on how many homes would be delivered by removing Green Belt status. Until the nature of potential development is known it is not possible to assess relative priorities. 03 Mar 2017 11:25
A C R Elliott Until the nature of potential development is known it is not possible to assess relative priorities. 07 Mar 2017 16:29
A Flack no 03 Feb 2017 14:15
A Littler Greater well-being and better health should be the goal and measure of an area, not wealth maximisation.
Government at all levels should be working to make us happier - there are plenty of good evidence-based surveys that indicate what makes people happy. Danny Dorling's work is of good standing in this area and very readable.
Some longer-term ambitions of strategic planning in Elmbridge are necessary to achieve a sustainable environment and no worse a life for future generations.
18 Feb 2017 10:12
A S Cooper Road congestion - pressure on the Hampton Court Way mornings and late afternoons during the week and Saturdays mean long queues and delays even now - before your plan for thousands more houses with their attendant extra vehicles. This includes the roads from Thames Ditton and Sandown, Esher, passes the Scilly Isles, passes College roundabout and goes all the way up to Hampton Court, to Kingston and by the river up to Hampton. I have had to turn back and cancel my journey several times in the last 6 months. It has become very significantly worse over the last couple of years. I would say it was saturated.

Try taking a car to do a food shop in Surbiton or Molesey on a Saturday. Huge tailbacks, no parking, heated tempers and no room to move in shops. This says facilities are already full.

Flooding - under the rail bridge on the Hampton Court Way and outside St James' Park development opposite Victoria Park regularly floods after heavy rain. This will, of course get worse with more development and more dwellings.

Following this consultation, I would like to see a change in approach from my local council. Instead of you telling us central government priorities, I expect you to tell central government what local people's priorities are.
08 Feb 2017 11:15
A. Fletcher • The Strategic Consultation paper contains numerous flaws and inconsistencies. The methodology is subjective and flawed
• Entire premise of the consultation rests on the requirement to build 9480 new homes. The probability of this forecast being correct needs to be understood – is it enough to remove Green Belt status forever?
• The paper has only explored 3 parcels of so called “weakly performing” land – other parcels of so called “weakly, moderately or strongly” performing may be more suitable for development e.g. nearer to higher urban areas
• No consideration given with the proposals for the Cobham & Stoke d’Abernon proposals of access to jobs and employment. Limited employment opportunities in the immediate area as opposed to exploring options in Walton or Weybridge
• Economics of building lower cost housing on areas of Elmbridge (parcels 14 and 20) that are focused on high value homes. Risk if Green Belt is removed that Millgate Homes (current owners of 45 acres of parcel 14) will look to build more high-end (4+ bedroom) homes and pay the Council off as they have done on the existing building. What makes the Council think this would change in the future?
• Elmbridge strategy does not support the stated EU requirement which seeks to preserve and enhance the quality of life of its residents, both current and future. In our opinion Elmbridge proposals directly contradict these EU directives
• Timing of this consultation being launched just prior to Christmas, the lack of information provided to local residents and the length and complexity of the questionnaire seem to lead to the conclusion that the Council is simply going through a process and not seriously open to any challenge from local residents
• These proposals have no regard to the size of the existing settlements where the new house building is being considered and the impact on their existing communities and infrastructure. Because Elmbridge is neither a place of being or a community in its own right but a collection of very separate and different communities and settlements, any sensible housing strategy has to be broken down and as a starting point to look at each settlement / community and assess how many additional dwellings need to be accommodated having regard to the size of that settlement to Elmbridge as a whole.
• As the whole purpose of deselecting green belt land is for meeting housing need, it is a flawed process that ignores infrastructure. Green belt land in an urban or semi urban community may be more appropriate for development where there is adequate or good infrastructure than where it is in a rural or semi rural community where there is inadequate or poor infrastructure.
24 Feb 2017 09:51
A.B Cotterell It seems to me that Area 58 has been chosen as a soft option by the planners. No consideration has been given to the impact that development will have on an environment already under threat. Moreover, the high level of pollution around the A3 ought to rule out the building of houses nearby. Area 58 should stay as it is: Green Belt. The sprawl of London need to be halted here. If more homes are to built anywhere in Elmbridge it should be on brown-field sites and in greater density. This protects the environment and delivers housing, affordable and otherwise. 29 Dec 2016 08:59
A.B Cotterell Consider the unfortunate people. The children in particular, who are going to live by the A3 with the maddening noise and the polluted air. Think of the consequential burden on the NHS as a result of the very poor quality of life. In the rush to destroy the little green sites left we don't give through to the foxes, hedgehogs, birds and wildlife in general. We should look harder at brownfield sites. 24 Feb 2017 12:07
Next pageLast page