Online Response Form

Responses

List of answers to the specified question
NameOptionTextDate
Deleted User I have just one question (or objection) - where exactly is all the additional traffic from those new developments suppose to go? Aren't the local roads clogged up enough already? 16 Dec 2016 13:34
Deleted User I wish to lodge an objection as I do not believe the infrastructure of this town can cope with such an increase in dwellings. I appreciate it is necessary to build more affordable housing but at the present time it is often impossible to drive out of Old Common Road due to heavy traffic and it regularly takes me 15-20 mins to reach the A3 at around 9 am.
I trust a more suitable alternative site can be found for redevelopment.
19 Dec 2016 10:52
Mick Flannigan I repeat that continually building more and more homes in this area is unsustainable. It is essential that the Local Government Association collectively fights back against central government policies, which are thoroughly irresponsible. Unless those policies are reversed, the future is unthinkable. For example, I have just read about Westminster City Council relocating many of its homeless people to the home counties. It is short-sighted and unacceptable to use counties such as Surrey as a dumping ground - but central government is placing pressure on these counties to cooperate . The effect is that boroughs such as Elmbridge will be overburdened with homeless people, and the demand for "affordable" housing will furtyher increase. Once again, the real problem lies in overpopulation of London....but I don't see any initiatives to reverse that.
In the time I have lived in Walton, I have seen thousands of new homes created. None of that has achieved anything, in terms of containing house prices or satisfying demand. Quite the reverse, in fact. Each new development allows more and more people to move in from elsewhere, thus putting intolerable strain on space and infrastructure. The quality of life in this area has undoubtedly suffered. Therefore, the response to most new housing applications ought to be "sorry, we're full up, go elsewhere". Unless the issue of overpopulation is successfully tackled, no amount of new building will ever solve the problem. It will merely pour petrol on to the flames. We are expected to accept the need for 9,470 new homes because it has been "objectively assessed". Really?? Where are all these people coming from, and why are we welcoming them here?? This madness is storing up incurable problems for our descendants.
19 Dec 2016 13:56
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
Civil Aviation Authority (Aman… The Elmbridge Borough is outside of our ‘physical’ 15km safeguarding zone. We therefore, have no comments to make from an aerodrome safeguarding perspective.

Our only concern at this distance would be any proposals that include wind turbines. Should any come forward we would ask that we be notified as soon as possible, as wind turbines have the potential to impact on radar utilised by the airport.
03 Jan 2017 10:03
Deleted User As a past school governor and Parish Councillor of many years standing I was always very concerned with the lack of joined up thinking between SCC and EBC in regards as to coordinating the infrastructure needs necessary to meet the needs of our growing population.

Here in Claygate over many years parents have experienced difficulties in getting places at out local primary school and/or getting reasonably located secondary school places.

The policy to allow ad hoc housing to be built has only aggravated the situation, Claygate has seen numerous in fill and small site development without any permanent increase in primary school places. The last permanent development at Claygate Primary took place many years ago.

In order to satisfy the future demand for housing in the borough any housing plan must be accompanied with a commitment by SCC to deliver the necessary level of infrastructure. This may call for the release of poor quality green belt together with available brown sites so that pockets of concentrated housing can be developed thereby making it economically viable to put in place the necessary infrastructure.
05 Jan 2017 11:34
Deleted User As a local resident, I chose to live in this area because of the open spaces around. Yes we are close to larger towns and london, but rural enough to not feel enclosed. Developing our green belt in small communities totally destroys that character. As a dog and horse owner, I would not wish for our open spaces to be sacrificed for more housing, certainly not 400 right opposite my home. The open outlook to the front of my property is what drew me to it in the first place, and certainly the roads nearby would be at a standstill; busy enough at present. 05 Jan 2017 19:32
Louis Cullen I live with a large open field opposite my house. This means the majority of excess water from heavy rain is drained away before reaching my house. Building houses opposite my house will take away this natural drainage and, as my house is built on the lower side of a slope that inclines towards the field, this will cause masses of water to rush down into my sloped driveway and almost certainly flood the house.
I highly doubt that adding a water draining system will help, due to the sheer amount of water that will run from the very top of the construction to the bottom. The proposed area will likely act as a funnel that will send all of the water down the slope towards the houses of my neighbours and I. The inconvenience of this will not be good, not to mention the thousands of pounds of damage that will be unavoidable if we get heavy rain.

Paragraph 88 of the NPPF states that ‘when considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt.’ This obviously applies to the proposed plans for Knowle Hill (and don't claim it isn't Green Belt because this was one thing taken into consideration for another application for the same area. This was application number 2015/1222).
05 Jan 2017 19:45
Deleted User As a long time resident of Blundel Lane; almost twenty years, I find it appalling that one, it was a fellow resident that informed me of this plan, your lack of communication is disgraceful, two, that you seriously think that four hundred new houses opposite Blundel lane is a sustainable development choice. Here are just some of the issues I would like to bring to your attention.

Surface runoff during periods of heavy rain already cause some serious problems in the houses on Blundel Lane directly opposite the development site, we have had to fit new drains out of our own pockets to stop our entire ground floor from flooding, it hurts to imagine what it would be like with the hill opposite completely covered in concrete.

Traffic is already a huge problem on Blundel Lane and Portsmouth Road, sometimes the queue to get out at the bottom in the morning can reach Evelyn Way, which is already ridiculous, with another four hundred houses, it will be much worse with so many more cars on the road.

This area is beautiful, with residents, including myself use the lake as a place of peace and quiet to walk and take in our little piece of countryside, without it, Stoke D' Abernon and Oxshott will become just another awful busy town to add to the list.

With the addition of so many houses, the value of our properties will plummet, I estimate around 50-60 percent. I personally know residents which rely on the property value as their pension, with the addition of four hundred houses, you are taking away their retirement fund, doing something like that is deplorable and completely inhuman.

Please take some time to think about what makes this area great, and why I still live here twenty years later.
06 Jan 2017 08:43
Deleted User Nothing else 06 Jan 2017 09:27
Next pageLast page