Online Response Form

Responses

List of answers to the specified question
NameOptionTextDate
Anne Stevens 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.
15 Mar 2017 11:52
Cobham CAAC (David Taylor) 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.
28 Feb 2017 12:06
Elizabeth Wilcox 1. We are constantly trying to help & promote the local wildlife which is already in danger due to heavy traffic down 7 Hills Road.
2. I underline the importance of keeping the present eco-system intact & encourage all political parties to keep this at the forefront of their future planning.
14 Mar 2017 10:00
Gill Money • 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 is given with the proposals for the Cobham & Stoke d’Abernon proposals of access to jobs and employment. There are limited employment opportunities in the immediate area as opposed to exploring options in Walton or Weybridge
• The discussion in the options paper focusses on the economics of building lower cost housing on areas of Elmbridge (parcels 14 and 20) that are focused on high value homes. How would EBC fund the development of Social housing on such expensive sites?
• 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, or whatever will replace them once the UK leaves the EU.
• 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 to this level 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.
16 Feb 2017 17:36
Hugh Singer • 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.
23 Feb 2017 14:37
Jane Beaumont I have just had my attention drawn to his proposal and want to register my strong objection to it. This long corridor of green land plays a large part in the overall atmosphere of this area; added to which Queens Road is well used and narrow in parts where traffic builds at peak times, making a large development seem unsuitable even before taking into consideration the strain already put on schools and health services in the area.

I hope this proposal is rejected and that the area can be allowed to hold on to the atmosphere that made it attractive to its residents in the first place.
24 Feb 2017 11:33
Jane Carr -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 Strategic Consultation paper contains numerous flaws and inconsistencies. The methodology is subjective and flawed

-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 other options.

- 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.
16 Mar 2017 13:54
Jean Barker Ove Arup many consider Green Belt Area 58 is weakly performing but how can this be? It has protected Hook, Long Ditton and Hinchley Wood becoming one conurbation - thus preventing 'urban sprawl'. It has remained 'green' and 'undeveloped', thus collectively confirming three of the five government definitions for Green Belt status.
One wonders, given the multi-national operations of the ARUP organisation, if their conclusions have taken into account their severe lack of local knowledge when conducting this exercise. I would add to the detriment of the local resident in this Green Belt Area 58.
24 Feb 2017 12:52
John Baker 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.
08 Mar 2017 13:47
John Cooney There have been strong rumours locally that the Emberside Recreation Ground had been de-listed as a protected plot in the Green Belt, that the EBC had designated it for use for house building, and that there was a consultation exercise on the matter, with a deadline of 24 February for response.. Unable to obtain any further details from the source of this information, I spoke on 14 February to Mr Michael Corbett of the Planning Policy Department. He proved to be very helpful and patient in explaining to me that no such decision had been taken, nor was under consideration, and in he circumstances it was unlikely that the matter might arise. Mr Cobett was kind enough to send me the computer links for the voluminous EBC papers on the housing strategy, and one on Elmbridge Open Spaces, neither of which made reference to the rumoured decision re the Emberside site! If however, there is a consultation exercise involving local residents, with a deadline of 24 February, I would be grateful for a copy of, or computer reference for such an exercise.

As far as the Emberside Recreation Ground is concerned, it is a highly prized facility locally, and many local residents would be very unhappy at the prospect of its loss. It has always been, over the 40 years that I have lived here, a treasured place for families, as much of it is preserved as a meadow, and attracts many creatures of fascination to adults and children alike. There is a wide variety of birds rarely seen nowadays in our suburban sprawl, including aquatic species such as swans, herons, kingfishers, mallards, mandarin ducks, moorhens, coots, and many other species, as well as birds of all varieties including the African green parrots, which seem to have adopted the secluded spaces in Surrey for their haunts. Migratory birds, en route to their next destination flock to this site as a resting and gathering point on their onward journey, and the trees black with huge flocks of birds arriving and taking off again, have always been a thrilling sight for children, now that the common domestic birds are sadly disppearing from these areas. Field mice, squirrels, moles, hedgehogs and foxes are still to be seen, as well as the occasional adder. Even butterflies and bees are becoming a rare sight in domestic gardens, but still survive in Emberside, attracted by the wild flowers. Some are able to attract them back into our gardens by leaving a garden area full of wild flowers to act as a meadow. Our riverside is a regular haunt for anglers, and fish and fresh water mussels are still to be found. Most of all it is a safe place for children to experience a taste of the countryside, which has vanished from their lives elsewhere, and for dogs to exercise. Despite all this it is still a part of the flood zone, and in heavy rain, turns into a large lake until the local water table goes down.

If it ever came to a point where this park came under consideration to be sacrificed for building, I would like to think that the EBC would be able to more suitable sites, such as the unused fringes of some of our many golf courses, and other sites where access and enjoyment are available to only the privileged few.
20 Feb 2017 11:54
Next pageLast page