View Response

Response Details

Response Details
From A.B Cotterell
Date Started: 29 Dec 2016 08:59. Last modified: 24 Feb 2017 11:47
Status Complete
Response ID #512441

1

Agree that the challenges set out in section 2 of the consultation document are the key challenges facing Elmbridge?

 

  • Yes, I agree
  • No, I disagree
  • I don't Know

Please explain your answer
There many more issues to be considered than just house building.

2

Do you consider there are other challenges that we should be addressing?

 

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don’t know

Please explain your answer
Key to the future of Elmbridge, if it deserves to survive as a Borough, is the preservation of the environment, already under threat by back garden development. The only way forward in planning terms is to have higher density in brown field sites.

3

Do you consider any particular challenge or challenges that are more important than the others?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don’t know

Please explain your answer
The Green Belt has prevented Long Ditton being swallowed by Kingston overspill. To lose Area 58's present status would be an ecological disaster, turning the whole of the village into a continuous housing estate.

4

Agree that Option 2 is the most appropriate option?

  • Yes, I agree
  • No, I disagree
  • I don’t know

If you disagree, please explain why and what other option would you support and why?
Apart from the other options being poorly explained, the whole basis of 'weakly performing' Green Belt areas is unsound. There are no tangible benefits to Option 2, only unfortunate consequents for the quality of village life.

5

Do you consider the suggested exceptional circumstances are sufficient to support the amendment of the Green Belt boundary?

 

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don’t know

Please explain your answer
Without the support of Local people, there is no reason to adjust the Green Belt: in Long Ditton everyone I have spoken to is dead against any amendment to its status.

6

Agree that, given the appropriate exceptional circumstances, these three key strategic areas are appropriate for removal from the Green Belt?

 

  • Yes, I agree
  • No, I disagree
  • I don’t know

Please explain your answer
With reference to the recently published A New Local Plan, and in particular the section devoted to Long Ditton, we really must say as long-term residents that we find the suggestion of building new homes on the village's Green Belt quite unacceptable. It would swamp the community, place undue pressure on its already overloaded road system and be seriously detrimental to the quality of life of the inhabitants. Even more, any such development would effectively merge Long Ditton with the suburban sprawl of Kingston upon Thames, blurring Elmbridge's eastern boundary forever.

Your definition of 'weakly performing Green Belt' areas is dubious and unexplained. It seems to us that the Planning Policy Team has simply selected locations where it believes local opposition will be less determined. This will not, however, be the case with Long Ditton. It is in fact utterly inappropriate to even consider using the Green Belt area shown in Figure 8 since number 1 (the pavilion), 2 (the sports ground), 3 (the hockey club), 4 (the allotments), 5 (the cricket ground), 6 (the cemetery), 7 (Kisimal School), 10 (the manor house) and 11 (the local nature reserve) constitute Long Ditton's lung, in the very heart of the village itself.

It needs to be said that the field of 8 (Ditton Hill Farm and Nurseries) perform a similar function, although their proximity to the A309 makes this Green Belt area perhaps less critical.
If extra houses are to be built anywhere in Long Ditton, the only area which could reasonably be used is to the south, east and west of 9 (Squires Garden Centre). Development anywhere else on the village's Green Belt would be ecologically disastrous. There is little enough natural space for wildlife as it is. Further encroachment would turn Long Ditton into nothing more than a continuous housing estate. We have already observed a decline in the number of species in our own back garden, which we prefer to retain in order to allow some animals, birds and insects to survive.

We therefore oppose the loss of Green Belt in the village and especially the area to the north of 9 (Squires Garden Centre).

The Green Belt is something we lose at our peril, no matter housing pressure there is little enough space now for wildlife without more houses. Long Ditton needs to remain, in a protected area 58.

7

Do you know of any sites within any of the three key strategic areas that could be considered for future development?

 

  • Yes
  • No

Please explain your answer
Adding more houses would put undue pressure on local services - medical, educational and recreational - for no gain at all. If Elmbridge is not careful with Area 58, Kingston will soon make another bid to take over Long Ditton, Hinchley Wood, Claygate, even Esher. The present Green Belt is a buffer that we cannot afford to lose.

8

Do you consider that other areas of land should be removed from the Green Belt including those that are moderately or strongly performing?

 

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don’t know

Please explain your answer
Elmbridge should hold onto its Green Belt, not least because it is hardly extensive. Its character would been damaged otherwise.

9

Do you agree that we should seek to provide more of a balance in terms of the size of new homes being built?  

 

  • Yes, I agree
  • No, I disagree
  • Don’t know

Please explain your answer
«No response»

10

Given the over delivery of homes with 4 or more bedrooms should we try to limit their delivery in future?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don’t know

Please explain your answer
«No response»

11

Should we seek to increase minimum densities at sustainable locations in the urban areas, such as in town centres and at train stations, above 40 dwellings per hectare, where this would not impact on local character?

  • Yes (If yes, what density do you think would be appropriate?)
  • No
  • Don’t know

Please explain your answer
«No response»

12a

Within the three key strategic areas we will be exploring opportunities for accommodating our development needs taking into account site constraints, land ownership, compliance with other planning policies and the need to support sustainable development.  If potential housing sites are identified within these areas, do you consider it appropriate to

a. deliver at higher densities i.e. above 40 dwellings per hectare, in order to maximise delivery?

 

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

Please explain your answer
Just leave Area 58 alone for all the reasons previously given. It should remain open space for the benefit of local community.

12b

Within the three key strategic areas we will be exploring opportunities for accommodating our development needs taking into account site constraints, land ownership, compliance with other planning policies and the need to support sustainable development.  If potential housing sites are identified within these areas, do you consider it appropriate to:

b. Support lower density developments that maintain the open character of an area and reflects the surrounding character

 

 

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

Please explain your answer
As above.

13

Agree with our approach to continue to apply Policy CS21 of the Core Strategy e.g. consider on a case by case basis whether local circumstances are sufficient to warrant the requirement of affordable housing contributions on all sites where there is a net increase in housing and where it is viable?

 

  • Yes, I agree
  • No, I disagree
  • I don't know

Please explain your answer
«No response»

14

Are there any other aspects of Government policy which you think we should consider with regard to meeting the accommodation needs of non-travelling Travellers?

 

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

Please explain your answer
«No response»

15

Do you consider there to be any other specific housing needs that are an issue within Elmbridge and that we should seek to address as part of the new Local Plan?

 

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

Please explain your answer
«No response»

16

Do you agree that the Council should seek to protect our most important and strategic employment areas from redevelopment to uses other than offices, warehousing and factories?

 

  • Yes, I agree
  • No, I disagree
  • I don't know

Please explain your answer
«No response»

17

If not, what degree of flexibility do you consider would be appropriate with regard to alternative uses in such areas?

«No response»

18

Do you think that there are any exceptional circumstances that would support the amendment of the Green Belt boundary at Brooklands to support the further development of employment uses at this site?

 

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

Please explain your answer
«No response»

19

Other than Green Belt what other barriers do you consider could prevent further development at Brooklands?

«No response»

20

We will seek to maintain our broad support for tourism related development as set out in the Core Strategy. However, to recognise the importance of Sandown Park Racecourse as both a sporting and exhibition venue should we:

Encourage the redevelopment of Sandown Racecourse to provide improved and extended conference and hotel facilities?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

Please explain your answer
«No response»

21a

Maintain our policy of focussing new retail development to town and village centres?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

Please explain your answer
«No response»

21b

Continue to protect primary shopping areas from other uses as set out in the current Core Strategy?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

Please explain your answer
«No response»

21c

Consider allowing other important uses in primary high street shopping frontages such as doctor’s surgeries, dentists and libraries?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

Please explain your answer
«No response»

22

Should the Council continue to give a high level of protection to all open spaces and designate those spaces that meet the criteria for Local Green Spaces?

 

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

Please explain your answer
«No response»

23

Do you agree with our approach to biodiversity and mitigating the impact of new development on the Thames Basin Heaths habitat?

 

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

Please explain your answer
«No response»

24

Do you agree that our strategic and pro-active approach to supporting our heritage assets is appropriate?

  • Yes, I agree
  • No, I disagree
  • I don't know

Please explain your answer
«No response»

25

If not, what approach do you think we should take?

«No response»

26

Do you agree that the Council’s current approach to considering design and character is appropriate?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

Please explain your answer
«No response»

27

If not what approach do you think we should take?

«No response»

28

Should we look at including a policy providing more detailed advice on what is required to limit the cumulative impact of small scale development on flood risk?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

Please explain your answer
«No response»

29

Do you consider the existing policies seeking to reduce the impacts of new development with regard to delivering more sustainable travel patterns outlined above are still appropriate?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

Please explain your answer
«No response»

30

Are there other approaches we should consider?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

Please explain your answer
«No response»

31

What do you consider to be the essential infrastructure items required to support new communities e.g. the potential development of the 3 key strategic areas?

«No response»

32

What smaller infrastructure improvements do you think could be made within your local area to address some of the negative impacts arising from new development?

«No response»

33

We recognise that there may be other issues or options we have not considered that you would like to raise. If there are we would like to hear these and consider them as part for this consultation. Please use this space to write anything else you would like us to consider.

 

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.

34. Files

«No files»