View Response

Response Details

Response Details
From James Chowne
Date Started: 08 Jan 2017 20:09. Last modified: 28 Jan 2017 11:44
Status Complete
Response ID #514480

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
Section 2.2 states "A key feature of the urban area in Elmbridge is the relatively low-density character within many of its settlements....further enhanced by the significant open spaces that provide space for recreation and leisure as well as providing key breaks in the urban character.". Maintaining this should be the key priority and this should outrank any other factors.

2

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

 

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don’t know

Please explain your answer
One of the nice things about Elmbridge is the open spaces and low density housing. This should be a key element to maintain and protect. New development should focus on family, detatched housing to maintain the low population density. Affordable and 1-3 bed dwellings should be concentrated in areas where higher dwelling density is already accepted and part of the planning environment such as Kingston and Walton.

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
Maintaining open spaces and low housing density should be the most important as it is this that gives Elmbridge its character and differentiates it. This should be protected.

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?
All greenbelt and open spaces should be protected. If any development is required this should be in urban areas like Walton and Kingston as those areas have already been changed from the natural environment. An increase in density in those areas is preferable to the inexcusable further destruction of countryside and existing open spaces.

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
Low affordability of housing is a result of high desirability of Elmbridge as a place to live. Building many more houses would significantly change the environment and cause unacceptable damage to the borough. The current mix of housing is appropriate for the area and combined with the open spaces should not be changed as this would be to the detriment of the feel of the local environment.

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
Local area 58 should remain as Green Belt as it is one of the few places in Hinchley Wood to go for a countryside walk. It is an essential part of the local environment and prevents the area becoming overdeveloped which would significantly alter the feel of the area to the detriment of local residents. The area is also an essential habitat for local wildlife and Green Belt status has prevented this from being destroyed.

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
«No response»

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
All Green Belt land should be protected.

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
The current size and supply of housing is appropriate for the area and changing this would be to the detriment of the local environment.

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
I do not object to a density of 40-80 dwellings per hectare in very exceptional circumstances and only in current very high density areas where the urban environment would not be damaged such as train stations, the very centre of towns already with high housing density and industrial parks. All other areas of Green Belt and existing open spaces should be protected from development.

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
No development should be carried out on Green Belt land. Any new development in non urban areas should be low density, family detailed housing with large open spaces to be in keeping with surrounding properties.

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
«No response»

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
To concentrate on providing family homes with large outdoor space and maintenance of green, open spaces for the enjoyment of future generations and to encourage healthy, active lifestyles by protecting playing fields and school grounds.

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
Offices, warehouses and factories are already urban areas and should be turned into housing before developing Green Belt land. In particular, unused business sites should be targeted for residential dwellings.

17

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

A high degree of flexibility should be allowed. High density housing e.g. flats could be built on an old factory site without significantly altering the local environment.

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?

The race track should be protected.

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
On racing or event days the increased traffic in the area is unacceptable and is a serious impediment to other businesses and the local environment with increased vehicle emissions and pollution.

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
If extra residential dwellings are required, existing urban sites such as under used retail areas should be changed to housing before developing Green Belt land.

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
This is essential to maintain the Elmbridge environment and character and to encourage healthy, active lifestyles by maintaining recreational grounds and school playing fields.

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
By maintaining a low housing density, levels of transport pollution will also be kept low.

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?

More school places, protection of school playing field land, more regular train service & higher capacity. More dense housing would put a significant strain on road traffic which is already high at peak times.

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?

There are no improvements that could compensate for the irreversible change to the local environment and loss of existing green, open spaces.

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.

 

Consider building housing on strips adjacent to railways as this land has already been changed from the natural environment. By building along a strip this will prevent the endless outward development of the countryside and therefore stick to the objective of the Green Belt.

34. Files

«No files»