View Response

Response Details

Response Details
From Deleted User
Date Started: 09 Jan 2017 08:55. Last modified: 24 Jan 2017 11:03
Status Complete
Response ID #514510

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
• To retain the quality of life for existing residents in Elmbridge
• To address infrastructure requirements
• To resolve the transport congestion in our area – Cobham/Stoke d'Abernon/Oxshott have severe constraints due to enclosure by A3/M25
• To avoid further development on our Green Belt
• To avoid further urbanisation and in-fill
• To maintain the environment and avoid further pollution
• Elmbridge has already stated previously that a central part of its core strategy is to protect the Green Belt and this should remain an absolute
• To take account of the value of green spaces for the recreation of local people

2

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

 

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don’t know

Please explain your answer
• To retain the quality of life for existing residents in Elmbridge
• To resolve the transport congestion in our area - Cobham/Stoke d'Abernon/Oxshott have severe constraints due to enclosure by A3/M25
• To avoid further development on our Green Belt
• To avoid further urbanisation and in-fill
• To maintain the environment and avoid further pollution

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 quality of life for residents
• Infrastructure – schools, GPs, etc.
• Infrastructure – currently the traffic congestion and roads in Cobham/Stoke d'Abernon and Oxshott are unable to cope with current levels of traffic
• Urbanisation – increasing encroachment into the Green Belt
• Pollution – levels already unacceptably high given A3 & M25 proximity
• Erosion of environment and not protecting natural habitat
• Provision for the elderly
• Catering for the health of the current population

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?
I would like to register my strong opposition to any development in the Green Belt around Cobham.

The infrastructure in and around Cobham is already at breaking point and there is absolutely no justification to build large scale developments on green belt land around Cobham as this would result in a massive reduction in the quality of life for all existing residents.

• Object to the fact that the questionnaire does not provide the opportunity to select either of the other options or provide a "do nothing" option
• We disagree that the provision of housing is an Exceptional Circumstance that will allow the destruction of our Green Belt and heritage
• We understand that the Council's own figures show that only 50% of the housing planned would be needed by Elmbridge residents
• Once the Green Belt has been taken away it will NEVER be regained. This will result in encroachment of countryside and removal of green spaces
• The Council has not sufficiently explained or justified why it cannot build on brownfield land and a thorough assessment of brownfield sites should be the first priority
• Increased urbanisation of the more major urban areas in the borough. The Council should seek to develop social/affordable housing near to the major sources of employment and nearer to better service provision
• Opportunities should be explored near to established fast transport links with easy transport access. An example would be the fast Woking/Walton/Esher line
• Building social/ affordable housing in Parcel 14 and Parcel 20 is very unrealistic - this is one of the most expensive parts of Elmbridge and placing social/ affordable housing in this area will not meet the needs of those folks who need easy access to job opportunities and good public transport links, neither of which exist in this area
• The Council has not demonstrated that it has sufficiently explored options with neighbouring boroughs

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
• National Guidelines state that "unmet housing need is not a justification"
• The Consultation Documents state that Green Belt boundaries should only be adjusted "with the support of local people". The Council does not have this
• The Alternative Options paper does not demonstrate that the Council has given due consideration to other options e.g. Urban intensification, working with other councils
• The Strategic Options paper has only explored 3 parcels of so called weakly performing Green Belt. The work should have been completed at a much lower level. Who is to say that the next levels of your identified weakly performing Green Belt Parcels are not more suitable and have more developable areas
• We believe that the Council is taking the easy way out in targeting Green Belt and should re-focus on brownfield sites. Consideration should be given to increasing the densities on these sites.

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
• Methodology and assessment is subjective and flawed. Inconsistency with the scoring and categorisation across all the parcels of land

Strongly disagree with Parcel 14 (Knowle Hill Park, north Blundel Lane) being included for the following reasons:
• This Green Belt currently prevents the merger of "neighbouring" areas of Stoke d'Abernon and Oxshott
• Cobham, Stoke d'Abernon and Oxshott are distinct communities – EBC's own Flood Risk Assessment recognises them as separate entities
• The Green Belt Review scoring is wrong – parcel 14 is only 2.5% built on and therefore should be 4 or 5 not 2.
• Description of Parcel 14 as "semi-urban" is very subjective and patently untrue – it is semi-rural.
• Description of Parcel 14 as having "weak links" to the strongly performing parcel 10 is untrue and solely due to Blundel Lane and the railway line
• Previous owners of the Knowle Hill Park area had higher protection than Green Belt (via a section 52 agreement). This was removed by the Council – there is no justification for why this has changed
• Infrastructure, particularly roads would not cope
• Parcel 20 acts as a vital separation between Cobham and Esher
• It protects against ribbon development along the Portsmouth Road (A307)
• The Common Land and Site of Special Scientific Interest in this area must be protected
• Development on such a large scale would change the character of Cobham and damage local community cohesion
• The infrastructure couldn't cope
• The Green Belt Review undervalues this land which has only 4.6% built structures on it.

Strongly disagree with Parcel 20 (next to Portsmouth Road, Cobham) being included for the following reasons:
• Parcel 20 acts as a vital separation between Cobham and Esher
• It protects against ribbon development along the Portsmouth Road (A307)
• The Common Land and Site of Special Scientific Interest in this area must be protected
• Development on such a large scale would change the character of Cobham and damage local community cohesion
• The infrastructure couldn't cope The Green Belt Review undervalues this land which has only 4.6% built structures on it.

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
• I believe that this is the responsibility of the Council and would request that details of further options be provided. If the Council has not fully evaluated all the other options in these three areas it clearly must do so.
• I believe that the Council's approach to only detail the largest three land masses is simplistic and erroneous. The actual amount of developable land is a more relevant and critical component.

Parcel 14 (Knowle Hill Park and north of Blundel Lane, Stoke d'Abernon):
• topography next to Blundel Lane is steep, flood risk and was also a landfill site – so unsuitable for development
• has a Scout Camp which is widely used not just by Elmbridge but also by neighbouring boroughs including Kingston. Historic memorial present
• has a number of Ancient Woodlands
• has a lake at the top of it and springs around the lower levels and floods
• has clay work mine shafts and underground bunkers used during the Second World War

Parcel 20 (next to Portsmouth Road, Cobham):
• No part of Parcel 20 is suitable for development
• There are allotments on Parcel 20 which constrain development
• Cobham RFC has a very long lease on part of the land

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
• We believe that urban regeneration is the way forward and that more joined up thinking and cooperation across boundaries is required in order to find an optimum solution
• The Council has admitted it has not assessed the viability or contribution of the moderately performing sites and this seems an oversight that must be urgently corrected
• Providing infrastructure for the three identified sites is considerably more complex and expensive than linking one larger site in a logistically better positioned area
• Any plan of this complexity cannot be considered in isolation and hence we fundamentally disagree with an approach that just singles out housing
• It is worth reiterating that housing is NOT an exceptional circumstance to remove Green Belt and does not meet with the majority support of the residents

• We must also strongly object and put on the record that the nature of the questions is in our opinion manipulative and self-serving seeking to justify the Council's recommendations and is thus not consultative but merely ticking boxes

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
• Yes. But we believe smaller sized houses are feasible in existing urban areas and that a more joined up thinking and cooperation across boundaries is required in order to find an optimum solution
• Urban renewal and regeneration continues to be of higher priority and we believe the Council should be seeking to further identify and invest in brownfield sites. Increased density in such areas will allow for the provision of smaller, more affordable homes

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
• Market forces will determine size of houses required to be built

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
• Creative design should be used to maximise the opportunity with these developments.

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
Parcel 14 (Knowle Hill Park and next to Blundel Lane, Stoke d'Abernon):
• With regard to Parcel 14 – the semi-rural nature, the topography of the land and the existing housing in the surrounding area
• Economics of building social/affordable housing in an area that is one of the most expensive in Elmbridge is unrealistic
• Infrastructure totally insufficient
• Moving from the current 8 hpd to the proposed 40 or 60 is quite totally out of keeping with the current environment

Parcel 20 (next to Portsmouth Road, Cobham):
• Infrastructure totally insufficient
• Will adversely affect air quality in a heavily polluted area

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
• Do not believe Parcels 14 or 20 should be developed. The analysis is subjective and flawed

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
• A blanket approach to the challenge around development of affordable housing regardless of the quality of life and/or environmental impact is not the right way to go. Each area is different and there needs to be some accurate science behind the proposed development of each site in the Borough

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
• Mixed residential/retail/small business developments are very viable and effective
• Mixed residential/retail/small business developments are the norm in many other countries in Europe and have proven successful.
• Mixed residential/retail/small business developments are likely to draw the required talent/labour resources to the strategic employment areas in the Borough and do so in a more affordable manner

17

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

• Complete flexibility and open mindedness

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?

• None

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
• Adds to an already over congested area

21a

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

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

Please explain your answer
There should be a focus on mixed residential/retail/small business developments in these areas.
Mixed residential/retail/small business developments are the norm in many other countries in Europe and have proven successful.
Mixed residential/retail/small business developments are likely to draw the required talent/labour resources to the strategic employment areas in the Borough and do so in a more affordable manner

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
There should be a focus on mixed residential/retail/small business developments in these areas.
Mixed residential/retail/small business developments are the norm in many other countries in Europe and have proven successful.
Mixed residential/retail/small business developments are likely to draw the required talent/labour resources to the strategic employment areas in the Borough and do so in a more affordable manner

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
• Flexible usage of urban/high street areas should be encouraged.

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.

 

I have just read the Elmbridge Council Local Plan dated December 2016. As a long term resident of the Cobham area I am appalled that consideration is being given to building a large number of new homes on the following sites, both of which are very close to where I live

a) North of Blundell Lane in the Knowle Hill Park, Fairmile Park, and the Polyapes (Scout Camp) area, and the area of land up to the "Brickpit" pond which includes a number of designated "Ancient Woodland Areas".

b) Chippings Farm and the Fairmile between the Portsmouth Road and the A3

It would appear that the council have no regard for the quality of life of the current residents in Cobham, an area which already has woefully inadequate infrastructure, schooling and health care for the existing residents let alone for thousands more !!

A journey from one side of Cobham to the other now regularly takes 15 mins to cover less than 2 miles and at peak times of the day can take 40 mins !!!

In addition the proposed developments are both on areas designated as Green Belt and as such should not even be being considered for any sort of development

I did attempt to complete the consultation questionnaire but it is both ridiculously long, full of wooly statements and terminology which normal people simply can not understand so I gave up and wrote the mail above.

34. Files

«No files»