View Response

Response Details

Response Details
From John Millward
Date Started: 12 Jan 2017 16:01. Last modified: 12 Jan 2017 16:01
Status Complete
Response ID #515864

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
«No response»

2

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

 

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don’t know

Please explain your answer
Existing infrastructure shortfalls eg inadequate bus services, provision for cycling and the condition of the roads. Also Cobham health centre seems overloaded.

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
Improving the provision for cycling as if people feel safe to cycle , more will do so which will help local traffic volumes.

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?
«No response»

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
Whilst Elmbridge is unlikely to be able to accomodate ALL the projected need for additional housing, we must be seen to make an effort. There is a particular shortage of smaller houses and a higher proportion of folk needing such houses are likely to work locally. However there is an inadequate supply of brownfield sites so it is logical to use a small part of the local green belt.

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
The proposed parcels are correctly classified as weak contributors to the green belt. There is no need for them to be part of it bearing in mind that the parts that currently enjoy other protections (eg common land, ancient woodland, SSSI) will continue to enjoy these protections. The proposed sites are convenient for at least some form of transport which minimises journey times and mileage.

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 do not know of specific sites but I believe that any part of the three areas which do not have other protections (eg ancient woodland) should be considered as possible development sites. Chippings farm has previously submitted planning applications and is a fairly large site.

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
Small green belt boundary changes where the current boundary is not serving any green belt purpose should be considered on a case by case basis. However these would only provide sites for maybe one or two houses.
I cannot identify any areas of the Elmbridge green belt (other than the three already identified) which could be removed to provide larger development sites without impacting the effectiveness of the green belt (eg in terms of separation of settlements).

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
It is likely that Elmbridge will always have more larger houses than the average across the South East, however in recent years Elmbridge has become even more imbalanced. We should try to move the pendulum back to some extent.

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
Normally I am reluctant to interfere in market mechanisms as such actions often backfire with unexpected and unintended consequences. However in this case I feel some influence is needed. This could perhaps be achieved by publicising that applications to develop smaller housing will be looked on more favourably than applications for larger housing.
However this should not extend to extensions or single unit new build applications.

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
Suggest aim for a density of above 60 DPH in the middle of Walton (which is Elmbridge's only truly urban area).
Railway stations in Elmbridge other than Walton are in semi rural/suburban/village areas and should have a density of around 40 -50DPH as greater density would greatly change the character of the surrounding areas.

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
For the two areas in Cobham, a mixture of semi detached houses, town houses and small blocks of flats (<12 flats per block and no more than 3 storeys) should give a density of around 60DPH which would increase delivery without unduly affecting the area.

I cannot comment on the Long Ditton area as I am not familiar with it.

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
please the answer to 12a 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
Many Elmbridge sites will be less than 10 units. Obtaining the contribution has not been a problem to date, probably because prices in Elmbridge are so high. If the greater proportion of smaller houses means that profitability is lower and developers are not interested to develop identified sites, then this policy should be revisited.

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
Yes, providing the definition of warehousing includes trade and retain counters (eg in a plumbers merchant or electrical supply company) and that "factories" includes such as automotive workshops.

17

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

The policy should be reviewed if the number of unlet units in these areas rises significantly.

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
To create more employment, it would be worth some incursion into this part of the green belt however I would not support removing the whole of area 25 from the green belt.

19

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

Road access especially the A245 is a serious constraint. Also some of this area has flooded in the recent past.

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
Sandown is a great venue but its facilities are a little tired. Refurbishing them /upgrading them or even re-building them would raise the standard of the venue and attract more premium paying customers both as events hosts and attendees.

21a

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

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

Please explain your answer
Elmbridge has sufficient retail in out of centre parks already wheras some high streets are not thriving.

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
As an aim, this is laudable, however if it results in significant numbers of vacant shops then the policy should be reviewed. It should be reviewed on a settlement by settlement basis; one policy may well not be suitable for all Elmbridge settlements.

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
As people cluster around town/village centres (especially older people) it is important to give them access to as many of the facilities they need as possible. however sufficient parking must be available for those who do not live in walking/cycling distance of the town centre.

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
However, the devil is in the detail and varies from location to location.

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
Significant local data and ongoing research is needed to provide comprehensive advice. It should be part of an overall flood risk assessment as larger developments pose a bigger threat. The assessment needs updating regularly and after any large development.

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
I agree with most of the policy except maximum parking provision. Max parking provision is appropriate in a town centre (Walton is the only settlement in Elmbridge that falls into this category). Otherwise, parked cars clog up the surrounding areas creating traffic bottlenecks and frustrating residents. This sort of restriction is only practical when genuine, viable alternative forms of transport to the car are actually available (and not just planned or promised).

30

Are there other approaches we should consider?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

Please explain your answer
Fleixble minibus based services (dial-a-ride?)

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?

Schools, roads, public transport, medical (local services and GPs).

Also consideration needs to taken of services provided outside Elmbridge (eg hospitals). Adding 9480 Houses across Elmbridge will affect these services too.

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?

WRT the two Cobham areas:
Expand Cobham Health centre which is excellent but will become more overloaded.
Ensure that it is possible to cycle and walk to Cobham village and the station safely, by providing sufficiently wide pavements and paths.

I cannot comment on Long Ditton .

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.

 

«No response»

34. Files

«No files»