View Response

Response Details

Response Details
From Deleted User
Date Started: 15 Jan 2017 20:07. Last modified: 23 Feb 2017 16:15
Status Complete
Response ID #516267

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
I think one of the primary challenges is the lack of school places for existing residents. Equally we chose to live in Elmbridge (and paid a premium for doing so), because we like the location, environment, style of housing and typical residents. By introducing a lot of affordable housing on to green belt land will undermine many of the reasons I chose to live in this area. Additionally I am not sure that I want a lot of industrial plots in Elmbridge.

2

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

 

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don’t know

Please explain your answer
Lack of school places to meet expected demand.

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
«No response»

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 disagree with the assessment of weekly performing land. My main issue is with the proposed Hinchley Wood/Long Ditton development, not the Fairmile or other planned location. The Greenbelt in Area 58 has for a long time fulfilled one of its key purposes, ie to divide and separate Hinchley Wood from Hook and prevent urban sprawl. It continues to serve this purpose very strongly, not weakly. It is a leafy entrance to the borough. To allow further housing/development on this green belt would fundamentally alter the area's characteristics, style etc, let alone increase road noise and air pollution.

Just try approaching the Hook roundabout or the A3 at rush hour - additional traffic would make the situation even worse. It would also put more traffic on the road near a major crossing for the Hinchley Wood schools. Cars already drive too fast down the dual carriage way.

The demand for schooling means existing local schools (which have already been expanded too much) would simply not be able to cope with the scale of the proposed development of the land in Long Ditton and Hinchley Wood. Claygate Lane and surrounding roads are already a nightmare and at times impassable due to sheer level of traffic and parking for the school.

I do however support the Fairmile development. There are already plans for the Cobham freeschool on the other side of the road so the development in Cobham would make sense and it is very close to the A3.

Some alternative suggestions which I think would be even better locations would be re-classifying the industrial areas in West Molesey and Hersham. These would be preferable to re-developing green-belt. Alternatively re-developing the the Painshill area which is right on the A3 junction or even the Silvermere Golf Club area, although I would introduce/improve road access to the A3/M25. Another alternative would be to allow 'higher developments along the water front' in places like Walton.

I believe the Hinchley Wood development is a poor recommendation that will be a blight on the current environment including the nature reserve, open fields and frankly what makes Elmbridge open, green and leafy. The proposed Hinchley Wood and Long Ditton housing development would simply be too crowded, break existing infrastructure already under strain with worst to come as population grows and will be a case of 'over development'.

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
No, I do not believe the reasons given are sufficiently 'exceptional' to allow the development on green belt, especially in Hinchley Wood/Area 58 which I believe is performing strongly.

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
As per my previous comments I disagree fundamentally that Area 58 is weakly performing. It is absolutely doing what it was designed to do, ie prevent urban sprawl and separate Hinchley Wood from Hook. It also is a primary entry point to Elmbridge and its open space reflects the character of the borough. To build on this, ignores that the greenbelt land is performing well, and would fundamentally change the environment, overstretch existing infrastructure, increase noise and air pollution and would potentially result in the loss of key local resources/amenities including the local nature reserve, hockey club, allotments, etc. We use the area for Dog Walks. I already can't get a seat on the train from Hinchley Wood - what will happen with even more houses. Nor can I get a timely appointment with a doctor. Services would be stretched to thin.

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 think the Fairmile development has some merit.

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
As per my earlier comments, I think there is some potential to redevelop areas directly around the Cobham A3 roundabout (although additional road access might be required). This could include Painshill Park, Silvermere Golf Club or the old San Domenico site (which has laid empty for years and years). The reason I suggest this is that a lot of traffic would be swiftly moved away on to the A3 or M25. I also think building of some higher (not high) rise appartments along the Thames eg approaching Walton would be good. I also think re-classifying the industrial areas in West Molesey and Hersham would greatly improve these locations.

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
We chose to live in Elmbridge for a reason. Too much social/affordable housing may fundamentally change the community feel. Can the council fund housing development elsewhere in the country? Surrey County Council already does this with industrial warehouses etc.

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
52 dwellings per hectare

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 response»

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
«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
I think some conversion of factories and warehousing to housing would be a good thing.

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
Do lots of people visit Painshill Park, could part of it be redeveloped for housing?

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
Some alternative suggestions which I think would be even better locations would be re-classifying the industrial areas in West Molesey and Hersham. These would be preferable re-developing green-belt. Alternatively re-developing the the Painshill area which is right on the A3 junction or even the Silvermere Golf Club area, although I would introduce/improve road access to the A3/M25. Another alternative would be to allow 'higher developments along the water front' in places like Walton.

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, doctors surgeries, train capacity, open/green spaces.

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 think focusing on areas around the A3 Cobham/M25 interchange would be best. This would inevitably require investment in roads, but would also allow any additional traffic to disperse easily.

Some alternative suggestions would be re-classifying the industrial areas in West Molesey and Hersham. Another alternative would be to allow 'higher developments along the water front' in places like Walton.

34. Files

«No files»