View Response

Response Details

Response Details
From Alan Butler
Date Started: 10 Feb 2017 13:10. Last modified: 10 Feb 2017 13:57
Status Complete
Response ID #520871

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
«No response»

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 support strongly Option 1
The Authority should not be seeking to extrapolate the Governments targets for further development nationwide as a specific direction to it to replicate it on a strictly proportionate basis .
Clause 3.13 is important and its impact and meaning should be carefully considered . It states , in terms , by reference to co-operation with other Councils that Authorities should not seek to follow national targets blindly .
The Authority's apparent desire to stick to the concept of " need " is flawed , and it is clearly the opinion of the Government that the desire to build further housing is not an " exceptional " circumstance . The Green Belts were created specifically to protect against this . Nor is an attempt to second guess the views of Planning Inspectors of any justification to override the boundaries .
Affordability is a noble aim , but it is considered doubtful thay increasing the number of affordable homes brings down prices . It actually means that , in already over-priced areas , the prices of affordable homes actually increases ( the M25 traffic volume Syndrome )

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
The Green Belt was created to stop encroaching development . That is its whole purpose ; its fundamental rationale . If it made sense when created , it is relevant even more so today . If the Authority considers it needs more development , it should be much more imaginative in considering how this can be done ( with relevant high grade advice ) and not simply give in to the soft option

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
There are no " appropriate exceptional circumstances " ( apparently a " given " , which it is not ) . This format has the sole intention of " leading the witness "

The assumption made by the phrase " Given " ( again ! ) " the expected levels of demand for land " highlights the problem with the Authority's approach .
What is the " given expectation " except as assumed by the Authority ? ; from whom is the demand coming ? Developers ? ; and even if bona fide demand is there at any particular level , why simply surrender the Green Belt as a solution ? This is sloppy thinking . The whole point of a Green Belt is to stop this . There are too many vested interests here .

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 don't know of any such sites . What a question .

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
I don't consider other areas should be removed .

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
That is for independant experts to advise

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
«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
I do not so think

19

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

I don't know

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
Yes , but on an appropriate level only , and only to enhance and protect those facilities as presently available

21a

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

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

Please explain your answer
To protect the character and viability of those local cetres

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
Retail should be encouraged to protect and enhance the character of these outlets . Blank frontages kill retail .

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
Obviously in exactly the same way that the Green Belt should be protected and largely for the same reasons .

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
For the same reason

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
Not only appropriate but vital . It is all part of the same concern to protect the environment , and in this case irreplaceable assets

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
I don't know what the Council's approach is . However , if you are asking simply is design and character important , obviously , yes . How could a Council be heard to say that it does not consider design and character ?

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
I don't understand the question . It is institutional - speak, and , on the face of it , meaningless .

30

Are there other approaches we should consider?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

Please explain your answer
All approaches , as with consideration of Green Belt protection

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?

None . They should not be developed

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?

Road maintenance , traffic calming , and banning bicycles from narrow busy roads e.g. Copsem Lane

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.

 

Stand back and consider what is at stake . Once gone , valuable assets such as Green Belt never return

34. Files

«No files»