View Response

Response Details

Response Details
From 1981 (Oliver Bath)
Date Started: 22 Feb 2017 10:25. Last modified: 22 Feb 2017 10:56
Status Complete
Response ID #523413

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
Elmbridge council have stated that keeping our green belt is a central part to it's beliefs and strategy + the government pledges in the 2015 manifest that we are to be the first generation to keep the environment better than we found it. We need to maintain the quality of life for existing Elmbridge residents.

2

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

 

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don’t know

Please explain your answer
We really need to think about the value green belt spaces add for local people. The recreation spaces are at the core of this community. Due to insignificant infrastructure congestion will be a major problem.

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
Keep the Green belt to keep our borough rich in open recreational spaces. The existing pollution levels are already unacceptable given proximity to the A309/A3/25.

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?
We are NOT provided with enough information on the other two options to make a proper choice. The other options are presented as ‘scenarios’ rather than realistic options. The options have not been presented equally and, therefore, unable to agree that Option two. I also disagree with benefits outlines for option two. Also, option two involves declassifying Green Belt land to make way for development. Once the Green Belt has been taken away we will never ever get it back!!!!. As per CPRE London Media Release Feb 2017 “developers already have
rafts of land to choose from, much of which already has planning permission. Land supply is categorically not the issue here. We do not need to release Green Belt.”

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
As per the National Guidelines state that “unmet housing need is NOT a justification” to remove land from the Green Belt. Therefore, the provision of housing is NOT an exceptional circumstance that will
allow the destruction of Green Belt and heritage. Surely this is sufficient??? Also, there is clearly not enough evidence to suggest that the Council has given due consideration to other options

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
I strongly disagree with area 58 being included fort these reasons.
-It forms a VITAL part of the green lung entry into Elmbridge...without it we're a sprawling metropolis with poor planning and no regard for quality of life.
-This area DOES meet the purposes of Green Belt by preventing neighbouring towns/villages from merging into one another. Without it, Hinchley Wood and Long Ditton Village mergeinto one completely, which in turn then merge into Hook and Tolworth. It performs a vital
function and should never have scored a ‘1’ (out of 5) for this purpose.
-As part of the Green Belt, it provides valuable open space for the local community - dog walkers, runners, school seasonally based field trips, etc, and is a well-loved and well-used space. Without Green Belt status, this entire area would be available for development, which
would deprive the local community of this valuable asset. Further enhancement should be looked at to secure this important open space, rather than development opportunities
-It's a nature reserve as well.

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 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.

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 should be protected and once gone it's gone for good. This would be very sad. Again, government manifesto pledge to protect the greenbelt should be adhered to. I strongly believe that th brownfield site need to be fully considered as an alternative. Unmet housing needs is not an exceptional circumstance to remove land from our Green Belt.

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
«No response»

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
In relation to area 58 - Again, infrastructure is insufficient. Council says it's committed to sustainable development. Will adversely affect our air quality. Why not build social housing closer to sources of employment??

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
I DO NOT believe Areas 58, 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
«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
«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
«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?

Mixed residential/retail/small business developments will draw the required talent/labour resources to the strategic employment areas in the Borough and do so in a more affordable manner.

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?

Current infrastructure - schools, doctors rooms, shops etc. Consider roads, rail roads, parking. Providing infrastructure for the 3 identified sites is considerably harder than linking one larger site in a logistically better positioned area.

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.

 

This new Local Plan (Strategic Options Consultation document) contains numerous flaws and inconsistencies. The methodology is subjective and flawed. The entire premise of the consultation rests on the requirement to build 9,480 new homes. The probability of this forecast being correct needs to be understood – is it enough to remove Green
Belt status forever? Particularly in light of the Government's concerns around the lack of a standard methodology to assess housing need. It would be a very very sad day if this went ahead.

34. Files

«No files»