View Response

Response Details

Response Details
From Yoko Crow
Date Started: 24 Feb 2017 09:46. Last modified: 24 Feb 2017 09:46
Status Complete
Response ID #524276

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 has already stated previously that a central part of its core strategy is to protect the Green Belt and this should remain an absolute. Also, Cobham/Stoke d’Abernon/Oxshott have severe constraints due to enclosure by A3/M25. To maintain the environment andavoid further pollution

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.

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.
Pollution –levels already unacceptably high given A3 & M25 proximity.
Pollution –levels already unacceptably high given A3 & M25 proximity.

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?
- Object to the fact that the questionnaire doesnot provide the opportunity to select either of the other options or provide a “do nothing” option
- Propose that Option 1 (increased urbanisation) should be the most appropriate 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

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 Consultation Documents state that Green Belt boundaries should only be adjusted “with the support of local people”. The Council does not have this.
-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
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
-We believe this should be subject to review and independent audit verification as insufficient weighting has been given to the points detailed below:
i.Ancient woodlands are present on Parcel 14. These need to be
surrounded with buffer zones and wildlife corridors
ii.The verified presence of Greater Crested Newts which are protected
by both U.K. and EU legislation.
iii.It is also a natural habitat for bats, beetles, adders, buzzards, deer,
hedgehogsand owls.
iv.Knowle Hill Park as its name suggests is on a hill and the presence of
a flood plain at the bottom of the hill has not been recognised or scored
v.We also maintain these are actually Absolute Constraints and need to
be recognised and scored as such

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.This would result in a score of 3 or 4.
-The area provides a habitat for a variety of wildlife, rare birds, 6 types of
reptiles and insects such as the silver studded blue butterfly Plebejusargus found on the Esher common SSSI site

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
We believe that this is the responsibility of the Counciland would request that details of further options be provided. If the Councilhas not fully evaluated all the other options in these three areas it clearly must do so.

We 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
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

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
Density depends on many factors so a definitive answer is subjective.

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
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

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 Parcels14 or 20 should be developed. The analysisis 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.

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?

«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
There should be a focus on mixed residential/retail/small business developments in these areas.

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.

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
Green spaces provide the “green lungs” to counter the increasing urbanisation.

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?

Opportunities should be explored near to established fast transport links with easy transport access. An example would be the fast Woking/Walton/Esher line

Providing infrastructure for the three identified sites is considerably more
complex and expensive than linking one larger site in a logistically better
positioned area

Current infrastructure and services are already not fit for purpose.

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.

 

Entire premise of the consultation rests on the requirement to build 9480 new homes. The probability of this forecast being correct needs to be understood –is it enough to remove Green Belt status forever?

34. Files

«No files»