View Response

Response Details

Response Details
From Wendy Tyreman
Date Started: 24 Feb 2017 11:26. Last modified: 24 Feb 2017 12:58
Status Complete
Response ID #524368

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
Fundamentally you are trying to accommodate an increase in population and your proposals require you to be accurate in your predictions. I do not know how you have come to your conclusions about future demand but if it is inaccurate then your stated challenges are also inaccurate.

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
According to your report the increased housing demand is a problem. Evidently there have been too many 4+ bedroomed houses at the cost of 1,2 and 3 bedroomed houses. The Council approved planning for these houses so only have themselves to blame for the situation they now find themselves in. You could have encouraged higher density developments with affordable housing elements to get the mix you require.

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?
The mix of solutions put into each of the options proposed is just the Council's grouping and manipulates the possible solutions. It does not have to be an all or nothing approach and a mix of solutions should be exercised. First and foremost density increase should be allowed to provide the one, two and three bedroomed accommodation required in favour of granting planning permission for large four and five bedroomed houses. Brownfield sited should be offered incentives to bring into use.

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
Removal of some of the greenbelt will only put additional pressure on existing infrastructure. I can comment on the site 58 which is near to me: the removal of a valuable wild open space that residents use for walking and local schools for education will mean they need to get in their car and travel elsewhere, causing more pollution. This ignores the fact that if it is developed there are more residents who will have the need for open spaces, putting even more pressure of infrastructure. The recreation ground at the back of Grove Way in Esher has also been mentioned to me as being in danger of being reallocated and again this is heavily used by locals for walking and recreation and will mean people have to get in their cars to go elsewhere if it is developed. It is a flood regulation area and any development there will exacerbate flood risk to existing and new residents.

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 don't agree that area 58 is weakly performing. I wonder if the assessors went there at the weekend to see how much the residents make use of the area, or are aware of the use the schools make of the area.

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 am not an expert on the whole of Elmbridge. Only the sites where there is a proposed redesignation have been identified in Google Earth view, the rest are in map mode so it is not possible to see and other possible alternatives to what has been provided.

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 am not an expert on the whole of Elmbridge. Only the sites where there is a proposed redesignation have been identified in Google Earth view, the rest are in map mode so it is not possible to see and other possible alternatives to what has been provided.

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
If the demand is for smaller homes why are you not discouraging larger homes from being built by way of larger S106 type contributions, and encouraging the type of homes you require by offering incentives.

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
As above.

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
There is probably a lot of potential to fully develop existing spaces, even above shops and in roof spaces that should be encouraged.

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
New developments should be at higher densities to maximise the use of the land, but it must be recognised also that more people in an area require more open and amenity space. In London, large parks within walking distance of a substantial population fulfill this need. There must be the equivalent space within walking distance of enlarged connurbations. The proposal in area 58 removes this essential amenity space and greater densities often leads to greater stress and crime so provision of amenity space should be a pre-requisite.

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 can't speak for areas 14 and 20 but I do not think area 58 is suitable for redevelopment on the scale proposed due to the loss of amenity land. Lower densities presumably means larger gardens so will not be of any benefit to existing local residents who have lost their amenity space.

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
Any travellers who have illegally entered onto land should be barred from having permanent accommodation provided by the Council in future without first meeting all the costs incurred by the council in evicting them.

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
You are the best people to assess what your needs are.

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
Generally I agree, however if the use can be provided more efficiently in alternative locations and the land could be redeployed for housing, then this should be considered.

17

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

It depends on the circumstances.

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 am not familiar with Brooklands.

19

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

I am not familiar with Brooklands.

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
Why not?

21a

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

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

Please explain your answer
I don't know what or where the demand is. New provision should be provided where the demand is.

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
Although these can be provided on backland sites if there is too much demand on high street frontages.

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
These are absolutely critical where the proposal is to increase densities and land use.

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
A more heavily built environment in an area already prone to flooding will detrimentally affect surrounding areas and this should be an imperative consideration for any new 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 don't know what this question means. Do you mean more sustainable public transport usage? Public transport usage should be encouraged for all residents and knowledge of what is available should be made known. I lived in Esher for many years and to my knowledge there was not a quick and reliable way to get into the centre of Kingston so I always went by car. There may have been something available but I did not know about it.

30

Are there other approaches we should consider?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

Please explain your answer
Perhaps new residents could be given information on public transport in their area when registering for Council tax as lack of knowledge should not be a reason people do not access public transport.

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?

All of the above. You know more than the public what is required to support communities.

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?

Open space is a key requirement for new developments.

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.

 

More consideration should be given to smaller infill developments rather than opting for large scale developments that upset the balance of whole communities. Given the options you are pursuing for developments on the greenbelt, it appears rather hypocritical to have refused Drake Park which would have provided over 10% of your future requirement: most developments of this size will require highway upgrading and infrastructure so this should not be a bar on development.

34. Files

«No files»