View Response

Response Details

Response Details
From Alan Pemberton
Date Started: 01 Mar 2017 13:43. Last modified: 01 Mar 2017 13:43
Status Complete
Response ID #525488

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
The key challenge for Elmbridge is to find a way to come up with a housing policy for the borough that is acceptable to the local population and is viable in terms of supporting infrastructure and acceptable environmental conditions. Section 2 seems to me to have jumped straight to the conclusion that Elmbridge has no option but to accommodate the additional housing. Building more homes generally in and around London is like digging a ditch in a saturated field. The additional capacity wil be taken up immediately, notwithstanding the lack of infrastructure and will further encourage migration for other
parts of the UK to the London area to the long term and probably irreversible detriment of not only Elmbridge but other parts of the UK.

2

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

 

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don’t know

Please explain your answer
Elmbridge together with other Local Authorities must step up to the challenge of convincing the Government that providing more and more housing in and around London is bad for the UK as a whole as well as being disastrous for the quality of life for the people of Elmbridge. It seems to me that some MP’s are waking up to this. The
migration of the population to London is proving to be absolutely devastating to other parts of the UK where, as a result of a reducing local population, local services are reduced, for example schools closing and public transport ceasing to exist altogether in
many declining communities. It is clear that with the current policy the only winners are the property developers who run rough-shod over Planning policy and more often than not wriggle out of providing genuinely affordable housing, never mind social housing which is what this country desperately needs. The recent Green paper “Building our Industrial Strategy” sets out to address this and sets out its aim as being “to improve living standards and economic growth by increasing productivity and driving growth across the whole country.” This will not be achieved by lining the pockets of property
developers in the Southeast, will it?

At the consultation meeting I attended we were advised that if Elmbridge did not submit to the government dictate to come up with a way of providing more housing, central government would step in and come up with its own plan. I see it differently, as our elected authority you should stand up for the people of Elmbridge, not just roll over.

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
If a plan for significantly increasing local housing is to be implemented you must ensure that it is acceptable and viable in terms of environmental considerations as well as supporting infrastructure. Having lived in the borough for 20 years now and seen the
increasing traffic and pressure on rail and bus services and experienced the increasing noise and air pollution, I would say that this is your most important challenge.

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 other options have not in my opinion been given anything like adequate consideration and have not been considered equally. I don’t think the benefits of Option 2 stack up at all and the advantages of the other options have been totally overlooked.
The disadvantages of Option 2 are massive to local people.

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
There is no local support whatsoever, in fact total opposition to declassifying Green Belt areas as proposed in Option 2. For example, losing Area 58 would directly connect Hinchley Wood with Long Ditton, Surbiton, Hook and Chessington. There appears to have been no consultation with adjacent borough where more intensive development
could be far more sustainably accommodated.

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
This statement presumes that the so called exceptional circumstances are appropriate. I entirely disagree. Again, it seems that this whole consultation process is already predetermined
and I would not be surprised to see a legal challenge being mounted if the views of consultees are ignored. It seems to me that this online response form is deliberately designed to elicit responses which can be interpreted as acceptance of the roposals. As I have stated above, losing Area 58 would be making urban sprawl a certainty. It was quite clear at the consultation meeting I attended that the value of the
Greenbelt area has been completely under-rated according to the criteria that were meant to be used for the assessment.

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
As stated by many present at the consultation meeting I attended, the local infrastructure is already insufficient and pollution levels are already shortening local people’s lives. If for no other reason, there is simply insufficient space to accommodate the additional schools that would be required to support a worthwhile number of new family dwellings.

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
Yes, quite probably, there could be moderate development in areas which did not fulfil such an important Green Belt function and where supporting infrastructure, schools, transport, etc. could be more easily accommodated. The consideration that has to date been given to these
seems to me to be totally inadequate –for some reason.

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
Yes, but why is it that that Elmbridge Council have granted Planning permission for so many 4/5 bedroom “mini-mansions” over the last ten years?

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
Obviously but this begs an answer to the question I have raised above – it can hardly come as a surprise to a competent Planning authority that the SE is short of smaller, genuinely affordable housing.

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
In 2009 densities in excess of 50 units per hectare were being achieved on previously developed land. Development of this type would be much more efficient in providing the smaller units that are required. Building on Greenbelt as proposed would only lead to yet more high value and therefore unaffordable housing in the borough.

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
Although I consider Area 58 to be unsuitable for development in the first place, it is absolutely clear that the surrounding infrastructure is totally inadequate for higher density development.

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 consider Area 58 unsuitable for significant for development of the basis of lack of infrastructure, environmental considerations and damage to the Green Belt.

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
But Planning conditions must be set and enforced that make the housing must be genuinely affordable.

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
Such areas could be redeveloped to make better use of the available land area in the process providing buildings offering employment more suited to today’s business environment in conjunction with freeing up land on these brownfield sites for residential use. E.g. replacing redundant or outdated manufacturing units with units suitable for tech
industries. In addition “work/live” units could be provided on such sites.

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 comments.

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
I think you should be supporting local parades of shops and in addition encouraging modernisation and extension of residential accommodation above such shopping parades as this is often under utilised and quite often in need of improvement. I would have thought that the housing density above such parades could be almost double more or less within the existing building envelope. (I speak as someone brought up very happily in a small flat above a butcher’s shop, by the way.)

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?

«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
If parking areas for all small developments were required to adopt permeable paving as we have done in replacing the original concrete paving at the front of our house it would make a big difference.

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?

Please insert your comments here: Whilst I don’t consider the provision of adequate infrastructure feasible, such provision would have to include new schools, doctors’ surgeries as well as a teletransporter to Surbiton station.

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?

I think that the problems with providing the larger infrastructure need to be seriously addressed before you start looking at smaller, “cop out” improvements.

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.

 

«No response»

34. Files

«No files»