View Response

Response Details

Response Details
From Martin Files
Date Started: 15 Mar 2017 11:03. Last modified: 15 Mar 2017 11:03
Status Complete
Response ID #528553

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
Current challenges are sought to be met by effectively one area of land, Area 58. This will conflict unnecessarily with the majority of the challenges you identify - retaining current settlement patterns, prevention of unrestricted sprawl and merging of neighbourhoods
including increased delivery of affordable housing and small homes, bearing in mind that redevelopment should be providing homes of similar nature highlights the term "affordable homes" as a non-sequiteur for this area, Suggestions as to school places, for example, seem to bear no relevance to the actual situation and such an influx of new houses, if based on these assessments, create an impossible situation in relation to the above Area

2

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

 

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don’t know

Please explain your answer
Need to address access due to low railway bridges generating major difficulties with large vehicles being unable to use these roads and limited to increased use of narrow existing roads not built for the purpose. This relates to Area 58.

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
Yes. The matters mentioned in answer to Questions 1 and 2

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 Areas, 14 and 20, have infrastructure access from main roads and are not of a "complete infill" nature, and will still provide adequate green belt accessibility including protected woodland. The current Area in the consultation document is put forward as a ''meets all" criteria. No such suggestions have been met in respect of other Areas. There is great difficulty for the residents affected in any of the Areas resulting from lack of detailed knowledge of any Area other than their own in the consultation document. Such information could have been usefully contained in the documentation.

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
Affordability will not be relevant to the current proposals. The housing will still be too expensive. Even a mix of housing will not be appropriate to relate to existing properties and the risk of increased density and a ghetto-like development. The land in Area 58 is currently meeting criteria for green belt use. As previously suggested this Area is
presented as a quick fix fits all. It clearly does not relate to inhabitants' wishes, and the limited suggestion in the consultation indicates other areas referred to have not been pursued, e.g: disused reservoirs, land around the Leisure Centre at Walton, already partially industrialised.

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
Please see comments above relating to development of reservoirs etc. Very little comment is made in consultation as to the Areas other than 58,· i.e. 14 and 20, and their suitability or otherwise for an answer to be given. In relation to Area 58, amenities include cricket, hockey, allotments, nature reserve, cemetery would be lost. This appears to make major inroads into the area suggested for removal of green belt in any event. Also relevant, if implemented, is the spread of urban sprawl, particularly in relation to Area 58, which in fact meets your criteria for green belt more specifically than do either of the sites (see page 14 of the consultation document). The existence of a nature reserve within
Area 58 adds to the effects of the proposals on wildlife and habitat aspects.

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
There is a severe lack of information in the consultation document and the only suggestions I have already given are where I happen to have the information. Otherwise the obvious situation with Area 58 will be no cushion for pollution which must only get worse from the A3/A309.

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
Please see previous reply re reservoirs etc.

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
The balance already exists from maisonettes, 2-up 2-down cottages, semi-detached houses and larger detached houses.

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
This is not necessary. Please see reply above. In relation to Area 58 3-bedroomed houses are nearly always now altered to 4 bedroom houses wherever they may be built, thereby increasing the difficulty of affordability.

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
This will not in any way assist your affordability targets. Properties in these locations will attract the highest prices no matter what, except perhaps the locations of areas 15 and 20 which, because of their distance from Central London, are likely to produce cheaper housing with the likelihood of persons being employed in the more immediate locale than those in Area 58. ·

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. Any densities should be appropriate to the adjacent areas to avoid a ghetto-type situation and ensure some form of conformity with the existing adjacent land

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. Any densities should be appropriate to the adjacent areas to avoid a ghetto-type situation and ensure some form of conformity with the existing adjacent land

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
I have read the consultation document and without considerably more knowledge I do not feel able to answer this.

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
I really do not know enough about all the Areas to comment other than to say, as the Council will be aware, there are two existing sites within a mile of Long Ditton.

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
Other than mentioned generally in your consultation paper I do not have any other information.

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
Yes

17

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

See Above

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 know save that the Brooklands development itself does not appear to be particularly dense.

19

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

I have no knowledge other than see 18 above.

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
I do not know but it is obvious to all inhabitants for a considerable distance around Area 58 that infrastructure as currently exists will not support this. Any further extension of such development at some point will reach a "no go" status such as exists, for instance, in
Twickenham due to the stadium.

21a

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

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

Please explain your answer
I feel it is important to give priority to useful retail outlets on our high streets. If we rely solely on retail parks for our shopping all we will do is increase the traffic and give rise to yet more pollution.

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
I feel it is important to give priority to useful retail outlets on our high streets. If we rely solely on retail parks for our shopping all we will do is increase the traffic and give rise to yet more pollution.

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
I feel it is important to give priority to useful retail outlets on our high streets. If we rely solely on retail parks for our shopping all we will do is increase the traffic and give rise to yet more pollution.

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
I do not know but the policy seems appropriate in a semi-rural area

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
I do not know

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
Yes, particularly for example Long Ditton (dates to the Domesday Book and before)

25

If not, what approach do you think we should take?

See above

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
See above

27

If not what approach do you think we should take?

See Above

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
Yes, if one is not adequate at present, eg run-off from high ground.

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 do not know

30

Are there other approaches we should consider?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

Please explain your answer
I do not know

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?

The dependence is on how the strategic areas are viewed. Smaller developments in each area would not need the degree of infrastructure and would be more easily absorbed into the local communities. Some areas may be more suitable for additional infrastructure where more space is available within them. Current space may be too limited to enable space to be acquired or used for services, eg surgeries etc., including particularly parking, which of course significantly affects schools at certain times of the day.

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 structure improvements to ensure that unwanted traffic and volumes of traffic are diverted away from residential areas. Also see answer to Q 2 above.

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.

 

Can the Council be more creative in their thinking rather than considering simply the reports of third parties whose commissioning criteria I do not know. It is perhaps easy for those the Council employ to come up with what they (the Council) want to hear rather than what, with due consideration may be more appropriate and in line with the views of the residents concerned. Perhaps the Council considers it simplest to deal with one local community as opposed to three and may be overall any difficulties can be considerably ameliorated by adopting that stance.

34. Files

«No files»