View Response

Response Details

Response Details
From Jane Carr
Date Started: 16 Mar 2017 13:54. Last modified: 17 Mar 2017 12:17
Status Complete
Response ID #528794

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
There are a number of other key challenges including:
- poor infrastructure and congestion in Cobham, Stoke d'Abernon and Oxshott. This has worsened considerably in the past ten years.
-avoidance of further urbanisation and infill which would completely change the character of the settlements affected
-protection of the Green Belt which should remain an absolute
- maintain the environment, preserve SSIs and provide recreation areas, some of the reasons people move to these settlements in the first place.

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
- To resolve the transport congestion in our area - Cobham/Stoke d'Abernon/Oxshott have severe constraints due to enclosure by A3/M25
- To retain strong protection for the Green Belt as set out in the Government's White Paper
- To avoid further urbanisation and in-fill
- To maintain the environment and avoid further pollution

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
- Infrastructure – schools, GPs, leisure centres.
-Infrastructure – many roads in Cobham/Stoke d'Abernon and Oxshott are unable to cope with current levels of traffic. This is worsening annually and has accelerated in the past 4-5 years. Traffic through the High Street is dividing it.
-Pollution – levels already unacceptably high given A3 & M25 proximity
-Urbanisation – increasing encroachment into the Green Belt
-Provision for the elderly, particularly proximity to high street.

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?
-I object to the fact that the questionnaire does not provide the opportunity to select either of the other options or provide a "do nothing" option
- The Council has not sufficiently explained or justified why it cannot build on brownfield land and a thorough assessment of brownfield sites should be the first priority. The Government's White Paper emphasises that Councils need to explore brownfield land and higher densities in urban areas before exploring Green Belt land.
-We understand that the Council's own figures show that only 50% of the housing planned would be needed by Elmbridge residents.
-We disagree that the provision of housing is an Exceptional Circumstance that will allow the destruction of our Green Belt and heritage
-Increased urbanisation of the more major urban areas in the borough. The Council should seek to develop social/affordable housing near to the major sources of employment and nearer to better service provision. This is also supported in the Government's White Paper
-Opportunities should be explored near to established fast transport links with easy transport access. An example would be the fast Woking/Walton/Esher line
-Building social/ affordable housing in Parcel 14 and Parcel 20 is very unrealistic - this is one of the most expensive areas of land in Elmbridge and placing social/ affordable housing in this area will not meet the needs of people who need easy access to job opportunities and good public transport links, neither of which exist in this area
-Once the Green Belt has been taken away it will never be regained. This will result in encroachment of countryside and removal of green spaces. The Government's White Paper reinforces the strong protection of the Green Belt
-The Council has not demonstrated that it has sufficiently explored options with neighbouring boroughs

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
«No response»

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
Complex. See Greenbelt partnershop's itemised list:

o Methodology and assessment is subjective and flawed. Inconsistency with the scoring and categorisation across all the parcels of land
o Strongly disagree with Parcel 14 (Knowle Hill Park, north Blundel Lane) being included for the following reasons:
o This Green Belt currently prevents the merger of "neighbouring" areas of Stoke d'Abernon and Oxshott
o Cobham, Stoke d'Abernon and Oxshott are distinct communities – EBC's own Flood Risk Assessment recognises them as separate entities
o The Green Belt Review scoring is wrong – parcel 14 is only 2.5% built on and therefore should be 4 or 5 not 2.
o Description of Parcel 14 as "semi-urban" is very subjective and patently untrue – it is semi-rural.
o 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
o 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
o Infrastructure, particularly roads would not cope
o 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, hedgehogs and 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:
o Development on such a large scale would change the character of Cobham and damage local community cohesion
o It protects against ribbon development along the Portsmouth Road (A307)
o The Common Land and Site of Special Scientific Interest in this area must be protected
o The infrastructure couldn't cope
o Parcel 20 acts as a vital separation between Cobham and Esher
o 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.
o 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 Plebejus argus 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
«No response»

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
• Providing infrastructure for the three identified sites is more complex and expensive than linking one larger site in a logistically better positioned area
• Any plan of this complexity cannot be considered in isolation and hence we fundamentally disagree with an approach that just singles out housing

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
«No response»

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 Parcels 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
Not sufficiently aware of the complex issues that need to be considered to support these people.

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 need. It is a busy and popular venue.

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

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?

Successful planning schemes abroad should also be examined to search for innovative and clever design. In particular those in countries with a similar climate.

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?

Essential infrastructure developments that must be considered:

-Parking at or near transportation links, including Stoke d'Abernon and Cobham Stations. The size of the car park is already inadequate.

-Alternative road should be developed to ease existing and future traffic congestion, including improvement of rail road bridges, roundabouts and traffic lights.

schools, surgeries, leisure facilities and green areas to ensure quality of life for residents.

-Improvements of bus services in area offering alternative to travel by car.

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 layout.
-Bypassing the High Street

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?

-The Strategic Consultation paper contains numerous flaws and inconsistencies. The methodology is subjective and flawed

-No consideration given with the proposals for the Cobham & Stoke d'Abernon proposals of access to jobs and employment. Limited employment opportunities in the immediate area as opposed to exploring other options.

- Timing of this consultation being launched just prior to Christmas, the lack of information provided to local residents and the length and complexity of the questionnaire seem to lead to the conclusion that the Council is simply going through a process and not seriously open to any challenge from local residents

-These proposals have no regard to the size of the existing settlements where the new house building is being considered and the impact on their existing communities and infrastructure. Because Elmbridge is neither a place of being or a community in its own right but a collection of very separate and different communities and settlements, any sensible housing strategy has to be broken down and as a starting point to look at each settlement / community and assess how many additional dwellings need to be accommodated having regard to the size of that settlement to Elmbridge as a whole.

34. Files

«No files»