View Response

Response Details

Response Details
From Mark Davies
Date Started: 20 Mar 2017 15:33. Last modified: 20 Mar 2017 15:33
Status Complete
Response ID #529480

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 challenges listed in section 2 are inadequate. They fail to
• Protect/avoid development on ALL our Green Belt
• Address infrastructure requirements for existing residents (rather than just considering
infrastructure sufficient to support “any increase in development”)
• Actively maintain/improve the environment and avoid further pollution (rather than merely
minimising harmful impacts)
• To preserve the character of Elmbridge

2

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

 

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don’t know

Please explain your answer
Other key challenges are:
• To protect/avoid development on ALL our Green Belt
To prevent in-fill between neighbouring villages/towns
• To retain the quality of life for existing residents in Elmbridge
• To address infrastructure requirements for existing residents particularly more and better
public transport, more school places and better health provision (rather than just
considering infrastructure sufficient to support “any increase in development”)
• To maintain/improve the environment and avoid further pollution
• To protect and cherish green spaces for the recreation of local people
• To preserve the character of 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
• To protect/avoid development on ALL our Green Belt
To prevent in-fill between neighbouring villages/towns
• To address infrastructure requirements for existing residents particularly more and better
public transport, more school places and better health provision. These services are
currently inadequate:
- appointments for non-urgent GP consultations at Giggs Hill surgery have been taking 4 weeks
- Kingston Hospital A&E cannot cope;
- despite over 50% of the borough’s working population commuting into London there are virtually no train seats available between 0715 and 0815 from Surbiton on weekdays.
- Traffic Congestion is already a substantial problem; examples being the A309, Scilly Isles, Esher High Street and the approaches to Hampton Court bridge
• To maintain/improve the environment and avoid further pollution – pollution is already
unacceptably high near the A3/A309
• To protect and cherish green spaces for the recreation of local people

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 am totally opposed to building on any Green Belt which automatically rules out options 2 and 3. Once the Green Belt has been taken away it will NEVER be regained. Declassifying Green Belt will result in encroachment of the countryside, merging of neighbouring villages, loss of valuable green spaces for the recreation of local people and increased pollution.

Other Options include:
• Making effective use of suitable brownfield sites; 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 potential offered by land which is currently underused, including surplus public sector land; The Council has not sufficiently explained or justified why it cannot build on such land.
•Exploring whether other authorities can help to meet some of the identified development
requirement; the Council has not demonstrated that it has sufficiently explored options
with neighbouring boroughs through its Duty to Consult, which could reduce the actual
housing quota for Elmbridge ie. reduce the figure of 9,480 houses said to be needed
• Increasing housing densities in urban areas including construction of higher buildings – Walton Town Centre is an excellent example of increasing densities through redevelopment
• Investigate scope to replace or build over low-density uses (such as retail warehouses,
lock-ups and car parks)
• Explore opportunities for higher density housing near to established fast rail transport links. An example would be the fast Woking/Walton/Esher line.

Building SHOULD NOT take place on allotments or playing fields as proposed under Option 1.

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
They are not sufficient to amend the Green Belt boundary because:
• The Methodology and assessment of which land is no longer meeting the purposes of Green Belt (one of the exceptional circumstances) is subjective and flawed. The Green Belt areas included in Option 2 are stopping encroachment into the countryside and in the case of Area 58 it is preventing the merger of Long Ditton and Hinchley Wood villages.
• The Consultation Documents state that Green Belt boundaries should only be adjusted “with the support of local people”. The Council does not have this
• National Guidelines state that “unmet housing need is NOT a justification” to remove land from the Green Belt. Therefore, the provision of housing is NOT an exceptional circumstance that will allow the destruction of Green Belt
• Little evidence to suggest that the Council has thoroughly considered other options e.g. Working with other councils or exhaustive investigations of brownfield sites, underused land and development opportunities for higher density housing in urban areas and near fast rail links. It appears that the Council is taking the ‘quick and easy way out’ by targeting Green Belt.
• No proof that the two suggested exceptional circumstances of addressing affordable housing needs and providing a better mix of housing will be met by releasing land from the Green Belt.

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
No building or development should take place on any of the three areas.

The Methodology and Assessment that these areas are weakly performing is subjective and flawed because they each prevent encroachment into the countryside.

With regard to Area 58:
• It DOES meet the purposes of Green Belt by preventing neighbouring towns/villages from merging into one another. Without it, Hinchley Wood and Long Ditton merge into one completely, which in turn merge into Hook and Tolworth
• It DOES meet the purposes of Green Belt by checking the unrestricted sprawl of Greater London/neighbouring borough of Kingston. It forms a clear transition from Greater London to the more green and open environment of Elmbridge
• It includes valuable community assets (such as a Nature Reserve, allotments, Hockey Club, Cricket Club) and without protection from Green Belt status, these assets are very likely to come under pressure from future development.
• With regard to the Stokes Field Nature Reserve – building on the adjoining part of Area 58 would cause fragmentation of the rural habitat and a threat to wildlife. The surrounding land is vitally important to protect the biodiversity in the Reserve.
• One Tree Hill provides valuable open space for local residents – for example walkers, dog walkers, runners, nature lovers, and is a well-loved and well-used space. The panoramic views from the top are very special and look out for miles. Further enhancements should be looked at to secure this important open space rather than development opportunities
• Both Stokes Field and One Tree Hill are used by the local school for nature studies. Both areas are home to a huge variety of wildlife including badgers, bats and deer.
• Flooding – a number of areas within Area 58 have been known to flood. Building along the A309 would increase the risk to all surrounding downhill areas, since the Green Belt land acts as a natural soakaway.
• Development would cause huge extra traffic congestion in the surrounding area. Options for road access to any new developments would largely be limited to small roads. How would development tie in with the one-way A309 at Long Ditton? Pollution and noise would increase greatly.

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 part of the three areas should be considered for future development.

With regard to Area 58, the reasons are detailed in the answer to Question 6.
In addition:
• The local infrastructure including schools, hospitals, roads and public transport would not cope. These services are currently inadequate for existing residents.
• The extra pollution and noise would make any new development along the A309 inappropriate particularly for young families and the elderly.

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
• ALL Green Belt should be protected to prevent urban sprawl, stop towns/villages merging and to safeguard the countryside from encroachment
• Once Green Belt is gone, it’s gone for good
• Once parts of the Green Belt are developed, others will inevitably follow to meet future needs
• Unmet housing need is NOT an exceptional circumstance to remove land from the Green Belt

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
Non Green Belt areas should be used to provide affordable housing.

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 per answer to question 9

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 will vary according to the characteristics of each urban area.
Walton Town Centre is an excellent example where residential densities have been increased through redevelopment.

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
There shouldn’t be ANY development in the three Green Belt areas

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
There shouldn’t be ANY development in the three Green Belt areas

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
«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/business developments should be considered.

17

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

As per 16 mixed developments should be considered.

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
Green Belt land should not be declassified or developed

19

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

Don’t know

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
Any improvements to Sandown should be in accordance with those permissible within Green Belt areas

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
Mixed retail/residential/small business developments should be encouraged. Walton
Town Centre is an excellent example where residential density has been increase through redevelopment.

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 development provides variety and character in high streets.

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
Open spaces are of vital importance to the environment and the well-being of local residents.

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?

Mixed retail/residential/small business developments should be encouraged in town centres.

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?

There should be NO development on the three Green Belt areas.

As per previous answers, current services for health provision (hospitals and surgeries), schools and public transport are inadequate for existing residents – the Council should therefore prioritise the improvement of current infrastructure.

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?

As per answer 31

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.

 

The questionnaire is repetitive and much too long and complex. Many older people are confused by the document and feel alienated by the process and the Council.

The analysis of the three options put forward in the Local Plan is superficial lacking in detail and rigour. There are too few options and these are poorly evaluated. The document appears manipulative merely seeking to justify the Council’s recommendations and is therefore not truly consultative.

34. Files

«No files»