View Response

Response Details

Response Details
From Deleted User
Date Started: 21 Mar 2017 08:48. Last modified: 21 Mar 2017 08:48
Status Complete
Response ID #529644

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
To retain the quality of life for Elmbridge residents, to avoid further in-fill and urbanisation and development of Green Belt boundaries

2

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

 

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don’t know

Please explain your answer
As above answer. Avoid urbanisation & in-fill and development to green belt

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 & GP surgery etc.
Pollution – congested road

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?
‘do nothing’ option should be an option
There is no reference given regarding the assessment of brownfield sites.
There is no demonstration that the council has 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
National Guidelines state that ‘unmet housing need is not a justification’ Green belt boundaries should only be adjusted with the ‘support of local people’

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
Your report is totally flawed in the points for the parcels of land, Parcel 14 prevents the merger of neighbouring areas of stoke d’abernon and Oxshott, your report has documented this wrongly, it should score 4or 5 not 2.
There is an Ancient woodland, and much hilly land, building on this would only see to flood Blundel lane and Water lane.
Parcel 20 reasons are also incorrect as this separated Cobham and Esher. It has working allotments and common land for residents to enjoy, therefore this would be taken away from local residents.

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
The typography on parcel 14 is steep and would only encourage more flooding to Blundel lane and Water lane, the field next to the railway on Blundel lane already holds water most of the year.
When we moved to Oxshott as we were near parcel 14 we had to get a ‘contaminated land certificate’ surely this would be unsuitable for development.
Ancient woodland is a natural habitat for many wildlife

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
Assess the moderately performing area in green belt to see if these are more suitable, compliance with pollution, nature, road & services etc.
Housing should not be ‘exceptional circumstances’ excuse to change 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
Smaller houses are feasible but in existing urban areas, cooperation across boundaries is needed.

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
I think the planning department is partly to blame for this delivery, especially with the newly introduced CIL levy. But also the big houses are what makes this area popular.

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
Creative design should be used to maximise opportunities within these developments.

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
Parcel 20, the infrastructure is insufficient, the area is already congested and will further get polluted
Parcel 14, the semi-rural nature, typography, currently that area has 8 dwellings per hectare, which is totally unacceptable.
Is this not why Elmbridge is voted the best borough to live in?

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
Analysis is flawed on how the points are scored for parcels 14 and 20.

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
A blanket approach is not appropriate, quality of life for existing and proposed residents should be seriously considered.

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/ offices are highly successful and very viable to include affordable housing, providing there is suitable employment for residents.

17

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

Complete flexibility

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
Mixed residential and retail would be appropriate, the area can sustain affordable house prices too
More business infrastructure in this area too

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
Definitely not. The race track corporation has already developed Newbury Race course to the huge detriment of the area. Kempton Park is also going to be developed with houses and I feel there is so much to lose by doing this that it is extremely important to keep the facilities separate.
This area gets badly congested on Trade days, Race days and other events, to add more facilities would lead the area being gridlocked. From A3 Esher Common to Cospem Lane. From Hinchley Wood & Hampton court to Esher and Cobham to Esher would all suffer from higher pollution & congestion, which is unacceptable.

21a

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

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

Please explain your answer
There should be a focus on mixed residential / small business developments in these areas.

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
There should be a focus on mixed residential / small business developments in these areas.

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
Flexible usage should encouraged

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
Green spaces provide the area to counter increasing urbanisation

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
Yes wildlife should be considered

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
Heritage is very important and should be cherished

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?

More creative design should be used to maximise opportunity

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
Any plan that is complex in nature should not be considered in isolation, I disagree an approach that just singles out housing

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
What are sustainable travel patterns?

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?

Further research should be given to land near fast transport links.
If this area is to be further researched then, alternative road patters should be addressed, adequate schools, GP surgeries etc. Green spaces and Parking for towns and transport links. I feel in this area it is getting more congested, schools are oversubscribed and really we are lucky that many people have private health care and send their children to independent school. If we had more social housing, the impact on such local services would be overwhelmed.

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?

Do not consider 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.

 

I think this is totally unacceptable to be considering the Green belt, the Planning department was too busy granting large development houses in the area to notice there was not enough smaller houses available and this is why we have the problem. It is unacceptable to even produce this document, and certainly get the main details completely wrong. Elmbridge should be disgraced with themselves / the bullish nature they adopt to change areas to suit them should be stopped.
The consultation report is flawed and should be readdressed; therefore new outcomes for land may arise.
There are limited employment options in Cobham, Stoke d’abernon & Oxshott, this social housing location should not be considered an option.
There seems no option to preserve and enhance the quality of life for existing residents, as stated in EU requirements
Neighbouring boroughs should be asked if there is any possibility of share provision. Is the Wisley airfield project not good enough quantity? Even if it is in the Guildford borough the usage on Elbridge borough amenities would be greater and the location is closer to Cobham and Weybridge rather than Guildford etc.
I cannot see if the Development of Parcel 14 & 20 where to be granted, the developer would build affordable homes, when they have presumably paid a very high price for the land and no doubt pay the council off as most developers do.

34. Files

«No files»