View Response

Response Details

Response Details
From Deleted User
Agent Q + A Planning Ltd (Peter Keenan)
Date Started: 21 Mar 2017 10:53. Last modified: 21 Mar 2017 11:21
Status Complete
Response ID #529753

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 challenge facing the Council to meet its retail needs is underplayed and misrepresented in Section 2. Firstly, the retail floorspace cited in Figure 4 (i.e. over 20,000 sqm) are net sales areas, as presented in the evidence within the Elmbridge Retail Assessment, April 2016 (ERA). Therefore, the floorspace presented does not take into account back of house, which would inflate the requirements by between 20 and 40%, depending on the type of operator. Policy should either be clear that these are net floorspace figures, or also present a suggested gross figure to assist the reader.
Secondly, the reference to the floorspace figure in Figure 4, and in paragraph 2.13 focuses solely on quantitative need. In other words, these are the needs generated by expenditure and population growth. However, in paragraph 161 (first bullet) of the NPPF, there is an obligation for the evidence base to assess the quantitative and qualitative needs for all types of economic activity. Focusing solely on quantitative needs ignores potential qualitative needs in the Borough and therefore misrepresents the challenges. Qualitative needs can include matters of consumer choice.
Thirdly, it is noted in the final sentence of paragraph 2.13 that the Council consider the 'demand for non-convenience goods (clothes, furniture, electrical products etc…) means that in order for towns and village centres to maintain their current market share of demand, between 14,000 and 19,000 sqm would be required'. This sentence is not strictly accurate, since the current market share output in the ERA is predicated on the higher floorspace figure cited in this sentence and the lower floorspace figure cited assumes an overall declining market share of the Borough as a whole (see our answer to question 21 for further details). Furthermore, the floorspace figures are based on all destinations retaining their market share (including out of centre destinations), not just the towns and villages. For example, the overall comparison sector market share for Elmbridge is 28.8% and of this, 5.4% is achieved by retail floorspace at Brooklands. Therefore an appropriate role of out of centre retail destinations supporting sustainable shopping patterns should be recognised within the challenges section of policy. Fourthly, and finally, in Figure 5, the key challenges for the Borough within the Key Economic Challenges circle should be clarified where the comment 'deliver the right floorspace to meet business needs' should be made clear that this addresses business that meet all foreseeable types of economic activity over the Plan period, including retail, consistent with the NPPF. Otherwise the challenge faced by the Council to meet its substantial retail needs are not addressed in policy (see answer to question 2).

2

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

 

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don’t know

Please explain your answer
One of the crucial challenges is how the Council meets its development needs in full and balances different land uses in a relatively constrained Borough. As explained in our answer to question 21, there is a substantial retail need in the comparison sector that policy has not yet grappled with. There is market signals evidence of a clear need for additional retail floorspace and policy ought to respond to that need.

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
«No response»

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?
Whilst we generally support the aim of Option 2, the supporting text makes it clear that the Option has been devised to focus upon housing needs rather than also taking into account the economic development needs in the Borough. For example, supporting paragraph 3.10 explains that it seeks to balance the needs for housing. This appears to suggest that that the needs for other uses, such as retail, have not influenced the overall development strategy. Therefore, the strategy should be revised to ensure that all needs are taken into account when devising the Local Plan.

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
We recommend that two further exceptional circumstances are added (these should be read alongside our answer to question 18).
Firstly, the economic benefits of expanding the economic role (including its retail role) of Brooklands should be added. This is clearly a crucial issue, and opportunities to amend the Green Belt are flagged at paragraph 4.32.
Secondly, the ability for the Council to meet the substantial comparison goods retail needs that exist in the Borough should be added as an exceptional circumstance, since the Council has recognised that there are limited development opportunities within town centres in the Borough to meet these needs.

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
There is a clear disconnect between the three strategic areas that are identified for removal from the Green Belt and the comments in subsequent sections on Brooklands where the opportunity for amendments to the Green Belt boundary are identified. Whilst we have no comment on the three strategic areas that have been identified, a correct application of the exceptional circumstances – as referenced in our answer to Question 5 - above would lead to the conclusion that the area of Green Belt near to Brooklands should also be included as a strategic area appropriate for removal from the Green Belt.

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
The area around Brooklands is land that also ought also to be removed from the Green Belt due to the exceptional circumstances as set out in our answer to Question 5. This area is identified in the Green Belt Boundary Review (GBBR) March 2016, as Area 25. This encompasses incorporates land within the former Brooklands Circuit, extending from the Brooklands Community Park in the south to the Brooklands Hotel and Mercedes Benz World to the north. It is primarily previously developed land, with much of the former airfield still visible, along with the new developments to the north and the test track for Mercedes Benz World.
The GBBR assesses the area against three purposes consistent with the first three bullets of paragraph 80 of the NPPF. It concludes that the site performs strongly as it is acting as a barrier to potential sprawl (purpose 1), and by establishing an important gap between towns (purpose 2). However, under purpose 3 on assisting in the safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, it is awarded a score of 0/5 and stated that it does not meet this purpose and has a distinctly 'urban character'. Indeed, it is the only area that has been assessed that is awarded a score of zero (paragraph 5.2.2.3). Irrespective of the low score under purpose 3, due to the strong scoring of purpose 1 and 2, it is concluded in Section 5.3 that the area performs strongly overall. It is considered that the GBBR is too generous in its scoring of Area 25 under Purposes 1 and 2. Therefore, we contend that the Area is a strong candidate to be removed from the Green Belt through the Local Plan review process due to the exceptional circumstances that exist. These circumstances are already recognised by the Council elsewhere in the Strategic Options Consultation and we have provided further circumstances above.
Firstly, we disagree that the local area is on the edge of a distinct large built up area and that it would prevent the outward sprawl of a large built up area into open land, since this conclusion ignores the characteristics of the geography. The Brooklands area is a distinct area of Elmbridge, characterised by a mix of industrial, commercial, retail and indeed residential development that has been constructed within or on the edge of the former Brooklands Circuit. Indeed, this development is located both to the east and west of Area 25, as is evident from mapping of the area. The eastern area includes residential and commercial development to the east of the River Wey. So, in effect, the general Brooklands area is artificially split by awarding Green Belt status to Area 25.
Addressing the area to the east of the River Wey, this development cannot be logically described as part of Weybridge, due to its distinct characteristics and the fact that the private St George's Hill estate acts as a barrier to its integration with Weybridge. Nor does it form part of Byfleet to the south, due to limited direct links. Indeed, functionally and practically, it forms a separate part of Elmbridge, known as Brooklands. Therefore, by retaining the Green Belt status for Area 25, the Council is maintaining the disjointed strategic planning approach to this area, preventing the logical integration of the western and eastern elements of Brooklands. Indeed, this is happening already in the northern part of the Area, with some significant developments encroaching on the area and 'linking' the two areas. Therefore, any suggestion that this area would prevent neighbouring towns from merging has little credence. The fact is that the area of Green Belt is prevents the proper integration of an existing area of Elmbridge (i.e. Brooklands) that is plainly distinct from neighbouring settlements.
Irrespective of our views, this is not what is concluded in the GBBR. Indeed, n paragraph 6.2.2, the GBBR makes the puzzling conclusion that Area 25 is important to the integrity of the Green Belt by providing a strategic link to land to the north in Runnymede and also to the south (east of Byfleet). However, it then concludes
that there is potential for sub-division of the northern and southern elements of the area
(with the boundary at Wellington Way).
Needless to say, all of parcel 25 has experienced some form of development, although
some elements more dense than others. If, as the GBBR advocate, consideration is
given to the removal of the northern element of Parcel 25, this would automatically
undermine the reasons that the GBBR gives for awarding this area of Green Belt value
(i.e. the link). Whilst we think the conclusion in the GBBR is mistaken since it does not take into account there is a significant amount of development that has already been constructed in the northern element of Area 25 and thus undermining the logic of suggesting the entirety of the link is important. However, it does seem somewhat
contradictory to then suggest that part of the area might also be removed from the Green Belt. Any removal of Area 25 would undermines the key reason given in the GBBR to value this area of land under Purposes 1 and 2 anyway. Therefore, even under the logic displayed in the GBBR, there are compelling reasons to
remove all of Area 25 from the Green Belt and rely on other local policy designations to manage development.

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
«No response»

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
This approach fails to recognise the potential that retail and other economic uses have an important role to play in the economy. For example, the Elmbridge Baseline and FEA 2016 finds that there are some 5,606 jobs in retail use within Elmbridge, representing some 9.52% of the total workforce. Retail is also seen as one of the prominent
employment sectors compared to other areas in Surrey and the South East (see Table 5 of the LEP). Therefore, the role of these jobs should not be under-estimated, since they provide an important contribution to the local economy in Elmbridge. In addition, the way in which retail and traditional B-class employment uses interact is
blurring, which the increase use of the Internet and click and collect facilities, and indeed in the future the role of 3D printing and other innovations will need to be considered. This means that the traditional B-class uses (and the jobs within them) are blurring, with retail units often having a dual role of both a retail outlet, as well as facility for click and collect orders. There are often close synergies between retail uses and some forms of B8 uses, particularly logistics. Furthermore, it is quite possible for retail uses to facilitate increased
B class uses in certain locations, which will result in an aggregate uplift of retail and industrial jobs.

17

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

Should the redevelopment of existing employment areas be proposed, flexibility should be applied in policy to allow for the number of jobs generated by any given development to be considered by the decision taker, as well as the overall economic benefit to the economy. The protection of land for the use of solely B-class uses should be avoided in
policy since this does not recognise the many economic benefits that non-B class jobs provide.

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
At the outset, the Council should be aware that Next have a long-term requirement for a site to locate a new combined home and fashion store of about 5,500 to 6,000 sqm gross in the Brooklands area. As explained in the section on retail (see below) the characteristics of this type of store mean that the only area in the Borough that it can be accommodated is in or around the Brooklands area. Next have yet to agree on the site, but one of the main planning constraints in the area is the Green Belt. The Council recognise the potential for employment uses to provide an exceptional circumstance in paragraph 4.32 of the Strategic Options Consultation on the Elmbridge Local Plan (December 2016). The construction of a Next store would fit within this category of employment uses and a store of this nature would typically generate at least 150 jobs within the store itself, together with the additional economic benefits through
the construction of the store and supply chain benefits. There are also economic benefits through the provision of business rates payments. Therefore, the economic advantages from Next investing in a new store would be an important exceptional circumstance to consider when addressing Green Belt release. In addition to the economic benefits, an exceptional circumstance would also be the
ability for the Council to meet its substantial retail needs that exist. As explained below, the current approach to meeting needs will not discharge its requirement under paragraph 23 of the NPPF to meet its needs in full. Should the Green Belt need to be amended to allow the Council to meet its retail needs, this would be a further
exceptional circumstance to consider. Turning to the Green Belt, there are clear exceptional circumstances to trigger the review of the Green Belt boundary at Brooklands, primarily in respect of the economic benefit that can arise from further development in the Brooklands area, and the requirement to meet retail needs in full enable the Council to comply with the requirements of the NPPF. However, there are further exceptional circumstances surrounding the future function of the Brooklands Community Park, which may require some funding through development in order to improve the facilities and long term role as a community use in the Borough. As we have explained above, there are compelling exceptional circumstances to trigger the amendment of the Green Belt boundary at Brooklands and we would suggest that the Council consider removing the entirety of Parcel 25 from the Green Belt. There are
other policies in the Plan that would ensure that the area is protected from inappropriate development. But maintaining the Green Belt as defined prevents Elmbridge from fulfilling its economic function and allowing the various elements of Brooklands to integrate and develop as a distinct part of the Borough.

19

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

No comment

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
Next have a long term requirement for a site to locate a new combined home and
fashion store of about 5,500-6,000 sqm gross (about 3,700 to 4,000 sqm net) in the
Brooklands area. This store is a distinct format that Next are opening around the
Country in solely out of centre locations, with only about 20 to 30 planned. The store
format is distinct and different from either Next’s existing fashion only ‘town centre’
type operations, or the current and more limited ‘Home’ only format normally found in
out of centre locations.
These new format stores provide a substantially expanded range of Home products,
encompassing not just the established Home furniture and soft furnishing ranges but
also fitted kitchens, bathrooms, carpets and floor coverings, DIY products to assist
home decoration such as paints, wallpapers and tools, and in addition a garden
centre area retailing plants and products for garden use including paving, outdoor
furniture, garden tools and so on. In addition, the stores include a significant fashion
element retailing Next’s men’s, women’s and children’s clothing ranges. The format
also includes a coffee shop. A similar format store recently opened near New
Malden and Raynes Park off the A3 (88 Bushey Road, SW20 0JW). Due to the existing retail function and employment profile of Brooklands, Next have
identified the area as one of the strategic locations for its network of these combined
dual format stores. Therefore, it is essential that policy recognises this substantial
retail requirement since it would demonstrate how the Council is considering market
signals, as advised in paragraph 004 of the Planning Practice Guidance (Reference
ID: 2b-004-20140306). Facilitating such a store through policy would meet a large
amount of Elmbridge’s retail needs in the comparison goods sector, as set out in the
Elmbridge Retail Assessment, April 2016 (ERA).
Indeed, the ERA finds that there is a need to 2035 of between 14,100 and 19,700
sqm net of comparison floorspace by 2035. The obligation for the Council under
paragraph 23 of the NPPF is for these needs to be ‘met in full’ and are ‘not
compromised by limited site availability’.
In general terms, the ERA uses a typical step by step analysis of quantitative need.
Generally speaking, the quantitative methodology adopted within the ERA is sound,
although it robustness is dependent on a number of key methodological assumptions
and inputs. As a general point, the omission of inflow expenditure in the quantitative
need calculations in the comparison sector has likely downplayed the need to some
degree, particularly in light of the significant employment floorspace at Brooklands.
However, we make the following fundamental points on the robustness of the
evidence: In Section 4, the ERA reviews the sub-regional context, highlighting the role
nearby centres such as Kingston, Woking, Staines, Guildford and Addlestone
play in influencing spending patterns Elmbridge. It is highlighted in the ERA
that some of these centres benefit from proposals that will inevitably influence
the shopping patterns in the Borough. In other words, other things being
equal, we consider that they are likely to attract more trade from Elmbridge
residents at the expense of destinations in Elmbridge. Travelling longer
distances to undertake shopping has inevitable sustainability draw backs.
 However, the ERA has not reviewed the evidence base or policy position of
these centres. This is surprising, since for two of the local authorities, the
evidence was produced by the same consultant. However, if this exercise
had been undertaken, it would be apparent that none of the centres are
actively promoting a policy position or using evidence that advocates an
increasing market share in the comparison goods sector for those areas.
 Therefore, it is with some surprise to note in Scenario 2 of the ERA (para 7.24
onwards), quantitative need has been tested with a reduction in market share
of 2.2 percentage points. Irrespective of the likely impact on shopping
patterns, the investments in the centres in question are not predicated on
increasing market share of comparison expenditure. Therefore, for Elmbridge
to consider a reducing market share leaves excess need that is not being met
through policy. This situation is contrary to the requirements of the NPPF. There is no evidence through the duty to co-operate that Elmbridge have
agreed to export this need to a neighbouring local authority. The use of a
declining market share scenario is wholly inappropriate due the sustainability
implications, particularly given that there is active market signal interest to
meet at least some of this need. Using the declining market share scenario
also serves to dampen the short-term needs and would appear to suggest to
the Council that there is no pressure to meet its needs locally. Therefore, we
consider that the lower figure of 14,100 sqm net of comparison floorspace
need to 2035 should be deleted from policy and only the higher constant
market share figures should be used; namely between 17,800 sqm net and
19,700 sqm net of comparison floorspace need.
 Therefore, the suggestion that 14,100 sqm net of comparison floorspace need
is a minimum is misleading (final bullet in summary to Section 7 of the ERA).
The minimum ought to be the 17,800 sqm net figure. Furthermore, a strict
maximum should not be set, since this would put an artificial cap on
Elmbridge’s ability to maintain its market share and ensure shopping patterns
are sustainable. Rather, the higher figure should be seen as a guide. In the treatment of Brooklands, the ERA is inconsistent in its advice to the
Council and therefore encourage the Council to award its findings limited
weight when formulating policy. Firstly, it advises in paragraph 10.35 (in the
context of recommendations on Weybridge) that ‘future expansion of
Brooklands which would diversify the retail offer or broaden the range of uses,
should be resisted in order to protect the vitality and viability of Weybridge District Centre…’. This conclusion would prejudice any ability to put forward an application under the necessary development management tests expected to be included in policy (namely sequential test and retail impact). Notwithstanding this point, diversifying the retail offer or broaden the range of uses does not automatically mean there will be increased competition with Weybridge and other centres. The level of competition will depend on the nature of any proposals put forward. Finally, this statement appears to be contradictory with paragraph 10.57, where the ERA simply says ‘further development at Brooklands should be tested against the requirements of the NPPF and local planning policies’ which is somewhat more neutral than the comment in paragraph 10.35.
 Finally, there is limited explanation in the ERA as to what the qualitative needs are in the Borough and how it is expected that these would be met. There are factual analysis of existing centres. However, nowhere does the study address the fundamental point on whether the retail floorspace in the Borough is currently providing, or will provide in the future, adequate consumer choice taking into account the market trends evidence at Section 3. If it had done so, it would have identified the clear opportunity to improve retail choice at Brooklands that complements the existing network of town and village centres. Therefore, we consider that the ERA has under-represented the need for additional comparison retail floorspace by testing a reducing market share scenario and has not provided sufficiently robust evidence on qualitative need. However, irrespective of the approach taken in the ERA, there are clearly substantial retail needs in the comparison sector and the NPPF requires these needs to be met in full. The policy approach, as drafted, provides little reference to the ERA nor the NPPF obligations to meeting needs in full. Indeed, we have significant concerns over the suggested approach in policy for retail as summarised in paragraphs 4.36 and 4.37.
Firstly, paragraph 4.36 states that there are ‘limited development opportunities’ to deliver new retail floorspace within town centres, since they are ‘tightly bound by residential areas of physical barriers such as the Thames’. This might be so, but the NPPF makes it clear that the requirement to meet needs in full should not be compromised by limited site availability. The statement that it will be ‘a challenge to meet the levels of development required to retain market share when faced with competition from centres such as Kingston and Guildford’ adds little to policy formulation and appears to invite defeat where market share decrease, expenditure leakage increases and therefore the sustainability of consumer behaviour in the retail sector reduces. This is the antithesis of positive forward planning as required by the NPPF. At this stage, policy does little to address the conundrum presented by the ERA. There is a substantial need in the comparison sector, yet paragraph 4.37 simply states ‘our policy, in line with the NPPF, seeks to focus all new retail development in our town centres…’. This is not what the NPPF says and there is no preclusion of out of centre retail floorspace within the NPPF. Indeed, it is supported, subject to satisfying the sequential test and demonstrating that there will be no likelihood of a significant adverse impact on the town centre (paragraphs 23-26). In a situation where there are no sites to meet the substantial comparison goods needs that exist, and there are clear market signals for additional retail floorspace within the Borough, policy should proactively facilitate the planned retail investment for the area. Whilst at this stage, no final site has been identified by Next, the specific characteristics of this type of retail unit, combined with the Council’s acknowledgement that it will be a ‘challenge to meet the levels of development required’ mean that it can be safely concluded that a site in the Brooklands area would meet the sequential test, as being the next most accessible after town centre and edge of centre.
In terms of retail impact, the levels of need mean that the impact of a store of the size Next are seeking will not have a significant adverse impact. Paragraph 14 of the Planning Practice Guidance (reference ID: 2b-014-20140306) explains that ‘[i]f the Local Plan is based on meeting the assessed need for town centre uses in accordance with the sequential approach, issues of adverse impact should not arise’. Even under the minimum need outputs according to the ERA (14,100 sqm net by 2035), a Next store of approximately 4,500 sqm net would fall well within these need requirements and for reasons explained above, it can be safely assumed that a store in the Brooklands area would meet the sequential approach. Therefore, issues of adverse retail impact should not arise. In light of the above, we would encourage the Council to provide explicit support within the Local Plan to meet Next’s retail requirements within the Brooklands area. Since the site has not yet been agreed upon, other land uses policies on employment and Green Belt should be aligned that allows for the case to be made for retail uses in the Brooklands area, subject to satisfying other policies in the Plan (as explained elsewhere in these representations).

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
«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?

«No response»

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?

«No response»

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.

 

Should the Council wish to discuss Next’s requirements for a new retail store in the Brooklands area, we would be pleased to engage with the relevant officers.

34. Files

«No files»