View Response

Response Details

Response Details
From Birds Hill Oxshott Estate Co.…
Agent Alsop Verrill (John Ainsworth)
Date Started: 21 Mar 2017 11:06. Last modified: 21 Mar 2017 11:06
Status Complete
Response ID #529766

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
We recognise the key challenges facing Elmbridge in meeting the housing and infrastructure needs of present and future residents, whilst preserving the area’s special character and the aspects that make it a popular and attractive place to live.

The Birds Hill Estate in Oxshott is one such area that has come under intense pressure in recent years from planning applications that increase the density of development significantly. Yet the intensification of this area and others like it risks the loss of the
special verdant character that makes the Estate what it is, and has made it such a popular place to live.

As representatives of the Estate, we are keen to see this character retained, notwithstanding our ready acknowledgement of the challenges that the Borough faces in meeting its housing and infrastructure needs.

2

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

 

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don’t know

Please explain your answer
Ensuring associated infrastructure is too broad a ‘challenge’, and should be broken down into separate elements. It is already well known that some aspects of local infrastructure cannot cope and their scale and nature need to be identified; For example, the locations of additional schools and medical facilities should be considered, planned and funded prior to the delivery of new housing.

How the Borough’s waste needs are met is a further example of key infrastructure that would need supporting alongside housing growth, and again does the land and capacity exist for growth, whilst also considering the environmental effects of such provision.

Transport links should also be considered. It is noted that around half of residents currently commute into London. It is far from certain that the transport capacity exists to support current growth expectations, particularly amongst the key railway routes into London Waterloo.

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
The key challenges facing the Birds Hill Estate in particular are to minimise the environmental impacts arising from new development and the Protection and enhancement of our natural and historic built environment. Both are key in ensuring that the acknowledged special character of the Estate in protected.

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?
«No response»

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
- One of the worst levels of affordability in the country coupled with an under supply of affordable homes;
- Need to deliver a better mix of new housing away from current delivery focussed on houses of four or more bedrooms; and
- The land that is being kept open for the purposes of Green Belt is no longer meeting those purposes

With the exception of the first exceptional circumstances (levels of affordability) the other reasons are considered weak and too generic. Elmbridge has exceptional circumstances by virtue of its location within the commuter belt of one of the world’s fastest growing cities, and by the fact that the entire Borough is located within the
Metropolitan Green Belt, whilst many of its built-up parts retain a special low density and green character that makes development of the scale needed difficult to deliver without adversely affecting its character and appearance. This has particular importance for the relatively few publicly-accessible green and open spaces that people can enjoy for active and passive recreation.

Suggested amendments to the reasons for exceptions should include;
- Ensuring that the Borough has available larger sites for the established need of 5,780 new homes and is capable of accommodating a better mix of new housing without compromising the established character of the Borough’s existing settlements.
- The availability of Green Belt land within the Borough that is no longer meeting its original purposes that can provide this need.

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
It would be inappropriate for a number of good reasons for two of the three ‘key strategic areas’ to be removed from the Green Belt. Of the third, land south of the A3 including Chippings Farm and The Fairmile, Cobham, assessment reveals that significantly less than half of it could be considered suitable for removal from the Green Belt as much of this area is a Site of Special Scientific Interest and as such carries a high degree of protection from development.

Assessment of the three Key Strategic Areas:

1) Land north of Blundel Lane, Cobham

Advantages
- Existing settlement on three sides and railway on the other. When looking at a map only, without the benefit of close physical inspection, it look ideally placed for urban expansion.
- Close to railway station and village amenities in Stoke D’Abernon.

Disadvantages
- Contains ancient woodland, which would be compromised.
- Contains a designated Village Green, which would be compromised.
- Contains a Scout Camp, which provides important leisure resource for children, teenagers and young adults.
- Contains a War Memorial whose long-term open setting would be
compromised.
- Knowle Hill House retains parkland setting which would be compromised.
- Within a lower density part of Cobham.

Assessment of De-designation from the Green Belt and Development against the 5 purposes of Green Belt as set out in Paragraph 80 of the NPPF (see Table in attachment).

Summary
This site is wholly unsuitable for removal from the Metropolitan Green Belt, and is considered to perform the functions of Green Belt well.

The level of developable land within the total site is considered to be minimal. This means that the local planning authority has greatly exaggerated the potential for housing delivery. The north east corner of the site is dominated by a designated Village Green that contributes greatly to the established character along Littleheath
Lane. South of this, the existing pond and woodland provide a welcome oasis and an important wildlife resource, as acknowledged by Elmbridge Borough Council in the form of various information boards along the banks of the pond.

Knowle Hill House is situated in the northwest corner of the site. This is currently being converted into apartments alongside 5 large detached houses on the former car parking area. These are advertised as set within 45 acres of secluded private woods
and parkland.

The southwest corner of the site is home to the Scout War Memorial. Development would threaten local character and the Scout camp.

Paragraph 2.23 of ‘Nature Nearby’ – Accessible Natural Greenspace Guidance (2010) published by Natural England states that Natural England promotes ‘Nature Nearby’, which is the provision of good quality natural green spaces close to where people live, so that they can experience and enjoy different ecosystems.

It is considered that should this land be de-designated as Green Belt there would be not enough developable land within it to make any impact in addressing the housing needs of the Borough, whilst its loss would be widely felt, and for good town planning reasons.

2) Land south of the A3 including Chippings Farm and The Fairmile, Cobham

Advantages
- Bounded by existing settlement and the A3, when looking on a map represents logical area for expansion.
- Within a higher density part of Cobham and relatively close to local amenities.

Disadvantages
- Around half of the total site area is designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Village Green. These important designations significantly reduce the potential of the site to accommodate new homes.

Assessment of De-designation from the Green Belt and Development against the 5 purposes of Greenbelt as set out in Paragraph 80 of the NPPF (see Table in attachment).

Summary
Of the three sites, we consider that this is the only one appropriate for removal from the Green Belt. It can be divided into three main character areas and, as such removal should only apply to the central open portion which is not covered by any special designation and whose open setting is already compromised by the existing
farm buildings and the Fairmile Hotel.

The eastern part of this key strategic area sits within the Esher Commons which were designated in 1995 as a Site of Special Scientific Interest. Sites of Special Scientific Interest are the country's very best wildlife and geological sites. Such land is protected by law to conserve their wildlife or geology. SSSIs support rare plants and animals that now find it difficult to survive in the wider countryside and consent is needed from Natural England about any planned activity on an SSSI.

3) Land north of the A309 and east and west of Woodstock Lane North, Long Ditton

Advantages
- Established settlement on three sides, with main road on the other. When looking at a map only, without the benefit of close physical inspection, it look ideally placed for urban expansion.
- Easy access to A3 providing quick links into London.

Disadvantages
- Green Belt in this location helps retain some form of separation between the established settlements of Long Ditton and Hinchley Wood.
- Site is home to Surbiton Hockey Club and Long Ditton Cricket Club, which provide important, successful and very well-used leisure resources. If these are retained the level of land available for development is reduced significantly.
- Site is home to Long Ditton Cemetery and which would limit further the level of land available for development, whilst development around it could compromise its existing setting.
- Site is home to Kisimul Special School which provides important educational resource for students with learning difficulties. If this were to be retained, the level of available land for housing development would be reduced further.
- Part of the site is a Local Nature Reserve, popular with local people and home to a mixture of animals and habitats.
- The setting of the historic St Mary’s Church, a Grade II Listed Building, would be compromised.
- The existing parkland setting of the Manor House would be compromised.
- The large number of existing uses suggest that the land is in multiple ownerships. It will be time consuming and difficult to assemble the land needed for the delivery of housing within the timeframe required.
- Certain parcels of land have viewpoints over the countryside to the south and towards urban areas near and far. Local people come here regularly and in large numbers for quiet recreation. This activity and unique views would be compromised by development.

Assessment of De-designation from the Green Belt and Development against the 5 purposes of Greenbelt as set out in Paragraph 80 of the NPPF (see Table in attachment).

Summary
The Land to the West of Woodstock Lane North is an important and popular local leisure and active and passive recreational resource. It is highly valued by local people as outlined within Policy DM17 of the Elmbridge Development Management Plan 2015.

The centre of this strategic site is designated as a Local Nature Reserve called Stokes Field. Local Nature Reserves are described by Natural England as areas for both people and wildlife. They are places with wildlife or geological features that are of special interest locally. They offer people special opportunities to study or learn about
nature or simply to enjoy it.

The Local Nature Reserve at Stokes field was designated in 1999, it is described by Surrey County Council as An urban fringe site with a variety of habitats including woodland, grassland and scrub. It also has a pond. Plant species of note include crab apple, cuckoo flower and pyramidal orchid.

To its south, the land increases in height quite steeply providing open views across the Green Belt, Hinchley Wood and Bushy Park beyond.

It is accepted that parts of the ‘key strategic area’, including the Hockey Club pitches and floodlights are urban in character and that portions of the site including the garden centre and school are already built on. However, the hockey club and garden centre are both uses appropriate to the Green Belt and the structures are also
appropriate to it, as is made clear by paragraph 80 of the National Planning Policy Framework (‘NPPF’).

Despite this, the character of the area is open and the existing uses are all highly successful. The removal of the land upon which these facilities stand from Green Belt designation would not solve the short term pressures for providing land for new housing within the Local Plan timeframe, as it would rely on the individual landowners closing
the existing successful uses and re-locating them, prior to developers submitting individual planning applications for their separate parcels of land. Re-location locally must be very doubtful considering the enormous increases in land values that have taken place since the various facilities were first established.

Paragraph 74 of the NPPF is clear that Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless:
● an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or
● the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or
● the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the needs for which clearly outweigh the loss.

This further illustrates that the removal of this land from Greenbelt designation would not provide land for housing.

The openness of the Green Belt here is an important reason for people wanting to live in or visit the area. If this is taken away the whole character of the area will change and residents’ lives and leisure activities compromised.

Paragraph 123 of the NPPF states that Planning policies and decisions should aim to:

● identify and protect areas of tranquillity which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason.

It is clear that the sites this site should be given greater protection not see its existing protection removed. Part of the land to the east of Woodstock Lane is currently used for Equestrian activities and Policy DM19 of the Elmbridge Local plan notes that such activities are
popular in the borough offering opportunities for outdoor recreation and promoting healthy communities. It is noted that there are currently seven licensed riding establishments within Elmbridge, all of which lie within the Green Belt.

Paragraph 2.23 of ‘Nature Nearby’ – Accessible Natural Greenspace Guidance (2010) published by Natural England states that Natural England promotes ‘Nature Nearby’, which is the provision of good quality natural green spaces close to where people live, so that they can experience and enjoy different ecosystems.

Conclusions

The basic concept of the Green Belt was established back in 1902 by Ebenezer Howard in his seminal publication ‘Garden Cities of Tomorrow’.

Howard notes on page 17 that human society and the beauty of nature are meant to be enjoyed together and supplement each other.

On page 16 of his text, Howard notes that the country provides beautiful vistas, lordly parks, violet scented woods, fresh air, sounds of rippling water; but too often one sees those threatening words “Trespassers will be prosecuted”. The Green Belt at Stokes
Field and Fairmile Park provides these benefits without the threatening sign. In line with Howards vison.

Whilst we agree that Green Belt land is not always worthy of its designation as protected land and in exceptional circumstances if it is failing to meet the criteria set out in paragraph 80 of the NPPF, barely any of the ‘key strategic sites’ so poorly considered by the local planning authority before embarking on this exercise, could be considered appropriate for removal from the Metropolitan Green Belt to enable the provision of new homes.

Paragraph 81 of the NPPF states that local planning authorities should plan positively to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt, such as looking for opportunities to provide access; to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation; to retain and enhance
landscapes, visual amenity and biodiversity; or to improve damaged and derelict land.

Whilst paragraph 70 states: To deliver the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services the community needs, planning policies and decisions should:
● guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services, particularly where this would reduce the community’s ability to meet its day-to-day needs;

Through suggesting, the de-designation of all three of these sites in full, which contain opportunities for outdoor sport and passive and active recreation and biodiversity, illustrates a failure of the Borough Council to plan positively for the beneficial use of the Green Belt. It illustrates a lack of understanding of the role and function of
successful Green Belt land and a failure of the Borough Council to plan positively for healthy communities, as required within section 8 of the NPPF.

Whilst also reducing the ability of the existing community to meet its day to day needs, without compensating for the additional residents.

At a local level Policy DM20 (Open Space and Views) of the Elmbridge Development Management Plan 2015 notes that;
The open space within Elmbridge is essential to its character and contributes to the quality of the landscape and the network of green infrastructure. It is very important to local people, who
enjoy the visual benefits, wildlife habitats and the recreation function it provides.

The sites at Fairmile Park in Cobham and Stokes Field in Long Ditton are particularly important in this regard.

The Elmbridge Open Space and Recreation Assessment (2006) states that the proposed standard for the provision of natural greenspace is 9.4 ha of natural greenspace provision per 1,000 / population, and that the Borough as a whole will meet this target in 2026. It will be difficult to meet such a target through the designation of land which currently provides this function.

The removal of these entire sites from the Green Belt would also increase future hostility towards Green Belt developments on more suitable sites and make it more difficult for the Borough to meet its housing targets.

It is our view that two of the three ‘key strategic areas’ are completely inappropriate candidates for removal from the Green Belt, whilst the other has not been identified properly, with large parts of it wholly unsuited to development. We would recommend that Elmbridge Borough Council conducts a full audit of all its Green Belt land with full
regard to relevant planning factors to identify smaller, targeted pockets of land that could deliver the housing needed within the Local Plan timeframe.

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
1) Land north of Blundel Lane, Cobham
We do not consider that any parts of this key strategic area are suitable for development.
2) Land south of the A3 including Chippings Farm and The Fairmile, Cobham The central portion of the site around Chippings Farm and The Fairmile public house and Premier Inn is the only part of this key strategic area that could be considered for development.
3) Land north of the A309 and east and west of Woodstock Lane North, Long Ditton
The narrow strip of land east of Woodstock Lane between Long Ditton and the A3 is the only part of this area where it could be considered that the open setting of the Green Belt is not compromised by the surrounding existing development.

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 removal of appropriate Green Belt land should avoid the intensification of existing urban areas. The benefits of new housing must be assessed against the five long established purposes of 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
Important to ensure a more even supply of homes in the Borough.

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
Whilst Elmbridge Borough Council considers that homes with 4 or more bedrooms have been ‘over delivered’, it is important to take fully into account the Borough’s wider context of London, which is continues to see a proliferation of 1 and 2 bedroom apartments.

The demand for 4 bedroom family houses will continue to exist in Elmbridge and to restrict their supply would prevent families both within and outside the Borough that wish to move up from a smaller property. It would also lead to further increases in the price of the existing stock, as supply levels of such properties decrease relative to demand.

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
A one size fits all approach fails to consider the different character areas of the borough,

In the interests of sustainable development, it is important that densities are increased within appropriate locations particularly in selected Town Centres where a range of facilities can be accessed easily on foot and where development would not dilute established local character. An appropriate density of up-to 60dph could be appropriate in these instances.

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
The density of the proposed development should reflect the prevailing local context of the site and their accessibility to local services and public transport provision. As edge of settlement sites, the prevailing context will generally be of a lower density.

Public opposition to development on any Green Belt land is likely to be high, even if that land is of the lowest quality imaginable, largely as result of years of poor quality overly dense new developments. It is important that the development that is delivered on such land is of a high standard that does not attract such opposition nor encourage heightened resistance in the future.

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
We agree with the government’s approach that the ability of smaller developers to deliver the required housing is restricted sometimes by such contributions and which in turn are passed onto prospective purchasers, pushing up the cost of new housing.

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
The Borough Council has a duty to ensure sufficient pitches are available to prevent camps been set up outside designated areas.

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
Greater thought should be made with regard to providing housing for young people who have grown up in the Borough and wish to remain residents. As one of the most expensive areas to live in the country, younger people are increasingly being priced out of the Borough. The amount and proportion of shared ownership housing in developments should be increased. Developers should be obliged to make their
viability assessments of affordable housing available for public scrutiny – or to at least pay for their independent assessment for the Borough Council.

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
It is important to retain local employment areas to reduce commuting times and pressure on infrastructure such as roads and public transport. Regular review of the ability of employment areas to meet contemporary needs should take place within the planning process.

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
Brooklands provides one of the few large scale employment sites within the Borough. Whilst the existing Greenbelt land provides a green lung within the employment area if the area is to expand to provide future employment growth it would have to be within this space. The development of a SPD guiding development should be produced to set design standards and ensure a sustainable and environmentally friendly form of development. The Rolls Royce
Motor Car Factory at Goodwood in West Sussex designed by Nicholas Grimshaw which blends into the surrounding countryside on the edge of the South Downs National Park is an example of the standard of design that should be sought, and illustrates that large scale manufacturing plants need not be ugly.

The exceptional circumstance is that without such expansion the borough is unable to continue to provide the large scale employment space that it needs, and that is needed to support London and the wider South East region.

19

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

Lack of locally available affordable housing, restricting the supply of local workers.

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
The Jockey Club has already announced plans to redevelop Kempton Park for housing, whilst it is to be expected that Sandown Park will be the major beneficiary of the closure, this cannot be taken for granted. The area in a broad arc south and west of London is home to 6 racecourses in a line from Windsor in Berkshire to Lingfield Park in West Sussex. No other part of the UK has as many racecourses within such a small geographical area. The apparent oversupply of courses coupled with high land prices were probably the main reasons why Kempton Park is to close. It is crucial, therefore, to prevent Sandown Park from going the same way as Kempton Park. The local planning authority should continue to support the racecourse and the associated
economic benefits and jobs it brings.

21a

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

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

Please explain your answer
The provision of retail development with Town and Village Centres is proven to have substantial benefits over its provision in out of centre retail parks, notably in helping reduce car use and ensuring that facilities remain walkable whilst helping to maintain the viability and vibrancy of the Borough’s Town and Village Centres.

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
Whilst it is important to encourage and support retail uses in Town and Village Centres, it is also important that planning policy reflects the changing nature of how we are using our town centres.

Whilst retail has an important role to play in the Town and Village Centres of the future, they should also be places composed of a variety of uses (including residential, offices and local facilities) and places for social interaction, in the form of restaurants, cafes and bars and recreational facilities.

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
All are better than an empty unit is and will encourage visitors into the town centre increasing the possibility for linked trips. However, they should only be allowed to locate within primary high street shopping frontages subject to a check on the size and number of uses that do not fall within Use Class A1 (retail shops).

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
To ensure that the Borough retains its special verdant character.

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
If it ensures the character of the Special Protection Area remains.

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
As long as it does not compromise the Heritage Asset.

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
Yes and no. The design and character SPD’s are admirable and the intention is there. This needs to be reflected in planning decisions particularly relating to the Birds Hill Estate which unless it is afforded greater protection by the local planning authority will see its existing special character eroded though subdivision and overly large development.

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
If such a policy can provide greater guidance for smaller applications and in turn reduce the risk of refusal and officer time dealing with planning applications, then it could be beneficial.

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
Encourage the relevant operators and landowners to upgrade public transport provision, including provision of larger car and cycle parks around stations to ensure that public transport remains a viable alternative to the private car for more residents than it is at present.

Investment in cycle lanes to encourage safer cycling.

Investment in schools to inform children of the damage that is being caused to the environment because of excessive private car use.

Ensure as far as possible that development sites are accessible by public transport and are not isolated from service provision. Revenues from Community Infrastructure Levies should be used more for this.

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 two key areas are investment in Educational facilities and Health facilities.

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.

 

Designation of the Birds Hill providing greater protection to the character
and Estate as a Conservation Area, as a means of appearance of the
Estate.