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
o The methodology and assessment is subjective and completely flawed. Inconsistency with the scoring and categorisation across all the parcels of land.
o I strongly disagree with Parcel 14 (Knowle Hill Park, north Blundel Lane) being included for the following reasons:
o This parcel of Green Belt currently prevents the merger of “neighbouring” areas of Stoke D’Abernon and Oxshott.
o Cobham, Stoke D’Abernon and Oxshott are distinct ‘village’ communities – the council’s own Flood Risk Assessment recognises them as separate entities.
o The Green Belt Review scoring is wrong – Parcel 14 is only 2.5% built on and therefore should 4 or 5 not 2.
o Description of Parcel 14 as “semi-urban” is very subjective and patently untrue – it is semi-rural.
o Description of Parcel 14 as having “weak links” to the strongly performing Parcel 10 is untrue and solely due to Blundel Lane and the railway line.
o Previous owners of the Knowle Hill Park area had higher protection than Green Belt (via a section 52 agreement). This was removed by the Council – there is no justification for why this has changed.
o The radical upgrade of infrastructure required, inc. roads, increased flooding to an already flood-prone area.
o I believe this should be subject to review and independent audit verification as insufficient weighting has been given to the points detailed below:
i. Ancient woodlands are present on Parcel 14. These need to be surrounded with buffer zones and wildlife corridors.
ii. There is verified presence of Greater Crested Newts which are protected by both U.K. and EU legislation.
iii. It is also a natural habitat for bats, beetles, adders, buzzards, deer and owls.
iv. The topography of Parcel 14 is very hilly next to Blundel Lane and the presence of a flood plain at the bottom of the hill has not been recognised or scored.
v. I believe that these are actually Absolute Constraints and need to be recognised and scored as such.
vi. Parcel 14 Polyapes is used by 1,000’s of youth groups throughout the year, inc. Scouts, DofE etc.
vii. The existing railway bridge at Blundel Lane and the nature of the road (i.e. ‘lane’) would not cope with further housing/traffic.
viii. There are no local jobs within walking distance of Parcel 14, so all new residents must travel on the local, already-congested roads or access a small railway station with a slow service to access employment.
ix. The positioning of Parcel 14 means that all new residents must, again, travel via car, or on the limited bus service (will bus service be improved?) to reach any amenities, e.g. shops, schools, GP surgeries etc, adding to the existing congestion.
x. If Parcel 14 and Parcel 20 are developed, then Fairmile Lane will be gridlocked, whilst people try to travel to find school places, access shops, jobs etc.
xi. Will existing GP surgeries increase/improve? Already we have to wait 2 weeks+ to get an appointment.
xii. On the Arup document, it details that only 6 hectares of Parcel 14 are developable.
xiii. There are numerous waterways in and around the area of Blundel Lane – will all of these be re-positioned?
• I strongly disagree with Parcel 20 (next to Portsmouth Road, Cobham) being included for the following reasons:
o Parcel 20 acts as a vital separation between Cobham and Esher.
o It protects against ribbon development along the Portsmouth Road (A307).
o The Common Land and Site of Special Scientific Interest in this area must be protected.
o Development on such a large scale would change the character of Cobham and damage local community cohesion.
o The infrastructure couldn’t cope and would need to be drastically improved.
o The Green Belt Review undervalues this land which has only 4.6% built structures on it.