View Response

Response Details

Response Details
From James Riley
Date Started: 21 Mar 2017 14:41. Last modified: 21 Mar 2017 14:41
Status Complete
Response ID #529891

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 all residents in Elmbridge.
To address infrastructure requirements for Schools, Doctors, transport congestion etc.
To maintain strong protections for the Green Belt and avoid urban sprawl as the Government promised us.
To maintain the environment and avoid further pollution.
To take account of the value of green spaces for the recreation of local people.

2

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

 

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don’t know

Please explain your answer
«No response»

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?
New housing is not an Exceptional Circumstance to allow Green Belt removal.
A proper detailed assessment of brownfield sites should be the first priority.
Increased urbanisation of the more major urban areas in the borough would be better.
EBC has not demonstrated any exploration with neighbouring boroughs - crucial considerations
The Green Belt Review (ARUP) report fails to set out the process clearly and fairly.
The Green Belt Review (ARUP) Purpose 3 assessments incorrectly score Parcel14 and Parcel 20 too low.
Parcel 14 and Parcel 20 would not be identified as 'Weakly Performing' if correctly scored.
Planning constraints (infrastructure, traffic, etc.) make Chippings Farm unsuited for development.

Chippings Farm/Fairmile
It is unlikely that any more affordable housing would be available for local residents.
Traffic congestion on local roads would be a problem.
Local infrastructure is already under pressure; Option 2 would make it worse.
Parcel 20 is too far from the centre for sustainable development.

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
«No response»

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 response»

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
«No response»

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
«No response»

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
«No response»

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
«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
«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
«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.

 

I attended the meeting yesterday at St Andrew's Church, Cobham and heard your presentation of the Council's proposals for releasing areas designated as Green Belt, for development in pursuance of the target to build new housing in the local area, as part of "Shaping elmbridge: a new Local Plan".
Not having internet access, I am unable to respond via online EBC Green Belt Consultation questionnaire which I have not seen but which I gather from speaking to residents who have completed it is a very long and complex document, as was brought out at the meeting. For people like myself, who are not technologically competent, I think it unnecessarily difficult and daunting. I am therefore using the "tick box" sheet handed out at the meeting which seems to me fairly comprehensive, together with these supplementary comments of my own.
It seems to be generally acknowledged that this country needs more housing due largely to population explosion, including immigration. What is noticeable to me, however, is the basis on which now our local area this need has been quantified. I have not seen the Ove Arup consultation paper, which came in for a considerable amout of criticism at the meeting and which many regard as flawed. Also, it is not clear from what we have been told whether there has been a detailed assessment of brownfield sites or whether increased urbanisation of the more urban areas in the borough has been fully explained. These are absolutely crucial considerations. Again, in so-called "affluent areas" like ours where housing (like most things) is very expensive, what are the prospects of providing "affordable" housing (whatever that means) to meet the needs of the less well off?
The potential impact of more housing development on the environment, although referred to, does not appear to have been thoroughly thought through particularly in terms of our pollution (already a problem in Cobham) and traffic congestion, particularly on the very busy A3, which will be affected by the proposed Chippings Farm development.
I do not think it is nimbyism to raise these concerns and I urge the Council to think hard and long about the effects of these proposed developments in the Green Belt before any irrevocable action is taken to approve them. After all, developers are only basically interested in making profits and want to be able to build on the way which is least problematical and potentially most profitable for them.

The Cobham area needs more housing, but the Consultation paper is not clear on what type or where.
The Strategic Areas would not necessarily release the land for necessary and desirable development.
The Consultation is unclear on how many homes would be delivered by removing Green Belt status and how these would be "affordable" (whatever that means!).
Until the nature of potential development is known it is not possible to assess relative priorities.

34. Files

«No files»