View Response

Response Details

Response Details
From Deleted User
Date Started: 21 Mar 2017 15:00. Last modified: 21 Mar 2017 15:00
Status Complete
Response ID #529900

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
«No response»

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?
Statement

The Esher Residents Association do not believe that the case has been made for allowing development in the Green Belt "Weakly performing areas and we cannot support any of the three options being proposed.

The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belt are their openness and their permanence.

The recently released Government white paper appears to support this and the "Weakly Performing" category of Green Belt appears to be directly undermining this central government policy.

If Brexit means Brexit, then Green Belt is surely Green Belt and it is hard to understand how any area of it can be described as weakly performing when it has prevented the metropolitan mass from overwhelming us for so many years.

Alternative Policy

There is a need for a large increase in the housing stock of the nation and we believe this is a responsibility of central government. Government should be planning a new town or towns.

The local need for housing land could be achieved in a number of ways. Although we appreciate this will require a huge infrastructure investment in roads, schools drainage and the mitigation of air pollution.

The Association believes that Elmbridge Council should look again at the urban capacity. There maybe some areas where flats could be built one storey higher without detriment to the character of the town.

We also believe that there are low density areas where it would be acceptable to increase density by the division of large housing plots.

We understand there have been suggestions for schemes to build low cost flats above certain public car parks and increasing car parking at the same time. In some areas this may be acceptable if schemes of character could be developed.

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.

 

Housing Requirement Overstated

The Association does not believe that, although independently assessed, the requirement or need for 9,500 dwellings by 2035 is correct. The economy has been very severely threatened by the Brexit vote and there is every reason to believe that the requirement for housing will not increase at the same rate as in the past but rather a much reduced number of dwellings will be required between now and 2035 than predicted.

However, we do recognize that there is considerable pressure to increase the number of dwellings in Elmbridge. The evidence is clear as in the last four years alone the number of households in the Borough has increased by some 3,800 an increase of 7%. Such increases cannot be sustainable to 2035 and there are already
clear indications that infrastructure is already failing to meet the increased pressures.

Infrastructure Cannot Cope

The existing road system already cannot cope, resulting in "go slows" and traffic jams in many areas and on a regular basis, particularly on the approach roads to Esher; from the A3 & Oxshott, from Hersham via Lammas Lane and through the High Street.

The air quality has reduced in some areas of the Borough to such a degree that it has become a major consideration in planning applications e.g. the old peoples flats in Cobham High Street.

An additional 9,500 dwellings would presumably create an additional 10,000 to 18,000 cars in this area bringing many roads to a standstill. Should the current proposed redevelopment of Kempton Park go ahead, this would in itself lead to increases in traffic for Hampton Court Way and Esher High Street.

Conclusion

The Esher Residents Association would urge Elmbridge Borough Council to reconsider their proposals for the Local Plan. Concentrating on actual Housing need rather than developer created demand. We believe the need for new dwellings in Elmbridge to be considerably lower than the 9,500 figure quoted and as a result there is no need to encroach on any Green Belt land. Furthermore before any significant increase in housing is provided, attention must be given to improving local infrastructure.

For the reasons mentioned above, the Esher Residents Association does not support any of the three options proposed.

34. Files

«No files»