View Response

Response Details

Response Details
From Deleted User
Date Started: 21 Mar 2017 15:46. Last modified: 21 Mar 2017 15:46
Status Complete
Response ID #529913

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?
«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
«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
I am writing in my capacity as the Member of Parliament for Kingston & Surbiton, and as a
Surbiton resident, to object in the strongest possible terms to your proposals to reclassify the
Green Belt designation for "Local Area 58" thereby allowing significant housebuilding on the
site. I would not normally comment on a planning-related matter outside Kingston, but this
consultation relates to a piece of land directly on the border of my constituency and where
the proposals will have a deleterious effect on my constituents.
This letter sets out the reasons for my answers to questions 4- 8 on the Elmbridge Local Plan
Strategic Options Consultation.
Elmbridge Council has now acknowledged that it has no power to remove the Green Belt
status of, or allow development on, the Southborough High School's playing fields that are
included in Local Area 58 on the plan in your consultation. It is not acceptable that this land
was included as part of the plan in the first place, and I am pleased that Kingston Council has
confirmed that it has no plans at all to remove the Green Belt status of that land.
Turning to the remainder of the land (i.e. that which is in Elm bridge Borough), my objections
to Elm bridge Council's proposals (Option 2) are twofold- they involve building on the Green
Belt and would add significant pressure to services in Kingston.

Green Belt
• The proposals would lead to mass development on the Green Belt to which I am
opposed, as are Kingston's Conservative Council, the Mayor of London and many
Kingston Borough residents. This would be a sad loss of valuable green space;
• The current guidance on the Green Belt, which the government recently re-affirmed,
only permits development in defined exceptional circumstances. I am not convinced that those exceptional circumstances pertain in Elmbridge at the present time.
Kingston and other london Boroughs are encouraging housebuilding on brownfield
sites and intensifying development on non-Green Belt land to tackle the undoubted
housing crisis, and I doubt Elmbridge has exhausted these options before resorting to
building on the Green Belt.;
• Local Area 58 is not "weakly performing" greenbelt. It includes a number of amenities
used by Kingston Borough residents including (but not limited to) the allotments, the
Hockey Club and the fields in Local Area 58 which they use for walks and recreation,
especially Stokes Field Nature Reserve.

Pressure of Kingston's services
• There can be no doubt that mass housebuilding on Local Area 58 would put significant
additional pressure on Kingston's already stretched services, for which Kingston
residents would never be compensated fully;
• Residents in the new developments would undoubtedly want to use Surbiton Railway
Station and/or the M25. This would cause a big increase in traffic volumes through the
quiet residential streets of Southborough and on the already packed A3 and A243,
affecting the residents of Surbiton, Tolworth, Hook, Chessington and Malden Rushett;
• Residents in the new developments would be likely to want places at Surbiton or
Tolworth schools, GP surgeries and other services which are already approaching
capacity;
• As the relevant planning authority, Elmbridge Council would receive s.106 I
Community Infrastructure Levy funding from developers to mitigate these additional
pressures, and would be likely to enter some sort of agreement with Kingston Borough
Council, but the money offered will never compensate Kingston in full for the
additional pressures development on local Area 58 would place on its services.
For these reasons, I would like to repeat my objection, in the strongest possible terms, to your
proposals to reclassify the Green Belt designation of " local Area 58" .
I would also like to present the following petition, which has received signatures from the 931
Kingston Borough residents listed in the attached document.

We the undersigned residents of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames strongly
object to the proposals in Elmbridge Council's Strategic Options Consultation to designate
"Key Strategic Area 58" for development. This is Green Belt land and development in this
area would have an impact on Surbiton and Tolworth's already stretched infrastructure and
services which will never be covered by payments from the developer to Elmbridge Council.
I hope my response, together with the petition I have organised and the many other
objections I know you have received from Kingston and Elmbridge residents, will persuade
you to drop your plans to allow development on Strategic Area 58.

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.

 

«No response»