Response Details

Response Details
From Anne Pringle
Date Started: 15 Feb 2017 08:30. Last modified: 15 Feb 2017 08:30
Status Complete
Response ID #521473

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?
I object to the Local Plan and proposed option 2, with objections to any development on green belt land in Elmbridge and specifically at this stage on those areas identified as weak performing.

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 am specifically objecting to the development of The Local area 58 for the following reasons :

1. The projections for housing needs are very questionable following the recent referendum, with population change trend now difficult to predict. Other statistics and demands assumed cannot be substantiated (eg number of people working in Elmbridge wishing to live in Elmbridge)
2. Housing that is being projected as a requirement for Elmbridge is mainly going to deal with demand coming from other boroughs and not Elmbridge population needs. Smaller family homes and social housing will have high child ratios, so I believe current statistics underestimate pressure on local services
3. Elmbridge is a special case as significantly a green belt borough meeting the requirements of green belt and restricting the urban sprawl from London to home counties
4. Any new private housing built will not be affordable as this is Elmbridge, such that any one, two or three bedroom houses will not be within the price range of affordability for those individuals that Elmbridge Council are trying to assist
5. The local area 58 has special and community uses, such as a nature reserve, hockey club, cricket club, cemetery, allotments, etc. If green belt designation is removed, future risk increases for this council owned land if designated only as green space
6. The current local services are inadequate for existing population. There is a shortage of GPs, school places, other services which Elmbridge do not have within its scope to commit to
7. Any proposal for additional infrastructure may not be delivered. Also if to be delivered, for example a medical centre, what good is this if there are not the GPs available. We have GP practices today, but the issues is shortage of GPs not buildings
8. The site is too small for additional schools and all primary and secondary schools are already over-subscribed. Also there is no understanding if any new school would impact adversely the existing residents in terms on revised school catchment area changes
9. The current pollution levels are too high. A large development would add significantly to local pollution
10. The current roads could not cater for a large development which is restricted by the Kingston by pass. Congestion is already high around the surrounding areas in rush hour and specifically near the schools. This proposal would make this even worse
11. Any proposal to upgrade the local roads would not be in keeping with the local environment. We do not wish to lose grass verges, trees and the green belt characteristic with unavoidable, non-maintained street furniture and over painted roads
12. Surrounding boroughs are increasing housing near Hook roundabout, Tolworth towers, etc All this will put too much pressure on roads and local services
13. There is no local railway station, no bus service and so commuters will be impacted further at Hinchley Wood and surrounding railway stations with shortage of trains and parking already
14. Kingston Hospital is already over stretched. All this additional housing will add to worsening services and A&E
15. The proposed development overwhelms Long Ditton in size, population, change in demographics, local services, traffic, etc
16. The green belt area, nature reserve and One Tree Hill are areas of natural beauty and enjoyed by local residents as a needed amenity
17. This section of green belt has done a very good job of stopping Hook and London joining Elmbridge, so even if breached, this only makes the remaining green belt more valuable not less
18. Additional development will add to local flooding risks both for A3, water overflow to local housing and Thames flood plain. This area already has drainage issues
19. This green belt land is not weak performing and the by-pass does not in itself make this green belt separate from the adjacent Telegraph Hill which is not weak performing. This land is all part of the local area and acts as the first green belt gateway from SW London
20. Any expansion at Heathrow will impact road congestion as Hampton Court bridge is the key local river crossing. This will impact further traffic on Kingston by-pass in area of Hook roundabout
21. I understand national guidelines and recent white paper state green belt should be sacrosanct. Elmbridge Council should take all steps to build on brown field sites and to increase density if necessary within town centres rather than to build on green belt which would be permanent
22. Any reclassification of green belt to green space is unacceptable and Elmbridge will not be able to prevent future development once this reclassification has occurred. Building on this green belt puts higher risk on other green belt in future
23. Elmbridge is not high density or generally an area of smaller type homes. Smaller homes and apartments are provided in local areas such as Surbiton for example. In reverse, Elmbridge provides larger family homes for those moving up the housing ladder, so the housing strategy currently works.
24. Changing Elmbridge characteristics and demographics in targeted areas to meet unrealistic and non-proven housing need projections is unreasonable on the existing population and not what the majority of local taxpaying residents want nor need
25. Elmbridge has been disproportionately allocated too much housing to build at 9,000 plus compared to surrounding boroughs
26. Building large estates to enable better infrastructure planning is unfair on local residents who take all the negative impacts of the housing targets, as it makes it easier for Elmbridge Council to justify the development even though it cannot guarantee the infrastructure
27. Elmbridge will not collect pro rata the needed income from this housing proposed, due to nature of housing proposed. Therefore this will burden Elmbridge finances further and worsen the existing services
28. Housing statistics eg brown field potential are not complete as does not consider some existing sites eg Long Ditton Thames Water filter beds on Surbiton boundary not assumed in estimates
29. Children in Claygate and parts of Hinchley Wood and Thames Ditton will not get Hinchley Wood school places as they would now, such that such children will need to travel unreasonable distances for schools eg Chessington and Ewell, as is the case already for those on the fringes

Please can you therefore take all above points as clear objections both to the Local Plan option 2 scenario and the incorrect classification of local area 58 as weak performing.

34. Files

«No files»