Response Details

Response Details
From A Emery
Date Started: 21 Feb 2017 12:16. Last modified: 21 Feb 2017 17:27
Status Complete
Response ID #523047

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
Elmbridge has already stated previously that a central part of its core strategy is to protect the Green Belt - this must remain a priority.

The Government in its 2015 Manifesto pledged ours to be “the first generation to leave the natural environment better than we found it”.

In the House of Commons, Communities Secretary Sajid Javid said: "In 2015, we promised the British people that the green belt was safe in our hands and that is still the case."
This consultation document leaves no question that the green belt is not safe.

The quality of life for people already living in the specified areas will be diminished with an influx of new residents, which counteracts the aim at the top of this paper which is to address the challenges "to everyone who lives, works and visits the Borough."

There will be a dramatic increase in traffic on already busy roads around Hinchley Wood and Long Ditton Village, areas which have severe constraints due to enclosure by A309/A3/A243 and Portsmouth Road.

Flash floods in the summer of 2016 highlighted that the area is already at risk. This major issue will be exacerbated and drains will be overwhelmed with the advent of more housing.

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
The quality of life for existing residents is paramount.

Hinchley Wood has already accommodated a major housing development in the Hinchley Park development, off the Kingston bypass.

There is already pressure on existing infrastructure - Thames Water have said the drains are archaic and can't cope with current housing levels, so any further development will be disastrous.

Getting a doctor's appointment can already be problematic.

Urbanisation ie preventing encroachment onto the Green Belt. Remember Communities Secretary Sajid Javid: "In 2015, we promised the British people that the green belt was safe in our hands and that is still the case."

The proximity of Hinchley Wood to the A3 and A309 and the M25 just a few miles away means pollution is already unacceptably high.

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?
These are extremely leading questions. Instead of "I don't know" as a third option, where is the option to "do nothing"?

Once Green Belt has been taken away it can never be regained. It is a drastic measure.

Option 2 benefits, as listed in the document, are at best naive and at worse incorrect. The options have not been presented equally and, therefore, unable to agree that Option 2 is the most appropriate. Issues such as congestion and higher flooding risks are not addressed.

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
The Consultation Documents state that Green Belt boundaries should only be adjusted "with the support of local people". Local people do not support this. This is not beneficial to local people, the existing residents.

National Guidelines state that "unmet housing need is NOT a justification" to remove land from the Green Belt. Therefore, the provision of housing is NOT an exceptional circumstance that will allow the destruction of Green Belt and heritage.

Has the Council proven that it has worked with other councils to achieve this rather than destroying Green Belt?
This seems to be an easy way out rather than considering other options.

Hinchley Wood has already had developments in recent years with Hinchley Park and the retirement homes. The area cannot cope with any more development. The exceptional circumstances do not warrant destroying the Green Belt.

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
Declassifying the Green Belt is a major step and it cannot be reversed. It should be protected. With new developments come further issues to community life. The area will become over populated and unpleasant for exisitng residents. These areas are not suitable for development in other ways - roads, schools, access to public transport - which means that they cannot meet development targets successfully and therefore the "exceptional circumstance" in which they might be removed from Green Belt is invalid. Area 58 should NOT be considered for development. It is a vital barrier against massive urban sprawl. Without it the identities of individual communities merge until there is one unidentified messy sprawl incorporating Hook and Long Ditton and Hinchley Wood and Tolworth, with London encroaching ever further into Green Belt land. Communities benefit from open spaces for children's play, or dog walking or jogging or outdoor activities. The Hockey Club, Cricket Club, allotments, nature reserves will all be at risk from future development. These are assets which we are proud of, and which we use and enjoy. They should NOT be destroyed.

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
The area incorporating Parcel 58, which is set upon a hill, is prone to flooding. The land around the Church and the Cricket Club flood regularly and building on this area is likely to exacerbate the issue. Stokes Field Nature Reserve has a variety of habitats including woodland, grassland and scrub. It also has a pond. This cannot be destroyed. It must be protected. * NO part of Area 58 is suitable for ANY development because: Local infrastructure would not cope (schools, roads, hospitals, public transport etc) * Pollution levels are already high due to the A3 * Other local building projects are under way in neighbouring boroughs that will already put a strain on local infrastructure in that area and add to pollution

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
All Green Belt should be protected to prevent urban sprawl, stop towns and villages merging and to safeguard the countryside from encroachment. Our communities need to be protected, not destroyed. Once Green Belt is gone, it's gone for good. Unmet housing need is NOT an exceptional circumstance to remove land from the Green Belt.

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
Infrastructure totally insufficient to support high density housing.

Existing residents will be far worse off if any development goes ahead.
Hinchley Wood school is already struggling with current numbers from feeder schools - why should existing residents miss out? People who have specifically moved to the area to gain entry to the school will be disadvantaged.

Surbiton Station is already exceeding capacity.

The Council should seek to develop social/affordable housing near to the major sources of employment and nearer to better service provisions.

Market forces will ultimately dictate prices as usually happens.
Placing social/affordable housing in this area will not meet the needs of those people who need easy access to job opportunities and good public transport links, neither of which exist in this area.

Development will adversely affect air quality in an area already polluted by nearby roads.

This would mean an even higher density of housing than the existing nearby Hinchley Park development.

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
Reasons stated above. Areas cannot sustain such development.

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»

34. Files

«No files»