Online Response Form


List of answers to the specified question
Burwin Investments (Mark Wingfield) I believe there are a number of further weakly performing sites that could be considered. 17 Dec 2016 11:28
Mick Flannigan Definitely not. What will happen once ALL the green belt has been sacrificed?? When we finally run out of space, will the next option be to build towers into the sky? 19 Dec 2016 13:56
A.B Cotterell Elmbridge should hold onto its Green Belt, not least because it is hardly extensive. Its character would been damaged otherwise. 29 Dec 2016 08:59
Daniel Cullen Maintenance of the Green Belt will preserve the characteristics of Elmbridge as desired by residents. 05 Jan 2017 13:30
Deleted User I believe Option 3 would be disastrous. All the Green Belt would be up for grabs. EBC would be setting a precedent for any Green Belt to be developed and would have no,policy for defending any part of the Green Belt. 06 Jan 2017 08:32
FEDORA (David Cooke) You must value the countryside more than the government seems to want you to do. 06 Jan 2017 13:27
Rachel Warren I cycle to work in Walton along the bridleway between Lower Green in Esher and Fieldcommon. Most of this land is only used to graze a few horses. Given that a new primary school has just been built in this area and that it is a much larger site - this would appear to be a better location for development as it would have less impact on the surrounding area. There also appear to be brownfield sites in this area 08 Jan 2017 16:28
V Braun Moderately or strongly performing Green Belt areas should quite simply NOT be developed. 08 Jan 2017 19:36
James Chowne All Green Belt land should be protected. 08 Jan 2017 20:09
Deleted User • We believe that urban regeneration is the way forward and that more joined up thinking and cooperation across boundaries is required in order to find an optimum solution
• The Council has admitted it has not assessed the viability or contribution of the moderately performing sites and this seems an oversight that must be urgently corrected
• Providing infrastructure for the three identified sites is considerably more complex and expensive than linking one larger site in a logistically better positioned area
• Any plan of this complexity cannot be considered in isolation and hence we fundamentally disagree with an approach that just singles out housing
• It is worth reiterating that housing is NOT an exceptional circumstance to remove Green Belt and does not meet with the majority support of the residents

• We must also strongly object and put on the record that the nature of the questions is in our opinion manipulative and self-serving seeking to justify the Council's recommendations and is thus not consultative but merely ticking boxes
09 Jan 2017 08:55
Next pageLast page