View Response

Response Details

Response Details
From Deleted User
Date Started: 03 Feb 2017 18:46. Last modified: 05 Feb 2017 16:13
Status Complete
Response ID #519815

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
Whilst I agree in principle with all of the challenges stated, there is no clear ranking of the priority of these challenges. This is critical when assessing any proposal and appears to be completely ignored by the document. I believe that there is one key challenge which has been omitted, namely:

- The council must ensure that they protect the social and cultural environment of the community.

I argue that this is impossible with any proposed development in the scale proposed in the plans.

2

Do you consider there are other challenges that we should be addressing?

 

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don’t know

Please explain your answer
As stated above, it is important that the council protects the social and cultural environment of the community. This is different to any of the challenges already stated.

People have remained and migrated to Elmbridge because of the cultural and social characteristics of the borough, namely the style of housing, the green space and the separation between urban conurbations.

We should not be forced into changing our culture because of some arbitrary government target. Of course, the borough could build an additional 9,000 houses and fill them, indeed I am sure it could build many more than that and fill them too, but that would be to the denigration of the borough and would be irreversible. The current residents shouldn't be penalised because we live in a desirable area.

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
- Retain current settlement patterns. (To change the density and style of housing in addition to the proximity of individual urban towns to one another would have an adverse impact of the social and cultural nature of the borough).
- Protect and enhance the natural, built and historic environment. (Re-designating and building on Green belt is permanent and will impact all future generations of the borough. The continuing urban sprawl or London is devastating for the environment and society).
- Ensure associated infrastructure is sufficient to meet any increase in development (Transport and Medical facilities are already insufficient for the current population. Investment is needed now, without the addition of 9,000+ homes. The current infrastructure cannot cope with an increase in population of this scale and enlarging the road network will result in the creation of dual carriageways and the permanent devastation of the local community).

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
Lack of Affordable housing. This is driven by market forces. Re-designating green belt land for development is no guarantee that the land will actually be used for the development of affordable housing, even flats are described as luxury flats and a premium price attached. Whatever the intention of using the affordable housing argument, it will not work. What is classed as affordable on a national scale will never be met in Elmbridge unless we consciously aim to make the area less desirable by urbanising the area with poor quality housing. 2 bedroom terraced houses already sell for twice national house price average.

Need to deliver a better mix of houses. Again, this is driven by market forces and there is no guarantee that a developer will build smaller houses, unless they are luxury premium flats. Market forces will over take any good intentions from a planning perspective. That's a simple fact. Even if houses were built as 2 or 3 bedroom, within a generation lofts would be converted and you end up with 4 bedroom houses. That happens everywhere.

Land being kept for Green belt purposes is not meeting those purposes. One what measures have these areas been deemed to be low performing? The purpose of Green Belt is to: (i) check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; (ii) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; (iii) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; (iv) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and (v) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. On all 5 grounds location 58 meets all of those criteria.

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 disagree with the exceptional circumstances in respect of area 58 in all respects.

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
11 or 4 near Cobham on the basis that these are large areas next to an existing Elmbridge town but not bordering another urban area inside or outside of the borough. These areas are also close to the A3 interconnect and M25.

23 alongside the A3 on the basis that this is next to a busy road and separate from other urban areas inside or outside of the borough. It is near the A3 interconnect and close to the M25. As it is close the A3 it is also likely to offer better options for affordable housing on the basis that it is perhaps a slightly less desirable area.

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
In theory I agree with the aim, but unless the council are going to pay for the development of houses, which they won't, then market forces will dictate and profit will prevail and larger houses will be built and or expensive luxury smaller properties which again defeats the aim.

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
The introduction of new developments with higher dwelling density than the nearby areas will have an adverse impact on the overall nature of the borough and in particular the lower density nearby developments.

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
So long as the green belt is not impacted.

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 additional sites should be provided. The borough already has a large number of sites.

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?

Suggest a blend of commercial properties and affordable housing to cater to needs. Properties in the borough will only be affordable if they are less attractive in nature (this is simple economic supply and demand), and as such providing housing next to / on top of commercial properties will achieve this goal.

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
Only if this incorporated additional affordable housing to meet the targets set for the borough.

19

Other than Green Belt what other barriers do you consider could prevent further development at Brooklands?

None.

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
Green spaces must be maintained, particular those within existing urban areas (towns) and those separating towns, particularly those separating Elmbridge towns from those of other boroughs.

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
The travel network (roads and rail) are currently insufficient for the needs of the borough. We should seek ways to divert traffic away from the bottlenecks within the borough (e.g. the Scilly Isles, Esher high street, and Hampton Court road.) Further development in these areas is completely inappropriate as there is no way to accommodate the resulting additional traffic unless the culture of the existing urban developments is changed materially (e.g. widening roads), which would be a disaster for existing communities.

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?

Hospitals
Doctors
Dentists
Nursery Schools
Primary and Secondary schools
Post Office facilities
Road network
Rail capacity

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?

The developments proposed for Site 58 would be a disaster for Hinchley Wood, Long Ditton, Thames Ditton and the surrounding area.

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»