View Response

Response Details

Response Details
From Deleted User
Date Started: 21 Mar 2017 13:38. Last modified: 21 Mar 2017 13:38
Status Complete
Response ID #529864

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 disagree because I don’t think that the three green belt areas which it has been decided are performing weakly should be considered in isolation or in totality, however, I don’t think that all of these areas should necessarily be retained. I am, however, concerned that there is an element of ‘they are more urban already so it doesn’t matter what the local people think.

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
But I think that all green belt areas adjacent to residential areas should be reviewed and nowhere should be sacrosanct.

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
See answers at 5 and 6. I am not against loss of the green belt per se and from my address area 58 is the area I know best. Long Ditton is already one of the most developed areas in should be regarded as sacrosanct the borough and further potential development will have an even greater impact on the small remaining area of green space at a time when we are all being encouraged to take more exercise. The retention of One Tree Hill, which is used along with Stokes Field, should be regarded as sacrosanct.
I realise we can’t bury our head in the sand and say no to all development but I question the wisdom of developing an area so close to the busy A309/A3 Hook Underpass, combined they form an effective 8 lane highway and from a noise and pollution point of view that can hardly be considered healthy. Access to both roads is already difficult with frequent long long delays any development will have a significant impact. Even from Ditton Hill Road the noise levels during busy periods are noticeable so heaven knows what it would be like for people living close to the roads. I suppose that some will think that to put affordable housing or sheltered housing there will not matter.

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
I would agree that if the land currently occupied by Rose Hill Nurseries became available together with part of the land from Woodstock Lane South to the RBK boundary became available then it might be developed but I would question the wisdom of this as set in my answer at question 6.

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
See answers above

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
The predominance given to 4/5 bedroom new build houses across the borough over the past decade is self-evident. In addition the selling price is usually beyond that which existing Elmbridge families can afford when they additional space.

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
See above – the situation has been exacerbated further by the increasing numbers of existing families opting for loft extensions to increase living space, and more importantly, this will have an impact in the longer term because the resultant revised market values will mean that at point of resale they will be beyond what average families will be able to afford.

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
I don’t think you can have a blanket ruling on this issue, in some cases a higher density level might mean that it will be possible to either retain, or provide an urban green space for recreational purposes but where possible I think this should be avoided. However, more blocks of flats near to railway stations would be popular with commuters. I would sooner see a slight chipping away of all levels of green belt rather than increase the density above 40 dwellings per hectare anywhere in the borough. That is not what Elmbridge is about.

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
See answer above

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
See views expressed elsewhere

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
Affordable housing will always be needed throughout the borough and in order to avoid a ‘ghetto’ situation, as has become evident in some areas of Surrey it is preferable to have a mixed housing provision wherever possible, even if this is an anathema to developers. Elmbridge needs people from all walks of life living in the borough in order to flourish.

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
We already have some sites and, as a long standing infant school governor, my impression is that more Travellers are non-travelling these days, but whether that means they should be housed on separate sites or integrated with the rest of the community I am really uncertain. At best they should be consulted as to their own preferences

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
There should definitely be more smaller dwellings built for both first time buyers and older people seeking to downsize, both groups may well be without access to a car in the future so it is essential to build for these groups in places that have reasonable access to local retail units and public transport. Do not assume that all older people want to resort to sheltered housing either, there is merit in the ages mixing and a small modern house with a courtyard garden would be wonderful. A sheltered unit with a balcony would also be a welcome change!

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
I agree on balance but there has to be a degree of flexibility. There is no point in sizable employment sites remaining empty for years. A prime example of this is the former Birds Eye offices adjacent to Walton Station. It is a large site and could be utilised for affordable housing without jeopardising the area, viz similar to the housing on the opposite of the road, and would certainly meet the criteria for developments near stations. It is also better served by bus transport and there are local shops close by. However, commercial practice is changing so quickly these days that any future local plan should allow for more planning flexibility whilst retaining as much commercial land as possible so that local people can find work locally and thus reduce the environmental impact of travelling distances to work.

17

If not, what degree of flexibility do you consider would be appropriate with regard to alternative uses in such areas?

See answer above

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
I don’t think that you should say never, a case in point might be that a successful new technological advance could be discovered by a start-up company which could really take off and it would be a pity for employment prospects in the borough for their operation not to be able to expand on site

19

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

Infrastructure, especially the highway capacity which is already stretched at peak traffic hours.

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
There few hotel and conference facilities in the Borough and an expansion on the existing site would make sense, especially if further access away from Esher was feasible.

21a

Maintain our policy of focussing new retail development to town and village centres?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

Please explain your answer
The policy should also be flexible enough to allow for the incorporation of social venues to maximise footfall.

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
See above answer.

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
This approach would better reflect the way people live these days. People lead very busy lives these days and would prefer to be able to shop, obtain prescriptions, have a coffee etc. in the same area which is why large out of town supermarkets became so popular. It would also help with the retention of viable bus services in some instances.

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
The population of Elmbridge continues to grow and at the same time everyone is being urged to lead a more healthy lifestyle so opportunities for outdoor exercise are imperative and in order to reduce the environmental impact of transport as much a possible should be accessed by bicycle or on foot.

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
The above reasons apply in this instance too.

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
While looking forward and being progressive where appropriate, every generation should be encouraged to value the past.

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?

In conservation areas it is extremely important to continue to make sure that new development is in keeping but looking around the Borough new developments of whatever size all look the same. How about some thinking outside the box and allowing young architects to come up with some innovative ideas?

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
Much of Elmbridge falls within the flood plain and ALL developments of whatever size should be subject to impact limitation procedures.

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
See earlier composite answers.

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?

School provision for all age groups, easy access to public transport, doctors’ surgeries local shops etc. and retention of as much open space as possible in addition to ensuring that the developments will meet all environmental criteria.

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?

I am not optimistic that any small infrastructure improvements will help to reduce the impact on the existing traffic problems in Long Ditton, let alone those which would result from any future development. Speed limits of 20 mph might help but we have been seeking those for years and the various measures to improve the parking situation always meet with opposition from those affected.

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 aware that there is much local anger at the proposals for Long Ditton and having lived here for 33 years and been a governor at the infant and nursery school I have tried to look at the proposals as rationally as possible. I do feel there has to be some give and take but I really don’t think that full scale development in this area would be unfortunate and change the local ethos of the area. It is difficult to see how sufficient additional school places could be provided for a large scale development too.
Paragraph 3.17 of the consolation document states ‘Small sites coupled with the desirability of the area mean that small houses are not as attractive to developers’ but that has to change because of the requirements that you have identified. I cannot believe that developments of between 50-200 dwellings can’t be financially viable. If this has to change then Central Government will have to take this on board with the appropriate legislation.

34. Files

«No files»