Agree that the challenges set out in section 2 of the consultation document are the key challenges facing Elmbridge?

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

Do you consider any particular challenge or challenges that are more important than the others?

Agree that Option 2 is the most appropriate option?

Do you consider the suggested exceptional circumstances are sufficient to support the amendment of the Green Belt boundary?

Agree that, given the appropriate exceptional circumstances, these three key strategic areas are appropriate for removal from the Green Belt?

Do you know of any sites within any of the three key strategic areas that could be considered for future development?

Do you consider that other areas of land should be removed from the Green Belt including those that are moderately or strongly performing?

Do you agree that we should seek to provide more of a balance in terms of the size of new homes being built?  

Given the over delivery of homes with 4 or more bedrooms should we try to limit their delivery in future?

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?

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?

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

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?

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?

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?

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?

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

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?

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

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?

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

Continue to protect primary shopping areas from other uses as set out in the current Core Strategy?

Consider allowing other important uses in primary high street shopping frontages such as doctor’s surgeries, dentists and libraries?

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?

Do you agree with our approach to biodiversity and mitigating the impact of new development on the Thames Basin Heaths habitat?

Do you agree that our strategic and pro-active approach to supporting our heritage assets is appropriate?

If not, what approach do you think we should take?

Do you agree that the Council’s current approach to considering design and character is appropriate?

If not what approach do you think we should take?

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?

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?

Are there other approaches we should consider?

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?

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?

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.