From:To: Planning PolicySubject: Runnymede 2030 Planning Consultation ResponseDate: 21 February 2018 19:36:19Attachments: Model_Representation_form_for_Regulation_19_Word_Doc.docx
Hello
Please see attached my response to the Runnymede 2030 planning consultation, especially relatingto SL12.
Thanks
Aidan Gibson
1409
mailto:[email protected]Representation Form for the Runnymede 2030 Draft Local Plan
Please return to Runnymede Borough Council by Thursday 22nd February 2018.
This form has two parts-
Part A Personal Details
Part B Your representation (s). Please fill in a separate sheet for each representation you wish to make.
Part A
1. Personal Details* 2. Agents Details (if applicable)
*If an agent is appointed, please complete only the Title, Name and Organisation boxes below but complete the full contact details of the agent in 2.
Title
Mr
First Name
Aidan
Last Name
Gibson
Job Title
(where relevant)
Organisation
(where relevant)
Address Line 1
220 Brox Road
Line 2
Ottershaw
Line 3
Surrey
Line 4
Post Code
KT160LJ
Telephone Number
07783946981
Email Address
(where relevant)
Part B Please use a separate sheet for each representation
Name or Organisation:
3. To which part of the Local Plan does this representation relate?
Paragraph PolicyPolicies Map
SL12
4. Do you consider the Local Plan is:
x
4. (1) Legally compliant Yes No
x
4. (2) SoundYes No
x
4. (3) Complies with the Duty to co-operateYesNo
Please tick as appropriate
5. Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is not legally compliant or is unsound or fails to comply with the duty to co-operate. Please be as precise as possible.
If you wish to support the legal compliance or soundness of the Local Plan or its compliance with the duty to co-operate, please also use this box to set out your comments.
I believe the proposal is not sound due to the following concerns:
Such an increase to the population of the village is untenable, even with increased investment for a health centre and schools, the local infrastructure, especially roads, are already at or close to capacity, with queues on the roads in rush hour stretching back to Slade Road to get onto the A320. Having Brox Road as the only access point to these properties is going to cause major congestion issues and could be dangerous
The inclusion of 2 gypsy/traveller pitches in the area is also not a sound proposal as the traveller community is already well served by existing pitches, and the expansion of these should be looked at as the soundest opportunity for expansion. The approach in the proposal will force any increase in the traveller community away from their previous areas of occupancy and into an area they are not familiar with and has not historically had traveller communities in the area.
This proposal is also not sound as it continues to remove a large swathe of green land for houses. Even though the current space is a place of business, as a nursery it is a key location for wildlife and by removing this space it will have an adverse effect on the ecosystem.
On the duty to co-operate I feel this proposal has failed on two main fronts:
The previous consultation did not in my opinion take into account the views of the local residents in opposition to this proposal. I think a modest amount of C3 dwellings with the vast majority of land allocated as green belt/SANG was the view the local residents would support, but this was not taken into account sufficiently in the second round of consultation.
I also believe the council have made this an emotive issue, as they have now moved away from a pure increase in houses to include the aforementioned traveller pitches. This I think was a reaction to the response against the mass increase in houses and not in the best interests of the local area or traveller community.
(Continue on a separate sheet/expand box if necessary)
6. Please set out what modification (s) you consider necessary to make the Local Plan legally compliant or sound, having regard to the Matter you have identified at 5 above where this relates to soundness. (NB Please note that any non-compliance with the duty to co-operate is incapable of modification at examination). You will need to say why this modification will make the Local Plan legally compliant or sound. It will be helpful if you are able to put forward your suggested revised wording of any policy or text. Please be as precise as possible.
I believe the modification required is to limit the increase in houses(I believe 20-50 additional C3 properties is sustainable) while providing an increase to public services in the area, and protecting the rest of the land as SANG
(Continue on a separate sheet/expand box if necessary)
Please note your representation should cover succinctly all the information, evidence and supporting information necessary to support/justify the representation and the suggested modification, as there will not normally be a subsequent opportunity to make further representations based on the original representation at publication stage.
After this stage, further submissions will be only at the request of the Inspector, based on the matters and issues he/she identifies for examination.
7. If you representation is seeking a modification, do you consider it necessary to participate at the oral part of the examination?
No, I do not wish to participateYes, I wish to participate
x
at the oral examinationat the oral examination
8. If you wish to participate at the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary:
Please note the Inspector will determine the most appropriate procedure to adopt to hear those who have indicated that they wish to participate at the oral part of the examination.
9. Signature: Date:
20/2/18
Aidan Gibson
Notes to Accompany Model Representation Form
1. Introduction
1.1. The plan is published in order for representations to be made prior to submission. The representations will be considered alongside the published plan when submitted, which will be examined by a Planning Inspector. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004[footnoteRef:1] (as amended) (PCPA) states that the purpose of the examination is to consider whether the plan complies with the legal requirements, the duty to co-operate and is sound. [1: View at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/5/contents ]
2. Legal Compliance and Duty to Co-operate
2.1. The Inspector will first check that the plan meets the legal requirements under s20(5)(a) and the duty to co-operate under s20(5)(c) of the PCPA before moving on to test for soundness.
2.2. You should consider the following before making a representation on legal compliance:
The plan in question should be included in the current Local Development Scheme (LDS) and the key stages should have been followed. The LDS is effectively a programme of work prepared by the LPA, setting out the Local Development Documents (LDDs)[footnoteRef:2] it proposes to produce. It will set out the key stages in the production of any plans which the LPA proposes to bring forward for independent examination. If the plan is not in the current LDS it should not have been published for representations. The LDS should be on the LPAs website and available at its main offices. [2: LDDs are defined in regulation 5 see link below. ]
The process of community involvement for the plan in question should be in general accordance with the LPAs Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) (where one exists). The SCI sets out the LPAs strategy for involving the community in the preparation and revision of LDDs (including plans) and the consideration of planning applications.
The plan should comply with the Town and County Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (the Regulations)[footnoteRef:3]. On publication, the LPA must publish the documents prescribed in the Regulations, and make them available at its principal offices and on its website. The LPA must also notify the various persons and organisations set out in the Regulations and any persons who have requested to be notified. [3: View at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/767/contents/made ]
The LPA is required to provide a Sustainability Appraisal Report when it publishes a plan. This should identify the process by which the Sustainability Appraisal has been carried out, and the baseline information used to inform the process and the outcomes of that process. Sustainability Appraisal is a tool for appraising policies to ensure they reflect social, environmental, and economic factors.
In London, the plan should be in general conformity with the London Plan (the Spatial Development Strategy).
2.3. You should consider the following before making a representation on compliance with the duty to co-operate:
The duty to co-operate came into force on 15 November 2011 and any plan submitted for examination on or after this date will be examined for compliance. LPAs will be expected to provide evidence of how they have complied with any requirements arising from the duty.
The PCPA establishes that non-compliance with the duty to co-operate cannot be rectified after the submission of the plan. Therefore the Inspector has no power to recommend modifications in this regard. Where the duty has not been complied with, the Inspector has no choice but to recommend non-adoption of the plan.
3. Soundness
3.1. Soundness is explained in paragraph 182 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Inspector has to be satisfied that the plan is positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with national policy:
Positively prepared: This means that the plan should be prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development.
Justified: The plan should be the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence.
Effective: The plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities.
Consistent with national policy: The plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the NPPF.
3.2. If you think the content of the plan is not sound because it does not include a policy where it should do, you should go through the following steps before making representations:
Is the issue with which you are concerned already covered specifically by national planning policy (or the London Plan)? If so it does not need to be included?
Is what you are concerned with covered by any other policies in the plan on which you are seeking to make representations or in any other plan?
If the policy is not covered elsewhere, in what way is the plan unsound without the policy?
If the plan is unsound without the policy, what should the policy say?
4. General advice
4.1. If you wish to make a representation seeking a modification to a plan or part of a plan you should make clear in what way the plan or part of the plan is inadequate having regard to legal compliance, the duty to cooperate and the four requirements of soundness set out above. You should try to support your representation by evidence showing why the plan should be modified. It will be helpful if you also say precisely how you think the plan should be modified. Representations should cover succinctly all the information, evidence and supporting information necessary to support/justify the representation and the suggested modification, as there will not normally be a subsequent opportunity to make further submissions based on the original representation made at publication. After this stage, further submissions will be only at the request of the Inspector, based on the matters and issues he/she identifies for examination.
4.2. Where there are groups who share a common view on how they wish to see a plan modified, it would be very helpful for that group to send a single representation which represents the view, rather than for a large number of individuals to send in separate representations which repeat the same points. In such cases the group should indicate how many people it is representing and how the representation has been authorised.
2
1
Representation Form for the Runnymede 2030 Draft Local Plan
Please return to Runnymede Borough Council by Thursday 22nd February 2018.
This form has two parts-
Part A Personal Details Part B Your representation (s). Please fill in a separate sheet for each representation you wish to make.
Part A
1. Personal Details* 2. Agents Details (if applicable)
*If an agent is appointed, please complete only the Title, Name and Organisation boxes below but complete the full contact details of the agent in 2.
Title Mr First Name Aidan Last Name Gibson Job Title (where relevant)
Organisation (where relevant)
Address Line 1 220 Brox Road Line 2 Ottershaw Line 3 Surrey Line 4 Post Code KT160LJ Telephone Number Email Address (where relevant)
2
Part B Please use a separate sheet for each representation
Name or Organisation:
3. To which part of the Local Plan does this representation relate?
Paragraph Policy Policies Map
4. Do you consider the Local Plan is:
4. (1) Legally compliant Yes No
4. (2) Sound Yes No
4. (3) Complies with the Duty to co-operate Yes No
Please tick as appropriate
5. Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is not legally compliant or is unsound or fails to comply with the duty to co-operate. Please be as precise as possible. If you wish to support the legal compliance or soundness of the Local Plan or its compliance with the duty to co-operate, please also use this box to set out your comments.
(Continue on a separate sheet/expand box if necessary)
SL12
x
x
x
I believe the proposal is not sound due to the following concerns:
Such an increase to the population of the village is untenable, even with increased investment for a health centre and schools, the local infrastructure, especially roads, are already at or close to capacity, with queues on the roads in rush hour stretching back to Slade Road to get onto the A320. Having Brox Road as the only access point to these properties is going to cause major congestion issues and could be dangerous
The inclusion of 2 gypsy/traveller pitches in the area is also not a sound proposal as the traveller community is already well served by existing pitches, and the expansion of these should be looked at as the soundest opportunity for expansion. The approach in the proposal will force any increase in the traveller community away from their previous areas of occupancy and into an area they are not familiar with and has not historically had traveller communities in the area.
This proposal is also not sound as it continues to remove a large swathe of green land for houses. Even though the current space is a place of business, as a nursery it is a key location for wildlife and by removing this space it will have an adverse effect on the ecosystem.
On the duty to co-operate I feel this proposal has failed on two main fronts:
The previous consultation did not in my opinion take into account the views of the local residents in opposition to this proposal. I think a modest amount of C3 dwellings with the vast majority of land allocated as green belt/SANG was the view the local residents would support, but this was not taken into account sufficiently in the second round of consultation.
I also believe the council have made this an emotive issue, as they have now moved away from a pure increase in houses to include the aforementioned traveller pitches. This I think was a reaction to the response against the mass increase in houses and not in the best interests of the local area or traveller community.
3
6. Please set out what modification (s) you consider necessary to make the Local Plan legally compliant or sound, having regard to the Matter you have identified at 5 above where this relates to soundness. (NB Please note that any non-compliance with the duty to co-operate is incapable of modification at examination). You will need to say why this modification will make the Local Plan legally compliant or sound. It will be helpful if you are able to put forward your suggested revised wording of any policy or text. Please be as precise as possible.
(Continue on a separate sheet/expand box if necessary)
Please note your representation should cover succinctly all the information, evidence and supporting information necessary to support/justify the representation and the suggested modification, as there will not normally be a subsequent opportunity to make further representations based on the original representation at publication stage.
After this stage, further submissions will be only at the request of the Inspector, based on the matters and issues he/she identifies for examination.
7. If you representation is seeking a modification, do you consider it necessary to participate at the oral part of the examination?
No, I do not wish to participate Yes, I wish to participate at the oral examination at the oral examination
I believe the modification required is to limit the increase in houses(I believe 20-50 additional C3 properties is sustainable) while providing an increase to public services in the area, and protecting the rest of the land as SANG
x
4
8. If you wish to participate at the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary:
Please note the Inspector will determine the most appropriate procedure to adopt to hear those who have indicated that they wish to participate at the oral part of the examination.
9. Signature: Date:
Aidan Gibson 20/2/18
5
Notes to Accompany Model Representation Form 1. Introduction 1.1. The plan is published in order for representations to be made prior to submission. The representations will be considered alongside the published plan when submitted, which will be examined by a Planning Inspector. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 20041 (as amended) (PCPA) states that the purpose of the examination is to consider whether the plan complies with the legal requirements, the duty to co-operate and is sound. 2. Legal Compliance and Duty to Co-operate 2.1. The Inspector will first check that the plan meets the legal requirements under s20(5)(a) and the duty to co-operate under s20(5)(c) of the PCPA before moving on to test for soundness. 2.2. You should consider the following before making a representation on legal compliance: The plan in question should be included in the current Local Development Scheme (LDS) and the key stages should have been followed. The LDS is effectively a programme of work prepared by the LPA, setting out the Local Development Documents (LDDs)2 it proposes to produce. It will set out the key stages in the production of any plans which the LPA proposes to bring forward for independent examination. If the plan is not in the current LDS it should not have been published for representations. The LDS should be on the LPAs website and available at its main offices. The process of community involvement for the plan in question should be in general accordance with the LPAs Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) (where one exists). The SCI sets out the LPAs strategy for involving the community in the preparation and revision of LDDs (including plans) and the consideration of planning applications. The plan should comply with the Town and County Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (the Regulations)3. On publication, the LPA must publish the documents prescribed in the Regulations, and make them available at its principal offices and on its website. The LPA must also notify the various persons and organisations set out in the Regulations and any persons who have requested to be notified. The LPA is required to provide a Sustainability Appraisal Report when it publishes a plan. This should identify the process by which the Sustainability Appraisal has been carried out, and the baseline information used to inform the process and the outcomes of that process. Sustainability Appraisal is a tool for appraising policies to ensure they reflect social, environmental, and economic factors. In London, the plan should be in general conformity with the London Plan (the Spatial Development Strategy). 2.3. You should consider the following before making a representation on compliance with the duty to co-operate: The duty to co-operate came into force on 15 November 2011 and any plan submitted for examination on or after this date will be examined for compliance. LPAs will be expected to provide evidence of how they have complied with any requirements arising from the duty. The PCPA establishes that non-compliance with the duty to co-operate cannot be rectified after the submission of the plan. Therefore the Inspector has no power to recommend modifications in this regard. Where the duty has not been complied with, the Inspector has no choice but to recommend non-adoption of the plan. 1 View at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/5/contents 2 LDDs are defined in regulation 5 see link below. 3 View at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/767/contents/made
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/5/contentshttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/767/contents/made
6
3. Soundness 3.1. Soundness is explained in paragraph 182 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Inspector has to be satisfied that the plan is positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with national policy: Positively prepared: This means that the plan should be prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development. Justified: The plan should be the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence. Effective: The plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities. Consistent with national policy: The plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the NPPF. 3.2. If you think the content of the plan is not sound because it does not include a policy where it should do, you should go through the following steps before making representations: Is the issue with which you are concerned already covered specifically by national planning policy (or the London Plan)? If so it does not need to be included? Is what you are concerned with covered by any other policies in the plan on which you are seeking to make representations or in any other plan? If the policy is not covered elsewhere, in what way is the plan unsound without the policy? If the plan is unsound without the policy, what should the policy say?
4. General advice 4.1. If you wish to make a representation seeking a modification to a plan or part of a plan you should make clear in what way the plan or part of the plan is inadequate having regard to legal compliance, the duty to cooperate and the four requirements of soundness set out above. You should try to support your representation by evidence showing why the plan should be modified. It will be helpful if you also say precisely how you think the plan should be modified. Representations should cover succinctly all the information, evidence and supporting information necessary to support/justify the representation and the suggested modification, as there will not normally be a subsequent opportunity to make further submissions based on the original representation made at publication. After this stage, further submissions will be only at the request of the Inspector, based on the matters and issues he/she identifies for examination. 4.2. Where there are groups who share a common view on how they wish to see a plan modified, it would be very helpful for that group to send a single representation which represents the view, rather than for a large number of individuals to send in separate representations which repeat the same points. In such cases the group should indicate how many people it is representing and how the representation has been authorised.
From: Jane TilleyTo: Planning PolicyCc:Subject: Objection to Runnymede 2030 draft local planDate: 14 January 2018 15:49:44
Martin Owden and Jane Tilley135A Brox RoadOttershawKT16 0LQ
We wish to object to the inclusion of Ottershaw East and the Field Nursery in theRunnymede 2030 draft local planThe basis of the objection is the following
1)The infrastructure for a large development on this site is insufficient particularly the roadaccess to and from Brox Road. The ability to improve the road access would have toinclude widening Brox Road and the junctions at Murray Road and Guildford Road
2)Brox Road has poor access from from both Murray Road and Guildford road such thatlarge bottle necks occur at peak times at the junctions to both these roads. There are 2 largeschools, a nursery, a haulage firm and a building suppliers all using this single residentialroad Brox Road, and adding 500 extra residential units and their twice daily car journeyswould add to the congestion and be unsafe. Brox Road is also used as a rat run to avoid thefrequent congestion at the Otter roundabout. Brox Road is already a crowded road withstreet parking. Increasing the size of Ottershaw by at least 30% is simply unsustainable.The suggestion of upgrading Bousley Rise is not sufficient as this also decants onto BroxRoad
3)The council have in no way shown residents that they have any plan or vision for howOttershaw will look in the future. There is no indication as to how such a massive increasein the size of the village will benefit the area.
4)The greenbelt review scored other areas in Ottershaw equally which could provide theland and layout needed for the required road upgrades. For instance Guildford Roadtowards the Otter roundabout needs upgrading badly. Either using the Xmas tree farm orGreat Grove Farm would allow road widening at this point plus upgrade to Otterroundabout which is a bottleneck on the way to Woking from the M25. A distinctboundary could be made by providing a new road splitting the land up which could thenprovide a bypass to Addlestone.
5) If OE and the Field are developed there is a real risk of Ottershaw losing its distinctionand then linking in with Rowtown which is completely against the national planning policyframework
5)There is a need for housing and several sites such as Great Grove Farm scored equallyin the Green Belt review and this would provide all the housing needs of Runnymede forthe 2030 plan AND this site could provide the space for the road infrastructure needed.The land owners are offering these sites up. This land is north of the economic centre ofthe village such as the social club and village shops. This would allow balanceddevelopment around the shops rather than unbalanced development away from the villageshops.
1412
mailto:[email protected]://0/1x-apple-data-detectors://0/1x-apple-data-detectors://0/1
6) With correct location of housing which would benefit the village with a vision andupgrade in infrastructure then you might find that the residents are onside, but poorlylocated housing will mean that residents will fight leading to massive delays before asingle brick is laid
Kind regards
Jane Tilley
Sent from my iPad
From:To: Planning PolicySubject: Mr Taylor - Runnymede Local Plan 2030 consultationDate: 22 February 2018 18:17:28Attachments: Mr Taylor - Runnymede Local Plan 2030 consultation Feb18.pdf
Please find attached my objection letter relating to the removal of parcels of land fromGreen Belt status within our local area, under the proposed Runnymede Local Plan 2030.
Kind regards
Mr Taylor
1414
mailto:[email protected]PlanningPolicyandStrategyTeamRunnymedeBoroughCouncilCivicCentreStationRoadAddlestoneSurreyKT152AHEmail:[email protected]
MrTaylor7ElmTreeClose
ChertseySurrey
KT169QT
20thFebruary2018DearRunnymedeBCPolicy&StrategyTeam,Re:ObjectiontoremovalofChertseyBittamsareasfromGreenBeltIwrotetoobjecttoChertseyBittamslandparcelsbeingremovedfromGreenBeltinyourconsultationin2016,andagainin2017.MyobjectionremainsthesameforthisfinalconsultationandIhavereiteratedmyreasonsbelow.IamdeeplysaddenedandfrustratedthattheCouncilplanstoremovevastareasofourlocalgreenspacesfromGreenBeltprotection.ImconcernedbythesheeramountofhousingbeingproposedacrosstheareawithparticularreferencetotheparceloflandreferredtoasSL14ChertseyBittamsParcelAoffGreenLane.Mymainconcernsareoutlinedbelow:LossofvaluableGreenBelt:infillingourlocalgreenspaceswillofcourseruinthecharacterofourlocalarea.GreenBeltprotectionsafeguardsourcountrysidefromencroachment,oncetheseparcelsoflandareremovedfromGreenBeltprotectionthereisnogoingback.TheGovernmentstatethatitiscommittedtothestrongprotectionandenhancementofGreenBeltland.WithintheGreenBelt,mostnewbuildingisinappropriateandshouldberefusedplanningpermissionexceptinveryspecialcircumstances,yetthesheerdensityofproposedhousingwithintheRunnymedeLocalPlan2030issimplyexcessiveandutterlyunsustainable,particularlyintheChertseyBittamstriangleofland.Loosingourgreenspaceswillresultinlossofwildlifeandopportunityforlocalpeopletoenjoytheirlocalcountryside,aswellasthevisualandphysicalimpactoflosingopenspaceandamenity.Increasedtraffic,congestionandpollution:Yetmorecongestiononouralreadyoverburdenedlocalroads.OurlocaltransportinfrastructurearoundChertseyBittams,OttershawandalsoAddlestone(allofwhicharedesignatedasareasofconsiderablegrowth)isquitesimplyinadequateforsuchlarge-scaledevelopment.WhatplansarethereconcerningthemajorA320route?Whataffectwillallthisadditionalcongestionpotentiallyhaveonouremergencyservicesresponsetimes?Strainonlocalservices:TheprojectedincreaseinresidentpopulationassociatedwiththeplanneddevelopmentswillplaceadditionaldemandandpressureonouralreadyoverstretchedandunderfundedheathcareprovisionssuchasourGPsandStPetersHospital.Aswellasourlocalschoolsandeducationalfacilities.CommunitiesIntegration:IdonotagreewiththenewproposedpolicyoflocatingandintegratingextraTravellerssitesinnewdevelopments.IwouldliketoquestionwhyTravellerpitchesareproposedtobescatteredthroughoutthelocalareawithinnumerousparcelsofland,inplaceofofferinglarger/fewerlocations.Isthereanyevidenceastowhethersegregationacrossnumeroussiteswouldbepreferredinsteadofkeepingcommunitiestogether?Andhasconsiderationbeengivenastohowcommunityintegrationwouldbemanagedshouldpitchesbedispersedwithinexistingneighbourhoods?
Overall,myconcernissimple,thatinfillingourvaluableGreenBelthasthepotentialtoundermineandirreversiblyruinthecharacterofourlocalarea.Thesubsequentdensityofdevelopmentproposed,especiallywithinChertseyBittams,isjustunsustainable,squeezinginsuchamassiveamountofhousingatthedetrimenttoexistingresidents.ItshugelyconcerningthattherearemajorgapsidentifiedintheInfrastructureNeedsAssessmentreportbothintermofserviceprovisionandfundingavailabletoactuallyfulfillanywhereclosetotheforecastedneedsoftheproposeddevelopments.YourssincerelyMrTaylor
PlanningPolicyandStrategyTeamRunnymedeBoroughCouncilCivicCentreStationRoadAddlestoneSurreyKT152AHEmail:[email protected]
MrTaylor7ElmTreeClose
ChertseySurrey
KT169QT
20thFebruary2018DearRunnymedeBCPolicy&StrategyTeam,Re:ObjectiontoremovalofChertseyBittamsareasfromGreenBeltIwrotetoobjecttoChertseyBittamslandparcelsbeingremovedfromGreenBeltinyourconsultationin2016,andagainin2017.MyobjectionremainsthesameforthisfinalconsultationandIhavereiteratedmyreasonsbelow.IamdeeplysaddenedandfrustratedthattheCouncilplanstoremovevastareasofourlocalgreenspacesfromGreenBeltprotection.ImconcernedbythesheeramountofhousingbeingproposedacrosstheareawithparticularreferencetotheparceloflandreferredtoasSL14ChertseyBittamsParcelAoffGreenLane.Mymainconcernsareoutlinedbelow:LossofvaluableGreenBelt:infillingourlocalgreenspaceswillofcourseruinthecharacterofourlocalarea.GreenBeltprotectionsafeguardsourcountrysidefromencroachment,oncetheseparcelsoflandareremovedfromGreenBeltprotectionthereisnogoingback.TheGovernmentstatethatitiscommittedtothestrongprotectionandenhancementofGreenBeltland.WithintheGreenBelt,mostnewbuildingisinappropriateandshouldberefusedplanningpermissionexceptinveryspecialcircumstances,yetthesheerdensityofproposedhousingwithintheRunnymedeLocalPlan2030issimplyexcessiveandutterlyunsustainable,particularlyintheChertseyBittamstriangleofland.Loosingourgreenspaceswillresultinlossofwildlifeandopportunityforlocalpeopletoenjoytheirlocalcountryside,aswellasthevisualandphysicalimpactoflosingopenspaceandamenity.Increasedtraffic,congestionandpollution:Yetmorecongestiononouralreadyoverburdenedlocalroads.OurlocaltransportinfrastructurearoundChertseyBittams,OttershawandalsoAddlestone(allofwhicharedesignatedasareasofconsiderablegrowth)isquitesimplyinadequateforsuchlarge-scaledevelopment.WhatplansarethereconcerningthemajorA320route?Whataffectwillallthisadditionalcongestionpotentiallyhaveonouremergencyservicesresponsetimes?Strainonlocalservices:TheprojectedincreaseinresidentpopulationassociatedwiththeplanneddevelopmentswillplaceadditionaldemandandpressureonouralreadyoverstretchedandunderfundedheathcareprovisionssuchasourGPsandStPetersHospital.Aswellasourlocalschoolsandeducationalfacilities.CommunitiesIntegration:IdonotagreewiththenewproposedpolicyoflocatingandintegratingextraTravellerssitesinnewdevelopments.IwouldliketoquestionwhyTravellerpitchesareproposedtobescatteredthroughoutthelocalareawithinnumerousparcelsofland,inplaceofofferinglarger/fewerlocations.Isthereanyevidenceastowhethersegregationacrossnumeroussiteswouldbepreferredinsteadofkeepingcommunitiestogether?Andhasconsiderationbeengivenastohowcommunityintegrationwouldbemanagedshouldpitchesbedispersedwithinexistingneighbourhoods?
Overall,myconcernissimple,thatinfillingourvaluableGreenBelthasthepotentialtoundermineandirreversiblyruinthecharacterofourlocalarea.Thesubsequentdensityofdevelopmentproposed,especiallywithinChertseyBittams,isjustunsustainable,squeezinginsuchamassiveamountofhousingatthedetrimenttoexistingresidents.ItshugelyconcerningthattherearemajorgapsidentifiedintheInfrastructureNeedsAssessmentreportbothintermofserviceprovisionandfundingavailabletoactuallyfulfillanywhereclosetotheforecastedneedsoftheproposeddevelopments.YourssincerelyMrTaylor
From:To: Planning PolicySubject: RBC Local Plan 2035Date: 30 January 2018 14:09:31
Dear Sir,
It is hard to know where to begin when objecting to the detail of the developmentproposed under the latest draft of the new local plan. As a 25 year resident of VirginiaWater and specifically the Wentworth Estate, I regard it as a wilful, if not deliberate,attempt to ruin the character of our Community.
Those of us who have lived here for a number of years recognise the cynical politicalreality of Surrey CC's various attempts to hide unpopular developments such as theTrumps Farm Incinerator in the corners of the County, but I had always assumed - Inow realise naively - that our local Borough Council would put the interests of itsresidents first.
It is clear to me that this plan will create untold damage to the quality of life forresidents of Virginia Water, since not only are large amounts of Green Belt to be lost,but also no provision for the extra infrastructure necessary to accommodate the housingproposed is even being discussed. This is, sadly, familiar to those of us who havesuffered from the Council's ham-fisted management of the car parking situation inVirginia Water itself following the sale of the Bourne Car Park.
It is not clear to me why Virginia Water ranks so low in the Council's list of priorities. Itis hard to avoid the conclusion that part of the calculation is that many of the owners onthe Wentworth Estate may not have a vote, and once again our proximity to theboundary of the Borough makes us an easy target. In that regard, the decision to createa Travellers' site immediately beside the Estate (whose special character I understandthat RBC will no longer recognise) at Knowle Hill, smacks of vindictiveness. One may ormay not regard a rise of crime on the Estate as an inevitable future consequence of this,but such sites are certain both to prove eyesores and to significantly reduce the value ofthe new homes also planned for that area.
I applaud and fully support the various groups who will be working to have this appallingdraft Local Plan thrown out or significantly amended.
Yours sincerely,
Mark Houghton-Berry
1416
mailto:[email protected]
From: Newby JanetTo: Planning PolicySubject: Draft Local Plan ConsultationDate: 12 February 2018 14:31:44
Dear Sirs
Re Draft Local Plan Consultation
I am writing to express my concerns about the Green Belt Central VeterinaryLaboratory land (bordering the backs of properties in Old Road/Leigh Close)being included in the Draft Local Plan for developing 150 dwellings and twogypsy/travellerpitches on a total of 4.7 hectares.
Developing this site will effectively join Addlestone Row Town with New Hawcausing urban sprawl. The Green Belt was established to prevent this happening.Government policy states that Green Belt should not be developed until otherpossibilities have been fully explored or exhausted. Whilst I appreciate theneed for new homes, we already have the development of 350 homes at StrawberryFields with a further 43 at Coombelands Lane being built. I consider our areahas already borne our fair share of housing development in this area.
My grounds for objection to this development are:-
1) Loss of Green Belt and a Greenfield site - Once gone it can never be broughtback.
2) Noise and additional air pollution - We already exceed acceptable levels ofair pollution in many parts of Runnymede. Air pollution detrimentally affectsus all, particularly the brain development of young children, asthma sufferers,breathing difficulties and other related medical issues.
3) More traffic congestion in Row Town and the surrounding area -The recentA320 study commissioned by Surrey County Council demonstrates that trafficcongestion is at serious levels now, BEFORE any further development.
4) Pressure on infrastructure, e.g. access to doctor's appointments and schoolplaces.
5) Overdevelopment of the immediate area by greatly increasing proposed housingdensity per hectare of land and destroying an area of natural beauty.
Yours faithfully
Janet H Newby6 Avon CloseAddlestoneSurreyKT15 1JD
1419
mailto:[email protected]
Dear Sirs,
Re: Planning Applications.
58 Rose Parlt'""-""""""'~p"':""Ja--:tt ..... n'"""h"""~g ..... S""""_ e"""r-vi'"""'c""'"es~=-=l' Row Town f
! 2 :1 f">'"') r.a U (~ :~ (J t .. ; I ADDLESTONE, S rrey /
KTlS lHN Runnymede H::;ro,n.b ....... ,.,.,vil f. ... \..j.D ... "..,..-"L' ...... ~v -~ -~
18th February, 2018.
I wish to make the strongest possible objection to all local applications for the
building of houses, and particularly those on Green Belt and Green Field sites.
The Runnymede area has had more than its fair share of building in recent
times, with a huge nursing home in Row Town, the massive 350 home housing
estate at Strawberry Fields, 43 homes at Coombelands Lane plus all the other
local places where smaller numbers of houses are being squeezed in.
We already exceed acceptable noise and air pollution levels in parts of
Runnymede, with its detrimental effect on us all, and particularly those with
any sort of breathing difficulties and the brain development of children.
All this building would, naturally, bring about more noise and traffic
congestion. The recent study of the A320 commissioned by Surrey County
Council demonstrated that traffic congestion was at a serious level and that is
BEFORE any further development. Also, many of the roads are currently in an
appalling condition.
Schools, surgeries and hospitals are already overcrowded. How are they
supposed to cope? Children are already in classes of 30, appointments to see a
doctor within a week or two are practically impossible to get, and the doctors
in A & E are under terrific pressure. To do a good job doctors, nurses and teachers (amongst others) need less pressure, not more.
What are those who have bought houses in a peaceful setting supposed to do
-listen to traffic noise instead of bird song? What about the wild life? Bees
and hedgehogs are fast disappearing. Many of us love to enjoy nature around
us and walkers and cyclists are safe to do this along in areas such as Brox Lane.
We at Rose Park already have trouble with drains not being able to cope when
we have heavy rain. Raw sewerage is constantly pushed up through the drains
on the park and nothing has been done to cure the problem- it is unsightly
and a dangerous health hazard.
Please think of the pleasure people gain from our countryside and not what
can be done to spoil it forever. I
Yours faithfully,
Susan FARLEY.
From: Claire ElderTo: Planning PolicySubject: Runnymede 2030 Draft Local Plan. Draft Local Plan Consultation.Date: 20 February 2018 19:35:16
Dear Sirs
I write to object to the revised Runnymede 2030 Draft Local Plan in Runnymede and in Row Townand Ottershaw.
I object to any land being taken from the Greenbelt. This land is sacrosanct and must be retained asGreen Belt. The Greenbelt prevents urban sprawl and retains the characteristics of the area. Theconservative manifesto promised to maintain Greenbelt but the conservative council seem to befailing to live up to this promise.
I object to the proposed development at the Central Veterinary Laboratory Land of 150+ dwellingsand 2 traveller pitches in Row Town. The 350 dwellings at Strawberry Fields have already changedthe area, with an increase in traffic and congestion, and crime has also increased. A further 150dwellings would produce even more congestion on roads which can barely cope at present. Anymaintenance or accident on the roads brings the entire region to a standstill. The increased trafficwould increase pollution and destroy the environment we live in.
I see no increase in the area's infrastructure. It is difficult to get appointments at the hospitals anddoctors and the schools are oversubscribed at the current level of housing. Any additional housingwould put even more pressure on these and other services.
Row Town is in danger of becoming just another built up area. We chose to live in the area becauseof its space and countryside and this is now being chipped away which should not be allowed. Development of the site would effectively join Addlestone and Row Town with New Haw, causingurban sprawl.
I therefore ask you to note my objection and to reconsider the destruction of Greenbelt in the localplan.
Yours faithfully
Claire Elder8 RedwoodsAddlestoneSurreyKT15 1JN
1437
mailto:[email protected]
From: Jane WardTo: Planning PolicySubject: Proposed local plan. Regarding Site b Addlestone Vet LabsDate: 22 February 2018 23:43:13
As a resident of Row Town, I strongly object to this proposed local plan forthe following reasons;
This is pristine green Field Land which fully performs the function ofGreenbelt and should not be taken from the Greenbelt as it serves its 5 keypurposes
Check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas Prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another Assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment Preserve the setting and special character of historic towns Assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling ofderelict and other urban land
The plan for 150 + high density dwellings when Rowtown has already seen anincrease in housing with the Strawberry fields development a few years ago ,is not necessary and is overburdensome on this semi-rural backwater.
The local infrastructure is already under considerable strain. Additionalfunding would be needed to support the planned additional housing. Suchinfrastructure improvement and funding was due after the development ofStrawberry Fields, but did not appear to materialise so the area is already at adisadvantage. Currently it is impossible to get an appointment at the local GP surgery inAddlestone. In Addlestone itself , 200 apartments are being built adding tothe strain on the current services and this suggestion of a further 150 pluswould make good health care unattainable.
Traffic volume, excessive speeding (recently leading to a car ploughing into atelegraph pole and a front wall and garden in Row Town) has becomesignificant and unpleasant. I already find driving out of my driveway verydifficult due to traffic volume and speeds. Furthermore, the bus service hasbeen allowed to disintegrate forcing residents into their cars.
The potential addition of a further 200 - 300 vehicles regularly on thesevillage roads would increase noise, congestion and pollution. We already havehealth problems as a result of poor air quality and this would further increase.The lighting required would also increase light pollution and destroy therurality of this area.
It will lead to a decrease in safety and quality of life for current residents and
1439
mailto:[email protected]
would be a massive detriment to the area. It would negatively impact on thelives of the majority of people living in Rowtown as all the houses are directlyroad facing.
Regarding Traveller sites: they are unsuitable and out of character for thisarea. We do not need such a site in close proximity to the troublesomeStrawberry Fields site and to propose two sites both of indeterminate size isunacceptable on every level.
There has been an increase in burglaries in RowTown in the last year. To addall these extra homes and traveller sites could result in the need for increasedsecurity and increased policing to make us all safe in our homes. Do theresources exist to provide this extra support?
The Conservative party manifesto promises to maintain the existing strongprotections on designated land like the green belt. To allow this developmentwould be political hypocrisy. Green belt should mean Green. Whilst I understand that extra housing is required nationally, I believe thatOngar and Rowtown communities have already contributed to that need withthe development at Strawberry fields, the Ian Allen site at Coombelands andthe development of the two plots of land on Ongar Hill. To build on this sitewould mean that Addlestone and New Haw would be contagious. This isspecifically what green belt land was supposed to prevent.
To go ahead with this newly proposed development, particularly in light of thefailings of the Strawberry Fields housing, is to over develop this locality, willlead to a decline in the neighbourhood and subsequently lead to a need forincreased funding and support from the council to maintain and improve thearea .
It will quite simply destroy this wonderful area for the future.
Yours sincerely,
J Ward107 Rowtown
Regards,
Jane Ward
From: jane ArnoldTo: Planning PolicySubject: Draft Local Plan ConsultationDate: 09 February 2018 14:20:32
Dear Sirs,
I am writing to express my concerns regarding the 150 dwellings and two traveller pitches which are beingproposed on green belt land bordering Old Road and Leigh Close.
My two main concerns are pressure on the infrastructure I.e access to doctors appointments and school places,and noise and air pollution particularly for people who are suffering with breathing difficulties, asthma sufferersand other health problems.
Also there would be more traffic congestion and as there havealready been cuts to public transport this congestion is already atserious levels as shown in the recent A320 study commissioned by Surrey County Council.
It would also be destroying areas of natural beauty and once a Greenfield site and Green Belt Land is gone itcan never be brought back.
Yours faithfullyJane Arnold18 Firfield RoadAddlestoneKT15 1QU
Kind regards,
Jane Arnold
1450
mailto:[email protected]
1124 J A Penfold_Redacted1128 Mr Gordon Cox_Redacted (2)1128 Mr Gordon Cox_Redacted1154 Mrs S Smith_Redacted1158 Mr Brian and Mrs Maureen Frith_Redacted1161 Mr Ernest Newin and Ms Joan Corbett_Redacted1182 Mr and Mrs I Chandler_Redacted1186 Guiomar Alonso_Redacted1193 Andree Gregory - Highways England_Redacted1195 Miranda Petty - Natural England_RedactedNE Consultation Response. Runnymede Local Plan and HRA235915. NE Consultation Response. Runnymede Local Plan Reg 19
1197 Mr Melvyn and Mrs Sarah Dunstall_Redacted1206 Richard Carr - Transport for London_Redacted1209 Alan Byrne - Historic England_Redacted1210 Sean Morgan_Redacted1211 Mrs Janet Morgan_Redacted1215 Mark Carter_Redacted1216 Cllr Barry Pitt_Redacted1223 Paul Foster_Redacted1227 Nils Martensson_Redacted1228 James Manson_Redacted1239 K Szulakowska_Redacted1246 Joan Cauldwell_Redacted1260 Sir Michael Edwardes_Redacted1271 Mr Ian Chevalier_Redacted1272 Gerald Couch_Redacted1273 Mrs Sylvia Lindsay_Redacted1283 Hannah Rogers_Redacted1286 Mr Steven Craig_RedactedRunnymede 2030 Draft Local PlanLetter re green belt
1295 Emma and Phil Ashton_Redacted1300 Kate Dale_Redacted1305 Miss Joy Crossingham_Redacted1306 Mr L Hannam_Redacted1307 Russell Jacobs - Ottershaw Mansion Residents_Redacted1308 Ms Lisa McDonald_Redacted1312 Jim Nichol_Redacted1318 Mrs Kathleen Eaton_Redacted1320 Mr R F Wyatt_Redacted1321 Rachel Wynne_Redacted1322 Edward Farley_Redacted1332 Helen Webb_Redacted1333 Linda Smith1335 Ms J E Hebdon_Redacted1336 Derek Butler_Redacted1340 Annette Hayward_Redacted1341 Mrs Bell_Redacted1343 Angela Shepperdson_Redacted1348 Jackie Wheatley_Redacted1351 Catherine Peddie_Redacted1365 Mrs J A Hoff_Redacted1385 Leon Mullett_Redacted1386 Agnieszka Williams_RedactedFrom: Williams, Agnieszka [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 20 February 2018 14:16 To: Planning Subject: Runnymede Local Plan 2015-2030
1409 Aidan Gibson_RedactedRunnymede 2030 Planning Consultation ResponseModel_Representation_form_for_Regulation_19_Word_Doc
1412 Mr Martin Owden & Ms Jane Tilley_Redacted1413 Brian P Hamill_Redacted1414 Mr Taylor_RedactedMr Taylor - Runnymede Local Plan 2030 consultationMr Taylor - Runnymede Local Plan 2030 consultation Feb18
1415 Trevor Skidmore1416 Mark Houghton-Berry_Redacted1419 Mrs Janet H Newby_Redacted1428 Susan Farley_Redacted1437 Claire Elder_Redacted1439 Jane Ward_Redacted1450 Jane Arnold_Redacted1453 Isabel Mullens_RedactedBorough Plan Consultaion submissionModel_Representation_form_for_Regulation_19_Word_Doc - IAM submission
1454 Mr Andrew Williams_Redacted1455 Andrew Tyley_Redacted1459 Derek Case_Redacted1461 James Cook_Redacted1472 B C Buchanan_RedactedObjection to Runnymede 2030 Draft Local PlanObjectionbb P1Objectionbb P2
1477 Steven Doel - Nexus Planning, On Behalf of Chertsey Parklands LLP_RedactedRunnymede Local Plan 2030 Representations to SD3Representations to SL17Final SL17 Appendix 1.pdfFAO_ Case Officer Ian Maguire, Highways England response re Planning Application ref RU.17_1749 Parklands Bittams Lane ChertseyRU.171749 Parklands Bittams Lane
1482 Paul Greenwood - Chertsey(South) Residents Association_Redacted1488 Jason Hillier_Redacted1489 Josh Hillier_Redacted1490 Clare HIllier_Redacted1492 Martin J Leay on behalf of Andreas Heeschen_RedactedMLA225 Runnymede Borough Council Representations for the 2030 Draft Local PlanRepresentation Form_MLA_AHEESHEN 220218
1493 Christine Chambers_Redacted1494 Clive Chambers_Redacted1497 Louise Hambleton - Places for People, Quod_RedactedRunnymede 2030 Draft Local Plan Runnymede 2030 Draft Local Plan - PfP Reps 220218
1217 Mr Iain Painting - on behalf of Cemex UK Ltd_Redacted.pdfRunnymede 2030 Draft Local Plan Consultation_ Cemex Representations 180222 FINAL CEMEX Runnymede Reps Consultation Form Part 1. docx (2)180222 FINAL CEMEX Runnymede Reps Consultation Form Part 2. docx (3)180222 FINAL CEMEX Runnymede Reps
1481 Mr Adam Kindred -CBRE-On behalf of Ashill Group_Redacted.pdfRegulation 19 Representations - AshillRep Form_Christmas Tree FarmChristmas Tree FarmChristmas Tree Farm, Ottershaw - AshillExecutive SummaryDuty to cooperateThe Duty to Cooperate places a legal duty on local planning authorities, county councils in England and public bodies to engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis to maximise the effectiveness of Local Plan preparation in the context of ...SoundnessObjectively Assessed needMarket Signals UpliftEmploymentPartial Update to Strategic Housing Market Assessment
housing deliveryApplication of Buffer to Address Historic Under-delivery
spatial strategy and required infrastructureEmployment Patternsevidence baseA320 StudyGreen Belt
Site plan01248_Masterplan Leaflet med res updated sangITB12156-006B TN A320 Corridor StudyAppendix B - ITB12156-GA-005 Rev A.pdfSheets and ViewsITB12156-GA-005 Rev A-A2 LAND BOTTOM
Rep Form_Stroude FarmStroude FarmStroude Farm Reg 19 Response - Final DraftExecutive SummaryDuty to cooperateThe Duty to Cooperate places a legal duty on local planning authorities, county councils in England and public bodies to engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis to maximise the effectiveness of Local Plan preparation in the context of ...SoundnessObjectively Assessed needMarket Signals UpliftEmploymentPartial Update to Strategic Housing Market Assessment
housing deliveryApplication of Buffer to Address Historic Under-delivery
spatial strategy and required infrastructuresite selection methodologyGreen Belt
Appendix A vision doument
Appendix D Virginia Water vision doc
1258-Mr Philip Andrews-On behalf of Wentworth Residents' Association_Redacted.pdf1258RBC Local Plan Objection letter 21.02.18
