Green Belt Opinion Survey
Thanks to all who completed this survey. The survey is now closed for analysis.
Kindly note that comments to this post will be monitored and subsequently published with the author’s name. If you would prefer your comment not to be published, please indicate this at the end of your comment.
My view is that Green Belt areas should be protected – all of them. It is not ‘grey belt’; far less ‘brownfield’. This Goverment is still maintaining it will only target ‘grey belt’.
There is no reason whatever, therefore, to concede any portion of the precious Green Belt that makes our locality (and protects its urban boundaries) so special, and adds to its ancient character – rural, unspoilt and not over-developed.
I believe it shortsighted to identify some areas as less valuable to the community than others – all on the basis that this may bring an additional amenity or footpath or whatever – things that should be provided in any case.
And it is naive, I suggest, to imagine that by conceding some areas for development (which is what it means if they are designated as less valuable) then that will protect other areas; and act as a barrier to further future encroachment.
It will not. Quite the opposite: Like Putin, to take a current example, it is like conceding him Ukraine land in return for the promise of new infrastructure – and imagining that this will then bring a halt to any further ambition. Once the principle of building on Green Belt in this area has been breached, it will be almost impossible to resist further encroachments.
The Green Belt sites which contain no PreviouslyDevelopedLand/brownfield should continue to be prioritised for protection from development. They should be duly recognised as highly performing.
Sites with readily visible visual amenities, especially SA11, should be duly recognised and strongly protected.
In light of the petitions to save SA14 and SA11, signed by thousands, these 2 Green Belt sites should be the 2 top priorities for saving from development.
Designating SA11 as a Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace seems the obvious way forward, given that Elmbridge Borough Council’s own assessment of SANG options listed SA11 as one of the 4 top SANG sites. SA11 has ancient veteran trees and an ancient public footpath. It is a thriving home to nature and wildlife, including deer.
There is absolutely no need to destroy or impair the green belt around Oxshott. The A244 is quite enough and is daily more busy
I am a bit worried by this Survey
Attaching in an uneditable pdf format will limit the response.
Also By concentrating on identified sites, it ignores other possibilities -eg a lot of unloved woodland on the Leatherhead Road.
And it may polarise Oxshott residents in supporting their local road. We need to work together.
Please add the following points I submitted in my 19 March response :
1. This (SA11) is a very visually attractive site. It offers iconic views of Oxshott that you see when you enter or leave from the south, readily visible by all those travelling along Blundel Lane : a site which adds immeasurably to the character of Oxshott.
2. SA11 has great recreational value. The footpath across it is a popular walk (and ride and run) because of the views that it offers. If the site is built on, the footpath may remain but its recreational value will be destroyed.
3.Protecting and enhancing SA11 will continue to help the health of the wildlife and nature, thriving in the ancient trees and hedgerows
4. Saving SA11 will save the character of our community and its nature/wildlife
5. SA11/GB46 contains absolutely no brownfield and is therefore unspoilt, high performing
6. SA11/GB46 contains strategic views of Surrey Hills from the northeast part of Public Footpath 51
Thanks for improving the format.
The current plans for development on Green Belt land around Oxshott have failed to take into account the pressure they would additionally place on local roads, already subject to very heavy traffic congestion – particularly the A244. The need for additional spaces in local schools and the doctor’s surgery should also be taken into consideration before any plans are approved.
As others have said, development of rural areas around the village of Oxshott would inevitably be the thin edge of the wedge as far as development of Green Belt areas is concerned. It would lead to the merging of villages – Oxshott with Stoke d’Abernon and Cobham – and great loss of amenity for those living in the area.
My husband and I agree with the points made by Ionis Thompson and other submissions,particularly those relating to the recreational amenities and access to the Coverts that would be adversely affected by these developments. We also feel strongly that these proposed developments would put further pressure on roads, other infrastructure, and public services in Oxshott Village.