May 252017
 

Further to our post of 14th May 2017 on the new Consultation on the Runnymede Borough Council (RBC) Local Plan below are some points you might use in your individual responses. PLEASE NOTE: If you objected last time to the Ottershaw East proposals and you still object, you will need to submit your objection again as the proposals for this site have been revised!

Remember it is still a Local Plan in consultation and this is another opportunity to comment. Responses need to be with RBC by Friday 23rd June 2017 by e-mail to: planningpolicy@runnymede.gov.uk or posted to: Planning Policy & Strategy Team, Runnymede Borough Council, Civic Centre, Station Road, Addlestone, KT15 2AH

The Society remains opposed to any reduction in the Green Belt. Once Green Belt is lost, it is lost for ever!

Here are some points you might use in your individual responses:

  • Changes to the Green Belt require “exceptional circumstances” Has RBC shown this to be the case.(see Green Belt policy – exceptional circumstances for more details)
  • RBC are still proposing 242 units in Ottershaw East/Brox Lane (180+20 residential+40 Brox Lane+2 traveller sites), which represents a 14% increase on the around 1,700 houses already in Ottershaw.
  • The plan still includes 40 houses in the site off Brox Lane.
  • The need to see a comprehensive statement on how the roads and other elements of infrastructure (eg Surgery, Schools etc) will be improved before any development can be considered.
  • If you object to the developers additional proposals for Upper Ottershaw and Great Grove Farm, you should specifically mention these, as either could still come into the plan at a later stage.
  • What overall Strategic Planning is happening, as Ottershaw will be affected by other possible and planned developments outside the centre of Ottershaw along the A320/ A319/ B3121 roads. (ie Woodham New Town, Fairoaks Garden Village, St Peters Hospital, Bittams Lane and Longcross North/South)
  • What planning is there concerning the major A320 route (Guildford/Woking to M25)?
  • Extra traffic will exacerbate already inadequate village centre parking and the need for traffic calming throughout the village.
  • Do you agree/disagree with the proposal to distribute Travellers sites around the borough (eg 2 sites at Ottershaw East)?

  14 Responses to “Objections to developments”

  1. We strongly object to any more Traveller sites in this area of Runnymede. There are already several Traveller sites along Hardwick Lane and Chobham Road and a lot of unofficial sites too.
    We have a lot of problems with travellers in Ottershaw village already.
    Re the other development plans they are totally out of proportion to the infrastructure of Ottershaw which has very poor transport links and Surgery and Schools are already maximum capacity.

  2. I continue to object to the proposed developments in and around Ottershaw, namely Ottershaw East/Brox Lane, Great Grove farm and Upper Ottershaw. The number of units proposed is far too great and will change the whole village status. Building on green belt land flies in the face of all it was set up to protect.The infrastructure is struggling as it is, roads are in a poor state of repair without further traffic – not to mention the traffic congestion. Serious road improvement and extension will be required. Is there any joined up thinking between planners of development of Woodham New Town, Fairoaks Garden Village, St Peters Hospital, Bittams Lane and Longcross North/South? Where are the extra school places, doctors etc coming from? I am told even the local pharmacy struggles to keep up with prescriptions. for the current population. I also object to further Traveller Sites in the area. They seem to be popping up all over the place and do not enhance the area.

  3. I wish to complain yet again to the proposed changes to housing developments in and around Ottershaw.
    Why are existing plans amended time after time. Is nobody considering the impact this make to the already over stretched infrastructure. ie,
    1) Traffic density. There is a joke about the M25 being the car park around London. It is no joke, the road is at saturation now without any additional cars caused by the increase in housing around here.
    The A320 being the main feeder to the M25 will become overloaded.
    2) Schools,doctors surgeries,chemists are already at breaking point. There is a nation wide shortage of these facilities and staff.
    3) Water and Electricity. Has the increase need for these essential requirements been considered. The present on going work on repairing the water main which entails the internal sleeving of the existing corroding metal pipes with a plastic liner thus reducing the amount water that can be carried. I have been told to overcome this the pressure needs to be increased. This should be alright for the main supply but will put further stress on the branch supply pipes leading off to housing etc which on established housing may suffer from bursting pipes.
    I think we have already enough travellers sites in the area.
    I have heard from other housing developments that the proposed affordable housing requirement has been amended downwards at a later stage by the Developers stating that they can not afford to supply the. I hope that this will not be allowed.

  4. I wish to object once more to the proposed changes in the green belt bounderies which in themselves require ‘exceptional circumstances’ reasons for which have not as yet been proven.

    RBC are still proposing 242 new units representing 14%increase on about 2000 houses already in Ottershaw including 40 houses in Brox Road.

    Plans for additional infrastructure required for all this to happen to support the above including schools, surgeries, road improvements including connecting junctions need to be demonstrated before any of the above can be considered.

    Additional proposals covering Upper Ottershaw and Great Grove Farm should not be mooted either now or later for similar reasons.

    The extra volume of traffic which would be generated by these proposed developments (240 houses producing at least an extra 2 cars each – an additional 500 cars) would add to the already overloaded road and associated parking facilities causing gridlock in and surrounding the local area.

    An extra need for Water, gas and electricity supplies would have to catered for In addition to the presently ongoing updating of gas water and electricity supplies.

    As a result the extra congestion and severe lack of parking space could be horrendous also existing leisure green space and recreation facilities would be severely stretched or even curtailed.

    In short we consider the project to be unworkable and should not be followed.

    Sincerely yours

  5. I wish to object once more to the proposed changes in the green belt bounderies which in themselves require ‘exceptional circumstances’ reasons for which have not as yet been proven.

    RBC are still proposing 242 new units representing 14%increase on about 2000 houses already in Ottershaw including 40 houses in Brox Road.

    Plans for additional infrastructure required for all this to happen to support the above including schools, surgeries, road improvements including connecting junctions need to be demonstrated before any of the above can be considered.

    Additional proposals covering Upper Ottershaw and Great Grove Farm should not be mooted either now or later for similar reasons.

    The extra volume of traffic which would be generated by these proposed developments (240 houses producing at least an extra 2 cars each – an additional 500 cars) would add to the already overloaded road and associated parking facilities causing gridlock in and surrounding the local area.

    An extra need for Water, gas and electricity supplies would have to catered for In addition to the presently ongoing updating of gas water and electricity supplies.

    In short we consider the project to be unworkable and should not be followed.

    Sincerely yours

    • I wish to object once more to the proposed changes to the Green Belt bounderies which in themselves require ‘Exceptional Circumstances’ reasons for which have not been proven.

      RBC are proposing 242 new units representing about 14% on the present number.which

      the existing facilities and infrastructures would not be able to cope.

      I therefore think this project unworkable and say no to it.

      Sincerely yours

      • I wish to object to the proposed reduction in the green belt around Ottershaw because it requires ‘Exceptional Circumstances’ to do so and these have not yet been proven.

  6. I object to these developments. The village identity will be swamped into an urban sprawl. It is totally unacceptable that our village will be left without a clear boundary from the areas nearby to us.

  7. Dear Sirs,
    I wish to object most strongly to the intended desecration of the Green Belt in this area, and to the now numerous applications for housing at all points in the areas surrounding and within the Ottershaw area, particularly Ottershaw East, Upper Ottershaw, and the Great Grove Farm areas. These applications should not be tolerated, partially due to the lack of facilities which are proposed, and also the road structures, which are not adequate for the current flow of traffic now, let alone for the proposed increased traffic flow hundreds of new houses would bring.
    The whole character of the village of Ottershaw would be destroyed, and it is particularly shocking that the new proposals have decreased the number of ‘affordable’ houses, due to the whims of the developers – who would not make enough profit on each unit!
    However, the greatest loss would be to the Green Belt, which was put in place originally, to control just such a situation as this, so that urban sprawl would not be allowed to destroy the semi-rural condition of this area. If the proposed developments are allowed to proceed, Ottershaw will be totally swamped!!
    Pat McKenna.

  8. I wish to strongly object to the travellers sites as we have a manor problem it ottershaw village with travellers as it is. As for the infrastructure our schools and Drs are full to maximum capacity and our roads are a mess already. Don’t change what is a beautiful village into a nightmare.

  9. There is no basis for cancelling Green Belt in this area.
    Thre appear to be no proposals to expand infrastructure such as roads, schools, surgeries.
    No account is taken of overload due to other expansion proposals.
    There is no justification for more traveller sites.

  10. We wish to object once again to the proposal to build on the green belt land within Ottershaw village. Our schools & doctors are already bursting at the seams. It will create more traffic on the roads which mean more pollution. Ottershaw will lose its identity as a village.

  11. I wish to object to the Ottershaw East plans for development. My main concern is the lack of plans to increase facilities in our area, manage the increase in traffic on our roads or provide spaces at schools and doctors surgeries. Brox Road is a residential road already used as a cut through from the A320. Existing residents frequently experience congestion through the village, at the A320 roundabout and the length of Murray Road. Increasing the numbers of cars will only compound the problem and increase the risks to our families, children and elderly residents.

  12. I strongly object to this proposal.

    Roads are already at full capacity.
    Schools are at capacity.
    Doctors are at capacity.

    As for a Traveller site. NO WAY. We have enough problems already with the Travelling Community in this area. They bring nothing good to our community whatsover. Save our lovely village.

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>