Objection guidance

The site lies wholly within the Green Belt, which is a designated area of open space, aimed at controlling urban growth and preventing urban sprawl. In the case of our local Green Belt, it separates Long Ditton/Surrey from Tolworth/Greater London.

There are five purposes of Green Belt: Checking unrestricted sprawl; preventing towns from merging; safeguarding the countryside; preserving the character of towns; encouraging recycling of derelict land.

Grey Belt refers to areas within the Green Belt that 'make a limited contribution to these five purposes'. Grey Belt is a new term, coined by the government to 'facilitate housing and development'.

● The applicant (Taylor Wimpey) says this area is “grey belt/weakly performing”, but development here would undermine Green Belt purposes (as above) and set a precedent for releasing adjoining parcels.

● The most recent Elmbridge Local Plan (2023, withdrawn) did NOT allocate this land for release, suggesting it was not judged suitable for development.

The application is for up to 150 homes (some shown at three storeys)

• This is out of keeping with the surrounding two-storey suburban character

• The suggested scale, density and heights are not appropriate for Long Ditton, especially near the Village Green

Important: Also note that...

The application is an Outline Application which means that the exact layout, scale/heights of buildings, appearance/materials to be used, landscaping/buffers/street trees, lighting, drainage design, parking, roads and play areas, etc are not guaranteed at this stage (they will be decided later as 'Reserved Matters'). This means that these could change (eg. more houses, higher storey buildings, less landscaping, etc)

The application claims that 'up to 50% affordable housing' will be provided.

• Does this genuinely help those on Elmbridge's list? Or will the 'affordable housing' mainly be shared ownership/'affordable rent' products that are still unaffordable locally?

• Note that the percentage of affordable housing, type and mix is not fixed without a legally binding agreement with the local authority so this percentage could change

• The application does not recognise that there is no GP surgery or significant employment within a 20 minute walk (this goes against the "20-minute neighbourhood" claim).

• The schools listed are Shrewsbury House and Wemms SEN (both private). St Mary's Junior School (nearest state school) is not mentioned, so everyday accessibility is overstated.

The development is forecast to add 641 daily vehicle trips.

• Residents already see congestion/safety issues on Woodstock Lane North (narrow, limited footways) and at Hook/Hinchley Wood junctions.

Data comes from Air Quality Management Areas located in Kingston and at the Hinchley Wood Lights. The modelling says "no significant impact" but...

• The Air Quality Management Areas are too far away to be used as an example

• Dust and air quality risks during the build phase

• Cumulative effects on already poor local air quality

• Risks to children at nearby schools and users of the Village Green
  

• There are no binding commitments to fund extra GP/healthcare capacity; pressure on stretched services would worsen.

• Schools (eg. Hinchley Wood Secondary) are full; no additional school places are proposed

• Our Village Green (One Tree Hill) lies to the west of the proposed development site.

• Even if “retained and enhanced”, building next to it will harm tranquillity, setting and its natural character.

• Stokes Field LNR would face more disturbance from cats/dogs, garden fertilisers, trampling, light and noise (These are impacts that Taylor Wimpey acknowledge in the application).

• These pressures accumulate and are hard to mitigate long-term.

A significant area of the development would mean losing young woodland/scrub/blackthorn. (This is the area to the right/East of One Tree Hill, used daily by walkers)

• Early scrub/blackthorn is undervalued by the application documentation, but is important for rare wildlife such as birds, hedgehogs and insects (eg. brown hairstreak butterfly) all protected by law.

• Hedgerows are a “Priority Habitat” (ie. legally recognised as important habitats); any removed must be properly replaced with the same amount and in better condition.

• Six ancient trees on the site need space of at least 15m around them (eg. no lighting, pipes etc).

• The current lighting approach doesn’t guarantee protection of bats from too much light pollution.

• The necessary “more than 10% BNG” headline is not backed up by proper technical documents.

• Housing heights are stated as “up to 2.5–3 storeys” with no height limits in relation to the surrounding countryside/Village Green

• The visual assessment is incomplete; with no accurate verified images indicating night time and winter visualisations showing how the site will look, especially with lighting at night and with no leaf-cover on the trees that divide the site from the Village Green

• Flood risk/drainage plans are only basic ideas at this stage; detailed design and tests/maintenance etc has been deferred.

• Residents can ask that any drainage system be biodiversity-designed and come with a long term, legally secured 30-year maintenance plan.