Bonfire Hill Development in Elstead: Responses to Questions
There have been 131 responses.
Do you live in Elstead?
If so where?
If you live outside Elstead do you have any connection with the village?
Can you see Bonfire Hill from where you live?
Do you walk on Bonfire Hill
Do your children play on the hill or use it for sledging in winter?
Would it upset you if houses are built on Bonfire Hill or if its current use is changed?
Please give your reasons
Do you think that more houses are needed in Elstead?
Please give your reasons
Is Bonfire Hill a good place to build houses?
Please give your reasons
Do you remember when Bonfire Hill was last used for village celebrations?
Will you attend the special presentation meeting when it is announced?
If you would like to be informed of the results of the survey please give an email address. This will not be given to any other party but we may use it to inform you of any news on the proposed development.
Do you have any comments or ideas on any future development in Elstead?
Bonfire Hill Development in Elstead: Responses to Question
Do you have any comments or ideas on any future development in Elstead?
JamesC on 2013-08-21 15:27
there is land towards the mill that would be better to develop and easier to access. I would say that developing in the area of bonfire hill will significantly impact the people who live on this side of the village in a negative fashion.
Lisa D on 2013-08-23 07:25
There are already issues with village children not being able to get school places, this situation will only deteriorate further if more family homes are built. There are also times when you cannot get a GP/nurse appointment for over a week - again, there simply isn't capacity for more people in the village with the current infrastructure.
CNorth on 2013-08-23 07:44
Future developments should be required to have to prove to have fully exhausted all feasible options for using brown field sites in the surrounding area before beautiful sites like Bonfire Hill are destroyed forever and our village's heart is removed forever and Elstead is no longer the desired location it is now.
Richard Rees on 2013-08-23 19:10
All thoughts re any development should be considered logically, legally, rationally without being emotively driven....hard things to do when changes may effect you personally. As with any development the impact on the wider infrastructure needs to be consider in terms of capacity to manage any additional needs (schools, roads etc).
Hilary P on 2013-08-24 17:04
Not at the moment but I will give it some thought.
Debbie Bramwell on 2013-08-24 19:58
I am particularly concerned that any local development would take into account demand on services such as the school and that it would not make it more difficult for local children already living in the village to obtain a place at the village school.
Carolyn Organe on 2013-08-24 20:08
It would be better to use other sites in or around the village rather than this one in the middle.
Michael Hopkins on 2013-08-24 20:16
Simon on 2013-08-24 20:23
Any further development must be considered with the pressure of public services also in mind. The is almost no more slack in the system and to maintain a certain level of village life we must look to other areas. Elstead has already built many houses over the past decade.
Simon on 2013-08-24 20:34
Any new development must consider the limited capacity for increased traffic and extended infrastructure in the village.
Edward John Henstridge on 2013-08-24 21:11
New building should only be allowed with in the village settlement.
It should never be in open spaces around the village outside the building area. Account as to be taken of facilities such as the school, Doctors, parking, traffic etc
Tony714 on 2013-08-24 21:54
Infrastructure is just coping. Roads are too busy. School probably could not cope with many more.
raynerj on 2013-08-24 22:05
Green belt should be left untouched for thae reason it was made green belt land in the first place. So it was off limits to greedy developers trying to make a buck and bit giving a damn to the consequences.
Nicholas Tyrrell-Evans on 2013-08-24 22:40
More houses are needed and this seems an ideal site
Helen Robertson-Smith on 2013-08-25 08:35
I do feel there may be a need for further housing but not 3 fields worth!! This will spoil the village and decrease property prices in the immediate area.
Emma Doven on 2013-08-25 09:24
Surely any development could be on the outskirts like the federal mogul site ?!
Thomas Colley on 2013-08-25 09:39
Elstead is already getting crowded with the roads with the traffic makes it very difficult to get out of side roads. The school is already full.
Alison Tucker on 2013-08-25 10:16
firstname.lastname@example.org Moore on 2013-08-25 10:16
surely development should be directed to existing 'brown field' sites, eg weyburn bartells vacant buildings at somerset bridge.
development of green belt open field sites like this can only set un unwanted precedent
rene nevola on 2013-08-25 11:08
Elstead lacks the infrastructure to support a much larger village or town status. Its appeal is its austerity and natural beauty. The rural nature with fields and woodlands is well used by visitors who boost trade in the village and who rely upon the maintenance of Elstead's natural beauty (e.g. weekly Duke of Edinburgh award trekkers, ramblers, horse riders, cyclists, runners, dog walkers, family walks and places for the elderly to sit and ponder away from the noise, hussel and bussel of nearby towns. Elstead will loose its unique appeal if it expands as with more housing comes more undewrlying services, infrastructure and space alloacted to provision of adequate power, visitors parking and amenities (all of which can readily be sought in neighbouring towns who have the capacity to cope with expansion). Developers want to make a quick buck selling cheap housing at today's high costs, but the more housing at the expense of the land and all that makes Elstead the desirable village in which to live, will inevitably lower the appeal and hence the price such developers will be able to charge. Places like Elstead need to stay small to maintain their appeal to residence and its huge number of regular visitors.
Commons Fencing Plan on 2013-08-25 12:08
Future development, if essential to comply with government targets, should be constrained to infilling, brownfield sites and redevelopment of existing developed sites. We should not allow the village to be caught up in the politically correct 'affordable housing' paradigm; Elstead should remain a place to aspire to, to work hard and save to eventually afford as a lovely home.
JP on 2013-08-25 13:24
Just on the entry into the village, in Shackleford Rd, there are two large previous industrial sites which have been derelict for many many years and an eyesore and a disgrace. These brownfield sites should be used before even beginning to think of using Greenbelt land. They should be compulsorily purchased if needed. It took too long for the old school/sheltered houseing site near the church to be developed but that is looking good now.
Michael Robert Clarkson Webb on 2013-08-25 17:29
Yes, there are far better places for development. e.g. ex-Weyburn land, even the field between The Mill and the river would be less visible.
Derek Whitbread on 2013-08-25 20:47
Presumably the 'brown site' where the factory recently closed down, next to the office buildings is being considered
Rachel Dunnage on 2013-08-25 21:08
Housing should be built on the brown field federal mogul site, alongside a number of units suitable for small businesses.
Janine on 2013-08-26 09:40
Keep it small, retain village atmosphere, develop brownfield sites, protect green belt for the wildlife and the environment. Do not set a precedent by spoiling precious green belt, everyone will jump on the band wagon and we will turn elstead into the next Birmingham.
Jeffery Neville Carrington on 2013-08-26 10:04
The brownfield site near Somerst Bridge should be more than adequate for any expansion nof the village.
Denis Holmes on 2013-08-26 11:51
Suggest that the Federal Mogul site is a better location for development
Rick on 2013-08-26 12:38
Use in fill for additional housing
Tim Moxon on 2013-08-26 20:08
Having spent the majority of my life living in Elstead I think it's a well situated village with a lot to offer, potentially more residents. Many of the local businesses will need more people in the area to survive the changing economy. Hopefully more people would also encourage better transport links, which would further boost local property values etc, so all in all more substantial developments seems like a big win. Whether this particular plan is the best, I can't comment on, but more development generally, seems like a good idea.
David.Moxon on 2013-08-26 22:38
There are plans for Tracy's site. In filling is preferable to extension.
Iain Ollerenshaw on 2013-08-27 10:32
My main concern is that local services need to be able to cope with the expansion of the village, such as the capacity of the local Primary School.
As long as the process is conducted with appropriate consideration for all aspects of the village, I have no particular objection to the plans.
Les on 2013-08-27 12:15
There should be a finite limt to the scope of development. The increase in houses has not led to an increase in facilities such as shops schools or doctors' sugeries. It has led to an increase in vehicles but no increase in parking facilities. The most recent development in Beacon View Road had in adequate parking facilities associated with the houses and the unmade road is not suited to the extra traffic.
PETER HARRIS on 2013-08-27 12:59
Elstead should be left as a village
Julie Jacob on 2013-08-27 15:28
there are not many obvious sites in the village due to the high water table and common-land. (There is, i believe, some land off the thursley rd next to the residential park and also down the lane by Prides farm shop, but this may be privately owned?)
Sue Taylor on 2013-08-27 23:04
local primary and secondary schools would need expanding in order to cater for increased population
Caroline Marshall on 2013-08-28 10:18
Harold Andrews on 2013-08-28 13:41
Penny Judge on 2013-08-29 11:43
Build on the weyburn site?
Lesley Grainger on 2013-08-29 14:36
Anne Moys on 2013-08-29 17:44
No, to blg on greenbelt land.
aine0 on 2013-08-31 09:12
Keep it on lower ground
Anonymous User on 2013-08-31 12:41
what about Weyburn that IS an eyesore.
Anonymous User on 2013-08-31 14:38
I think that the federal mogul site should be looked into for deveolpment of housing for the village
Anonymous User on 2013-08-31 16:55
We have had enough new developments with the Old Mays site and Orchard Close. Elstead is hardly an affordable area in the housing market anyway. Lets stop developing the village before we destroy its already dissapearing tranquility.
Anonymous User on 2013-09-01 17:35
A social place to meet, lovely walking and blackberry picking. A place of piece and quiet
Anonymous User on 2013-09-02 08:08
Someone mentioned that there were some brownfield sites around the village that could be explored for housing first. We all know we need to accept that there is a need for housing for our youngsters, but does this development support that need?
Anonymous User on 2013-09-02 08:24
There are lots of more sutable sites in Elstead to build on like the old Chicken farm site at West Hill, fields down by Tracys yard, fields off the Milford road on the right as you come into the village from Milford and lots of other areas that could be filled in.
Anonymous User on 2013-09-02 14:54
Q. Is the site wholly within the Parish boundary?
Q Has a housing survey been done, if so, with what result?
Q Are the paths designated footpaths, and if so does this place limitatios on the planning?
A new survey should be conducted if any plan is submitted. Some acceptable development should be possible, but there problems. Could the school cope? Is access possible allowing reasonable traffic flow particularly at and around access points; without affecting the footpaths; and allowing for recreational space?
Anonymous User on 2013-09-03 12:09
Thats a difficult question unless one is involved in the planning of the area. I am unaware of what sites might be considered outside the green belt.
Anonymous User on 2013-09-03 15:39
Build on old Weyburn engineering site. It's derelict and has been built on since the early 1900s so building here wouldn't change the site. Building on such a central hill in Elstead would make any development incredibly visible from any parts of the village, thus taking away from our rural atmosphere. Building somewhere like Weyburn is more sympathetic to the environment and as the site is already industrial - and has been for years - it would have an infinitisimal effect on the village, especially compared to building on the proposed site.
Anonymous User on 2013-09-03 15:45
Building more and more within the old village boundary makes the village more and more squashed.
Anonymous User on 2013-09-03 17:54
not at this time
Anonymous User on 2013-09-03 19:17
Not at this stage
Anonymous User on 2013-09-03 19:40
Although the school is low on numbers this year, the government has projected that there will be a national shortage in about five years, Judging by the number of prams and pushchairs in the village currently, I would see the school needing more capacity even without new building.
I do not commute, but I understand from those who do that there are no parking spaces available at Godalming or Milford stations if new residents were hoping to use this option
The Doctors' surgery seems to cope at the moment, but the premises are not very extensive and I can foresee problems if the population of Elstead increases.
Rush hours in the mornings could be a considerable problem. Currently things run fairly smoothly if slowly except when the A3 has a problem and traffic takes to the back routes. Elstead would grind to a halt if there was more local traffic.
Anonymous User on 2013-09-04 08:53
I would prefer to see no future large scale development in the village for the following reasons
Elstead does not have the infrastruvcture to support major development.
The transport system is worse than inadequate.
I would believe that the local Doctors Surgery is already at capacity as it serves a wider area than Elstead.
Elstead is a VILLAGE do we really need to turn it into a town.
Anonymous User on 2013-09-04 08:59
If the number of households is being increased then services such as schools, roads and Doctors must be scaled up. Already, locals can't get their children into the local school. Will developers / Planners be willing to make any commitments about this ?
If development of Green Belt land / Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty is allowed, where does it stop ? The very essence of the village will be destroyed.
Anonymous User on 2013-09-04 10:42
Anonymous User on 2013-09-04 12:00
If housing is really needed, the priority must be to develop brownfield sites such as Weyburn rather than destroying areas of natural beauty.
Anonymous User on 2013-09-04 14:33
Future develpment should be centred on the brown field site near Tanshire park. It has much better access and a low cost residential area here would be an improvement.
Anonymous User on 2013-09-04 22:23
purchase unused land from local farmers, or from the military on Hankley Common or woods off Thursley Rd, between Elstead and Thursley.
Anonymous User on 2013-09-05 12:52
It is our duty to look after these areas like Bonfire Hill for future generations. If this was allowed we could say good bye to the other hills. We must look at the village as a whole and sadley we can not take a big development. Houseing is need but in small clusters. How can i roads take this.
Anonymous User on 2013-09-05 20:34
Anonymous User on 2013-09-05 21:29
It would be infinitely preferable to develop the Weyburn site because it won't ruin the village atmosphere.
Anonymous User on 2013-09-05 22:10
Do not feel further development is required in elstead - village school is already oversubscribed with local children not always being given places. There is a already a significant amount of traffic within the village
Anonymous User on 2013-09-05 23:29
Please just stop building on lovely open space that allows people to enjoy connection with nature thus enhancing their mental health and well being. Elstead has a v high number of residents with mental health issues, many are supported by social services. Building more houses puts pressure on people like this, having green open spaces makes people feel well and safe. Please see research by Play England, Public Health England and Department of Health to back up my statements.
Anonymous User on 2013-09-06 07:59
Anonymous User on 2013-09-06 12:07
Don't overstate its importance as it is now. Conduct surveys of the number of people who go there, their frequency and uses. Consider relocation of existing services, such as the local surgery who have outgrown their existing premises, into this development.
Anonymous User on 2013-09-06 12:20
There is a need for social housing and starter homes for 1st time buyers, but not at the expence of losing an area of outstanding beauty.
We certainly don't need any more large houses for affluent familys. The need is for villergers to beable to remain in the village and for their children to not be priced out of the market.
The village can not sustain a large population influx. The primary school is not able to handle the volume of children already in the village. My Daughter did not get in on, and we now have to travel 20 mins by car to get her to school. Like wise the Surgery and Chemist are very busy as it is and would struggle to handle much more demand.
Anonymous User on 2013-09-06 12:38
Not at present
Anonymous User on 2013-09-06 16:29
Anonymous User on 2013-09-06 17:28
High house prices means that the village has lost commercial sites such as Mays Motors, Tracy's building yard, probably Weyburn. Elstead needs local jobs as well as housing to meet the incoming population.
Anonymous User on 2013-09-06 23:05
there is no more development required in elstead. we have enough houses now.
Anonymous User on 2013-09-06 23:51
School already at capacity. Parking already an issue in some streets.
Anonymous User on 2013-09-07 08:30
More affordable housing for young people would be good.
Anonymous User on 2013-09-07 10:30
There are 2 fields off of hookley lane, the parish land behind the allotments, the federal mogul site and various in-fill sites along Thursley road that could be used for development rather than using bonfire hill. We do need development of both residential and light industrial/office space in the village, but it needs to be done sympathetically. It would also be nice to see some land available to the self-build types. Self builders tend to be long term investers in their community. It would be fab to have a site for the self build types to build 'eco houses'. Elstead could lead the way showing what could really be done in the field of sustainable development!
Anonymous User on 2013-09-07 15:48
There are other sites in the village that could be developed if further housing is needed, for example the federal-mogul site, or the common land on Westbrook hill
Anonymous User on 2013-09-07 15:55
Use brownfield sites first, The Croft, Weyburn site possibly
Anonymous User on 2013-09-08 09:55
Anonymous User on 2013-09-08 16:44
We need to be careful about allowing the village to increase is size beyond the capacity for the amenities and facilities to cope. The core infrastructure cannot continue to absorb the current increase in population.
Anonymous User on 2013-09-08 23:20
Anonymous User on 2013-09-09 10:21
We have lived in Elstead for 20+yrs and have seen the village change from a quaint , rural idyll to a busy, noisy and frankly quite urbanised pre-town. It is overpopulated and has lost its character. Do not allow any further development.
Anonymous User on 2013-09-09 23:01
the question over increased housing in Elstead must be looked at in relation to other services which are already over stretched for the current population -
- roads are insufficient for the amount of traffic and poorly maintained in the lead to and from the village,
- already too much traffic using the B3001 as a cut through from Farnham to Godalming at rush hour,
- roads are driven too fast and there are already too many dangerous junctions within the village eg at the junction of West Hill and Thursley Road, Thursley Road is fast moving round a bend and to the other direction vehicles in the layby make is impossible to see traffic coming without needing to move out into the road, the junction of Springfield and Milford Road is right next to a bust stop causing similar difficulties with sight lines
- school is over capacity,
- doctor is limited service,
- people don't walk to school - they drive, even from Hill Crest and Springfield
- shops are limited,
- parking for school and doctor services is limited and causing problems blocking roads and footpaths,
- water pressure is poor,
- electricity continually fails/ power cuts,
- facilities and activities for children (esp young people) are few,
- bus services are not frequent enough in particular in the evenings,
Anonymous User on 2013-09-10 06:56
Anonymous User on 2013-09-10 12:57
Elstead is already a large village which is quite sprawled. Any new development should utilise land within the current village boundaries and not go into protected sites, ideally brownfield sites.
The school is already over suscribed with 4 children from the village getting turned away last year meaning they have to travel outside the village. If development does occur a larger school and more doctors to serve the community would be requried.
Anonymous User on 2013-09-11 18:55
I entreat the parish council to protect our village from unsuitable large scale development. Please preserve the village settlement. Elstead has already absorbed significant development over the last few years and there are still brownfield sites and infill available. Please preserve the greenfield. Once it's gone we can never get it back.
Waverley has plenty of brownfield in more urban areas. Please makes sure the village retains it's boundaries and "village" character.
Also please consider the lack of public transport and also that already not all children can eat into Rodborough. The village school also has a limited capacity.
Anonymous User on 2013-09-13 11:48
Anonymous User on 2013-09-16 09:28
I think the building of the croft hme recently met Elsteads House Building Obligations
Anonymous User on 2013-09-17 11:43
All future development should be on brownfield sites. Once taken you cannot get back the natural beauty of the area which is a big attraction of the village which is part of the quality of our life. Cars bring more pollution which is detrimental to peoples lifestyle.
Anonymous User on 2013-09-18 09:31
Over the last few years there have been too many new builds. Staceys Meadow,The Croft,Orchard Close.Guardian Court & now Traceys Yard.The village School is fully subscribed,the roads are too busy with existing traffic and so perhaps land outside the village should be used if more houses are needed ie Weyburn Bartel site and maybe, military land.The disturbance alone of building on Bonfire Hill will cause chaos to the existing roads and houses. Enough is enough. We are losing enough of the village amenities as it is,in my opinion. This land should remain for all the Villagers to use.
Anonymous User on 2013-09-19 19:10
why must more houses be built on such a beautiful place i have lived in westhill for 55 years and would be very upset to see a large develment in a place were my wife and i walk
Anonymous User on 2013-09-20 23:13
i think there has been enough developement in elstead allready
Anonymous User on 2013-09-21 07:08
Weyburn Engineering site would have less impact on the village if it were sensitively developed so that the Elstead surgery, school and local infrastructure could cope.
Anonymous User on 2013-09-25 16:34
We have had too many new developments in the village already (Mays Motors site, Orchard Close etc.
Anonymous User on 2013-09-25 19:36
We just want to be left alone
Anonymous User on 2013-09-28 20:20
We need to have an open mind on development but Bonfire Hill has historic connections, and it is a sight of outstanding beauty . This needs consideration and debate.
Anonymous User on 2013-09-29 16:57
We have five houses currently being built at Tracy's yard, there are numerous houses on the market. The traffic through the village is horrendous and dangerous. The school is over-subscribed. We do not need any further development of this community!
Anonymous User on 2013-09-29 21:43
Anonymous User on 2013-09-30 02:56
Anonymous User on 2013-09-30 19:06
No at this stage.
Anonymous User on 2013-10-01 01:11
I submitted my comments to Waverley's consultation on "Waverley's Future Building". The purchaser of the hill talks about affordable housing and homes for the elderly, but Elstead lacks the public transport to support either of these groups. Elstead is a rural village in the most wooded Borough in England - that is its charm. However, there is constant new building going on and that feature is being lost. We do not want all of SW Surrey to become built up. Why otherwise do we have Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty? These should be sacrosanct
Anonymous User on 2013-10-07 13:51
I don't believe that more houses are needed, but surely there are other, non-Green Belt locations. This development is purely motivated by profit for the developer.
Anonymous User on 2013-10-07 16:59
No comments - I have commented on traffic calming ideas over 15 years and none get listened to, so why would they on this !!
Anonymous User on 2013-10-09 21:28
Small development, within the Elstead boundary. Large devepoment will be contrary to the village context and will turn Elstead to a 'town' environment.
Anonymous User on 2013-10-10 17:30
dont build elstead is big enough and will have a strain on education, doctors, dentists etc, enough said
Anonymous User on 2013-10-10 20:38
Developers should use brownfield sites such as the Weyburn site and less visible areas such as behind Tracy's former yard or off Hookley Lane and Red House Lane / Pot Common before building on virgin grazing land at the heart of the village. Land off Milford Road that lies in Peper Harow Parish could also be considered.
Anonymous User on 2013-10-16 14:45
See note 7
Anonymous User on 2013-10-19 18:21
If there is to be any developments to happen in the area then school facilities must be improved. It is hard enough now even though we live in the village school availabilities are hard to qualify for.
Anonymous User on 2013-10-21 18:28
use brown field sites
Anonymous User on 2013-10-25 13:13
I feel the Fedral Mogal (Old Weybourn Engineering) would be a far more suitable site for development. It has a footpath running from the end of Ham Lane and is on a bus route.Extra vehicals coming out of that site would not cause problems for other residents and the redelopment noise would be minimally intrusive to other villagers.Having more family homes in the area would help maintian the numbers at the village school.
Anonymous User on 2013-10-25 20:00
The main roads through Elstead are heavily used by non-village traffic especially at rush hours and school run times. additional housing in the middle of the village without due consideration of all supporting infrastructure will significantly impact life in Elstead.
It is imperative that the Borough Council develop an endorsed strategic housing plan with immediate effect. Without a plan there is a high risk that inappropriate developments will be built the consequences of which will affect generations.
Brown field land exists and must be used first. It is inappropriate to build on Green Belt when alternatives are available and building requirements have not been identified. The Borough Council has failed in their commitment to their residents to develop a housing strategy that will protect the local environment and provide for the local community.
Anonymous User on 2013-10-26 20:00
See response to question 8. Development should never be totally outlawed but Bonfire Hill is about the last place in the village that should be built on.
Anonymous User on 2013-11-09 17:26
Anonymous User on 2013-11-18 13:15
Elstead is a village community with a vibrant and understanding population. It has a good socio-economic mix as it is. Don't ruin it, please, please, please.
Anonymous User on 2013-11-23 11:15
Anonymous User on 2013-11-26 13:01
The existence of one corner shop, one school and one surgery does not justify more housing. The infractructure to justify more housing is not there. Parking around any of the shops is already tight if at all available.Traffic jams around the Spar are not uncommon. I fear that if building permission is granted on Bonfire Hill it will not stop there. I question the motives behind building on a beauty spot within the green belt. Is this really about more housing or someone's personal greed?
Anonymous User on 2013-11-26 18:29
Surely we should be looking at developing ugly brown field sites such as the federal mogul site / old pangs lodge building rather than allowing a developer to make a huge return a relatively easy to develop green field site.
Anonymous User on 2013-12-02 12:24
Better public transport in & out of village.
Anonymous User on 2013-12-04 18:53
I feel the Weyburn Engineerin site would be much more appropriate.... It is appallingto destroy a site of beauty, out of the village building plan. The hill is inappropriate for housing for the elderly.
Anonymous User on 2013-12-16 10:32
Given re Federal Mogul site
Anonymous User on 2014-01-02 08:14
Instead of building on yet more precious greenbelt why can't some affordable homes be built on the old Federal Mogul site which has been empty for about 5 years now.
Anonymous User on 2014-01-02 23:09
cheaper housing as we currently live with parents and would love to live close to them when we move out but we are unable to get a mortgage to buy a house in elstead.
Anonymous User on 2014-01-05 12:48
I would suggest some flood preparation/ prevention work.
Anonymous User on 2014-01-15 19:23
How about the old factory site of federal mogul
Anonymous User on 2014-01-19 23:27
I cna see the need for affordable housing but the school is at bursting point ad children often struggle to get in to Rodborough so this needs addressing first
Anonymous User on 2014-01-21 11:17
There is a danger of overdevelopment of the village.
Anonymous User on 2014-01-21 12:46
No more houses, Elstead is a lovely village more developments will spoil it and make it too busy.
Anonymous User on 2014-01-27 16:19
Anonymous User on 2014-02-06 13:45
Area by old Federal Mogul site
Anonymous User on 2014-02-12 10:29
The views from Bonfire Hill over the village are an exceptional asset to the community. I want to emphasise that the informal events on Bonfire Hill, such as sledging or walking with friends, engender the spirit of this village and its special relationship with the countryside that surrounds it.
I have been an assistant leader with the Scouts in this village for many years. The amenity provided by immediate access to the Hill from the centre of the village allows the children to experience the beauty and tranquillity of our rural environment. I have taken groups of Cubs and Scouts up the Hill on summer evenings and also on winter nights – they see their village, appreciate its surroundings and take part in activities ranging from games to learning about the stars. Every time I find that the children's spirits are lifted and I am sure that these simple pleasures will become precious memories. How many children are involved: there are about 50 on the books at the moment and walks up Bonfire Hill are a formal part of our ongoing programme. But who would know? Well, I suspect that only the children and leaders know about this and as the children do not have a voice, it is a duty for the Scout leaders to publicise the facts.
Why would anyone want to remove one of Elstead’s key features? What makes Elstead special? Why should Elstead be degraded by ill considered proposals? I suggest we kick this proposal out and avoid reaching an ugly compromise that would detract from everything that defines our community. Elstead does not deserve to be just another Surrey village and it must hold on to every feature that makes it special: Bonfire Hill is one of these features.
I am an Architect so I have an appreciation of the workings of the construction industry and the need for housing. I have also learnt that growth and development need to be controlled – so please argue the case against this proposal and ensure that whatever building takes place, it does not destroy the same environment it hopes to benefit from.