PROPOSAL: Tree Preservation Order EL:04/50 - T1 - Cedar Tree - reduce from 25m high to 22m high; and 17m wide to 15m wide due to the tree being too close to the building, creating excess shading, and to maintain tree's structure so as to help mitigate the risk of broken limbs and fallen branches.
CPC VERDICT: [NB: we are shown as a Consultee, but no submission is showing on the website[?]]
PROPOSAL: Changes to vehicular and pedestrian entrance with new dividing fence between properties and new brick pier following partial demolition of front boundary wall.
CPC VERDICT: No Objections. No Comments.
EBC VERDICT: Grant Planning Permission 3 x standard conditions 1 x Landscaping condition.
PROPOSAL: Single-storey rear extension, single-storey front porch extension, front bay window, extension of existing front and rear first floor dormer windows, front rooflight, alterations to fenestration and finish and alterations to existing garage.
CPC VERDICT: No Objections. No Comments.
EBC VERDICT: Grant Planning Permission 3 x std conditions 1 x Balcony Screen – erection of
PROPOSAL: Claygate Foley Estate Conservation Area - Eucalyptus tree. The proposal is to completely remove the tree located in position 1 on the Site Plan (Doc 1) and shown in the picture (Doc 2) Its branches are interfering with an adjacent magnolia tree, which we are keen to allow space to continue to develop. Its growth and shallow roots (as shown in Doc 3) are removing disproportionate water from the ground with potential damage to a nearby pear tree which is c. 100 years old. The tree is not indigenous to the country / area. We have plans to plant new more appropriate trees in our garden which will more than offset the loss to the environment from the removal of this single tree. We have never observed a single nest in the tree or any other form of wildlife. (Its branches move too fluidly making it unstable for nests). Conifer / leylandii hedges. The proposal is to completely remove these high trees / hedges located in position 2 on the Site Plan (Doc 1) and shown in the picture (Doc 4). These are old and are higher / wider than they need to be. They will be replaced by more suitable / less dense alternatives.
CPC VERDICT: No Objections. With Comments: “We suggest that Swift Boxes are installed in the walls and also ask that the positioning of Bat Boxes is checked.”
EBC VERDICT: Raise No Objection. [Never seen this given as “Decision” before{?}]
PROPOSAL: Non-Material Amendment to planning permission 2022/0162 to change the porch design.
CPC VERDICT: [We made no submission]
EBC VERDICT: Non-Material Amendment – Refused [Part: The property lies within the Claygate Foley Conservation Area and, due to the nature of the proposal, it is considered that the alterations to the front porch would compromise the overall design and appearance of the development when viewed from within the public sphere. Consultation would be required on any future application for planning permission.]
PROPOSAL: Tree Preservation Order EL:11/37: T9 - oak tree in rear green. Most of this tree's canopy hangs outside the owner's property and over Claygate Lodge Close, in particular the front drive and garden of 3 Claygate Lodge Close. The branches hang so low that food delivery vehicles cannot pass underneath and the extremities of some branches are less than 2 metres from the ground. It is oppressive. Lateral growth within the owner's property is suppressed by competition from conifers. Proposal: Crown lift to 4 metres over Claygate Lodge Close (the street and garden of no. 3). Reduce lateral spread over 3 Claygate Lodge Close by 1.5 metres. Current spread 8 metres, final spread 6.5 metres. Reduce height by 1.5 metres. Current height 18 metres, final height 16.5 metres.
PROPOSAL: Tree Preservation Order EL:11/37: T9 - oak tree in rear green. Most of this tree's canopy hangs outside the owner's property and over Claygate Lodge Close, in particular the front drive and garden of 3 Claygate Lodge Close. The branches hang so low that food delivery vehicles cannot pass underneath and the extremities of some branches are less than 2 metres from the ground. It is oppressive. Lateral growth within the owner's property is suppressed by competition from conifers. Proposal: Crown lift to 4 metres over Claygate Lodge Close (the street and garden of no. 3). Reduce lateral spread over 3 Claygate Lodge Close by 1.5 metres. Current spread 8 metres, final spread 6.5 metres. Reduce height by 1.5 metres. Current height 18 metres, final height 16.5 metres.
CPC VERDICT: No response from CPC PC showing on website, though we are shown as a Consultee [?]
The arrival of the railway stimulated the development of housing in Claygate. One of the village's largest landowners, the Hon Fitzalan Charles John Foley, later the 6th Baron Foley, parcelled up for sale in 1885 the area which is largely encompassed by Church Road, Vale Road, Hare Lane and the railway. This area was divided up into 258 plots. Many of the plots had 25 foot frontages and cost £50, as it was expected that the main development would comprise small suburban villas. In fact only a limited number of these smaller properties were built, mainly along Vale Road and the northern end of Gordon Road, as many purchasers bought two or more adjoining plots on which they built one large house.
The development plan was also altered in a number of other respects:
Abrook (not Arbrook) Lane which was an old lane to Arbrook Farm was not developed.
Plans to build St. Johns Road on the east side of the railway, Charlotte Road, St. George's Road and St. James's Road on the west side, were not executed.
The proposed level crossing halfway along Gordon Road did not materialise, but a bridge over the railway off Claremont Road (the proposed name was Charles Road) was constructed.
It would seem that Fitzalan Foley misjudged his market who in the main built large Victorian houses, most of which still remain to this day although there have been several casualties along the way. Perhaps it is not surprising that the size and quality of houses that were built were rather better than originally envisaged.
Firstly, there was the attraction and influence of nearby Claremont.
Secondly, the terms of sale tended indirectly to encourage such development:
For example, no private dwelling houses could be erected on plots 1 to 19, 40 to 46, 71 to 146 and 161 to 209 inclusive of less value than £300 for a single house or £500 for a pair of houses.
For plots 20 to 39, 47 to 51,56 to 70, 147 to 160 and 210 to 258 the minimum values were £500 to £800 respectively, and for plots 52 to 55 £300 for a house or shop.
The excavation of clay and other soil was prohibited except for the purpose of erecting the building, as also were the manufacture of bricks and other industrial activities.
Thus although the original development plan was not realised in its entirety, nevertheless by 1914 the basic pattern of housing envisaged by Fitzalan Foley was established along much of Gordon Road and Beaconsfield Road, and also along part of Foley Road and Claremont Road. The houses on Foley Road near the junction with Coverts Road that back onto the recreation ground were originally built to accommodate some of the living-out domestic staff of Ruxley Lodge when it was owned by the Foley family.
