Minutes of the Planning Committee Meeting of the Parish Council 28th August 2025
| Select the 2025 Agenda or Minutes you wish to view: | |||||||||||||
| 2025 Meetings | JAN | FEB | MAR | APR | MAY | JUN | JUL | AUG | SEP | OCT | NOV | DEC | KEY: |
| Main | ≡ 📖 | ≡ 📖 | ≡ 📖 | ≡ 📖 | ≡ 📖 | ≡ 📖 | ≡ 📖 | ≡ Agenda 📖 Minutes | |||||
| Planning | ≡ 📖 | ≡ 📖 ≡ 📖 |
≡ 📖 | ≡ 📖 | ≡ 📖 | ≡ 📖 | ≡ 📖 | ≡ 📖 | ≡ 📖 | ≡ 📖 | ≡ 📖 | ≡ 📖 | |
| EHT | ≡ 📖 | ≡ 📖 | ≡ 📖 | ≡ 📖 | ≡ 📖 | ≡ 📖 | |||||||
| Village | ≡ 📖 | ⇛ 2024 | |||||||||||
POTTED SUMMARY:
The WI has complained to the Parish Council about the removal of their latest topper from the postbox on the High Street. The Royal Main has now installed a solar-power roof on the postbox. 🟡 Three councillors apologised for their absence. 🟡 A neighbour complained at some length about the Parish Council's handling of planning applications for 31 Stevens Lane. A covenant on a nearby road should prevent this development, the resident claimed. The committee chair replied that the breaking of covenants is a civil law matter for the County Court. 🟡 The chair tried to prevent another question being put—about the status on the committee of a particular councillor at the previous meeting—on the grounds that this was a constitutional matter which would be handled at the next Parish Council meeting. The questioner stated that the answer was a matter entirely within the jurisdiction of the chair of this committee. When pressed, the chair said he had permitted the attendance of the councillor because the chair of the Parish Council had asked him to. 🟡 The committee is concerned about the proposed Hook Park development of 2,000 dwellings in eight-storey blocks which will be out of character with anything nearby. It has been requested that the front doors generally face Kingston rather than Claygate. How much extra traffic will these residences generate coming down Woodstock Lane South through Claygate? 🟡 PA Housing had obtained planning permission to build several dwellings in Foxwarren and on The Roundway, but both of these permissions have recently expired.
| Present: | Chair: Cllr Sheppard |
| Council Members: | Cllr Bray, Cllr Collon, Cllr Collon and Cllr Herbert |
| In attendance: | Dawn Lacey (Parish Clerk & RFO) Non-voting Advisors: John Bamford and Vanessa Relleen SCCllr Andrew Burton and five members of the public |
| 1. | Apologies for absence. |
| Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Holt, Cllr Burns and Cllr Bingham, and NVAs John Ovenden and Clive Thompson. |
| 2. | New Councillors to sign Declarations of Acceptance of Office. |
| Cllr Ellis signed and dated the Declaration of Acceptance form and this was confirmed and signed and dated also by the Clerk. |
| 3. | Declarations of Interest in items on the agenda. |
| Cllr Sheppard and Cllr Ellis declared a (non-pecuniary) interest in Item 10 on the agenda. Both Cllr Sheppard and Cllr Ellis went to leave the meeting at 8.05pm but, as there was nothing new to discuss, it was agreed that this was not necessary. |
| 4. | To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 17th July 2025. |
| These were agreed to be a correct record of the meeting and signed and dated by Cllr Sheppard. |
| 5. | Review actioning of Items from previous minutes and agree if any further action is required. (Appendix 1). |
| Action № | Date Created | Description | By | Status |
| P㉕023 | 17-JUL-25 | To contact Amanda Phillips to request a meeting. | Cllr Bray | COMPLETED BY 28-AUG-25 |
| P㉕024 | 17-JUL-25 | To contact the relevant RBK Councillors. | Cllr Sheppard | COMPLETED BY 28-AUG-25 |
| P㉕025 | 17-JUL-25 | To contact EBC to regarding the signage outside First Stop Claygate on the Hare Lane slip road regarding EBC's lack of consent to the neon sign. | Clerk | ONGOING AS AT 28-AUG-25, Clerk to report at next meeting |
| 6. | To answer any questions from members of the public. |
| The following questions were asked by a resident regarding the planning application for 31 Stevens Lane:
'First question is whether the parish council is duplicating the scrutiny of the borough council or whether it is bound to support residents in backing or opposing a planning application. Naturally, I would expect the parish council to check a planning application meets EBC planning policy guidelines, but the principal remit of the PC is to democratically represent Claygate opinion. Where there are 48 objections from residents for a three-houses development, we might expect wholehearted PC support? 'Second question concerns the previous and current parish council responses that have varied as the development was amended from three to two new houses. In 2021 the parish council gave various reason for objection including overdevelopment. Yet when the proposal was reduced to 2 new houses it positions changed and all the other issues remained. The current application relates to three houses and removal of a huge oak tree. EBD subcommittee refused this same application as over development and incongruous with other property in Stevens Lane. So why has the parish council not objected in similar terms to EBC and the parish council’s previous objection. 'Third question asks the parish council to reconsider its position with reference to its overall and planning remit namely that it’s not the PC responsibility to build more houses in Claygate and its planning remit is to remit is to ensure that any new development is in harmony with its immediate environment and where gardens are being lost the parish council would look critically so as to not lose the appearance and character of the area. A with the other recent development in Stevens Lane this development will be totally out of character, and it will lose amenity and breach a covenant on the land adjoining Raymond Way.' See Cllr Sheppard’s response: |
REVISED RESPONSE TO QUESTION FROM IAN MCKAY AT CPC PLANNING COMMITTEE OF 28 AUGUST 2025
Dear Mr McKay
I am sending you a revised and slightly expanded version of what I said in response to your questions at the Planning Committee on 28 August. We are obliged to consider each application on its merits. It is not our job to duplicate the work of professional Planning Officers nor do we have the skills to do so. Instead we can bring detailed local knowledge to the table. We take account of relevant issues raised by residents, but are not obliged to simply echo them, but rather to form our own judgment.
In this case, we took account of relevant factors, including conclusions within the independent Inspectors Report that dismissed the Appeal for the previous Application 2021/0988. The current Application 2025/0003 is in fact identical to the previous application 2021/0988 except for a revised planting scheme to address the loss of the prominent Oak tree. We were to some extent constrained by the Inspector's Report. Generally, repeating objections which have been dismissed by a Planning Inspector does not help one's case. The Planning Inspector concluded that “the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area with regard to the built form.” Density and design were assessed to be compliant with local and national planning policies, a view which of course is not shared by local residents.The Appeal was dismissed largely on grounds relating to the Oak tree and to the failure to provide a contribution to affordable housing. It is the constraints of the Inspector’s Report which mean that we cannot simply repeat our views of 2021. The similar Application 2021/4037 for two detached houses was refused by the Council on the same grounds as the Inspector dismissed the Appeal on 2021/0988. However, we are not happy with the Officers’ acceptance of the replacement planting for the oak tree. In our view, the fastigiate trees proposed are not an adequate replacement for a mature oak.
I am afraid that, having read the officer’s report, I am not sure that the various objections relating to traffic and parking have as much force as we previously thought. But you may have arguments for maintaining some of these objections. A number of objectors to 2025/0003 mentioned construction traffic; this is normally dealt with by Conditions, if an application is granted.
The development meets the maximum requirement for parking as laid down by the policies of Elmbridge Borough Council and Surrey County Council. The gardens will comfortably meet the current standards adopted by Elmbridge, namely 60 sq m for a three-bedroom house and 50 sq m for a two-bedroom house.
A covenant is a civil matter. It is not a consideration for planning applications.
Yours
- Anthony Sheppard
- Chair, CPC Planning Committee
- 3 September 2025
A second resident asked a question not directly related to the agenda which has been referred to the chair of council, who will reply in writing.}}
| 7. | Review planning correspondence, notification of applications and outstanding results and agree any action required. |
| Cllr Sheppard reported that he had been in touch with Jack Trendall concerning Application 2025/1177, to express our surprise over the granting of permission. It became clear that similar outbuildings in front of the building line had already been permitted in the Ruxley area, so a refusal in this case was not possible. |
| 8. | Review report on applications decided, and appeals lodged and decided since last meeting and agree any action required. |
| It was agreed that in future when we ask for a planning application to be sent to East Area that we request responses to emails sent to borough councillors. It was agreed to table Compliance with Planning Conditions at the next bilateral with Elmbridge. Concern was expressed about work starting before the necessary consents had been given. |
| 9. | Discuss planning applications from Elmbridge Borough Council (EBC) Weekly Planning Lists (https://www.elmbridge.gov.uk/planning) for the following weeks and agree responses required: w/e 18th, 25th July, and 1st, 8th, 15th and 22nd August. |
| Please see attached letters to EBC T Plan (Appendix 3). |
| 10. | To discuss any updates on the Rythe Road/Raleigh Drive planning application and agree any action required. |
| Surrey Highways’ delayed report was published on 12th August; otherwise nothing new to report. |
| 11. | To discuss the planning application on the Winning Horse and agree any action required. |
| The plot ratios on both plots 1 and 2 are not compliant with the design code. NVA John Bamford to send his points to all Councillors. |
| 12. | To discuss the Cloudy IT Systems and agree any action required. |
| Cllr Bray informed the committee that there are currently no new updates. To make sure this is still included in the agenda for September, October and November.
ACTION – Clerk P㉕026 |
| 13. | To consider the Hook Park development and agree any action required. |
| Please find attached notes of the meeting held with Hook Ward councillors (Appendix 4) and also notes from Cllr Bray following a Teams meeting with Senior SCC Officers (Appendix 5). |
| 14. | Receive a report on EBC’s East Area Sub Committee Meeting and agree any action required. |
| Nothing to report. Next meeting is scheduled for 8th September 2025. To invite Ian Mackay to speak on behalf of the residents regarding 31 Stevens Lane, alternatively Cllr Sheppard will speak. ACTION – Cllr Sheppard P㉕027 CCBS to speak on the Winning Horse Public House application. |
| 15. | Receive a report on EBC’s Planning Committee Meeting and agree any action required. |
| Cllr Bray reported that the next meeting is being held on 16th September. Cllr Bray to circulate appropriate papers to Councillors. ACTION: Cllr Bray P㉕028 Cllr Ellis to speak to the residents regarding the application for Raleigh Drive/Rythe Road to see if there is anyone who wishes to speak at the meeting. Alternatively, Cllr Collon or Cllr Burns to speak. ACTION: Cllr Ellis P㉕029 |
| 16. | To consider NPPF and Elmbridge Local Plan developments and agree action as appropriate. |
| There is currently nothing new to report. |
| 17. | Discuss communication of any key decisions to residents and agree any action required. |
| To update residents on the Winning Horse, Raleigh Drive/Rythe Road and 31 Stevens Lane planning applications. Also to request mention of these in the next edition of the Claygate Courier. ACTION: Councillors and Clerk P㉕030 |
| 18. | To review any compliance issues in Claygate and agree any action required. |
| The Clerk to send a planning breach complaint regarding the neon sign outside the First Stop on the Parade and report at the next meeting. ACTION: Clerk P㉕031 |
| 19. | Matters for information purposes only. |
| It was noted that the planning applications for housing in Foxwarren and the Roundway have now expired. It was agreed that we need to talk to EBC about this at the next bilateral meeting. ACTION: Cllr Herbert P㉕032 It was requested to add Licensing applications back onto the Planning Agendas as a standard item. ACTION: Clerk P㉕033 |
| 20. | Date of the next meeting: |
| 7.30pm Thursday 25th September, Claygate Village Hall, Small Hall, Church Road, Claygate KT10 0JP. |
APPENDIX 4: Note of a Meeting with RBK Hook Ward Councillors held 4th August 2025
Present: CPC Cllrs Michael Collon, Gil Bray, John Burns and Anthony Sheppard; RBK Councillors for Ward of Hook & Chessington North: Lorraine Dunstone and Sue Ansari.
Key points from the discussion were as follows. All present welcomed the opportunity to engage on this major development.
- Many Hook residents are opposed to the proposed Hook Park Development, particularly because of the traffic issues and the size of the blocks, up to 8 storeys, which are out of keeping with anything else in the area..
- RBK has a policy of no building on Green Belt. CPC commented that it would be good to see this messy piece of land cleaned up and put to good use, but agreed that the proposed scheme was too dense and had major traffic issues. There had been an earlier proposal some years ago from the same developer for a much less dense development, which some residents now thought would be preferable.
- So far, RBK officers have only had one brief contact with the developer. It was noted that an Environmental Impact Assessment is due to commence, which will take several months to complete, before an outline application could be submitted.
- Cllr Burns outlined the serious issues presented by the proposed ingress/egress at the N end of the site to/from the A309. Action: Cllr Sheppard to forward Cllr Burns' paper to Cllrs Dunstone and Ansari. CPC explained their objections to large flows of traffic being directed through Claygate. It was noted there was strong opposition from Hook residents to increased traffic in Clayton Road. The developers had spoken about the possibility of widening Clayton Road to allow a regular bus service to access the development, but it was unclear if this would be practical.
- CPC said they would be interested in a round table discussion of highways issues between CPC, RBK and Surrey Highways. Cllr Dunstone indicated she would like to see a detailed discussion of highways issues sooner rather than later. Action: Cllr Dunstone to establish with RBK officers if such a discussion would be possible at pre-application stage.
- CPC asked about the very limited allowance of parking spaces (0.4 per dwelling). Cllr Dunstone advised that, in London, parking standards are set by the Mayor of London with a view to reducing car use and increasing use of public transport.
- Next Steps. Apart from a possible Highways Round Table, nothing formal can be done until an outline application comes in. At that stage RBK would present it to the S. Kingston Neighbourhood Meeting, at which CPC would be invited to speak. The application would then be referred to the RBK Planning Committee. Meanwhile CPC will report back to its next Planning Committee (28 August).
APPENDIX 5: HOOK PARK DEVELOPMENT
Cllr Bray noted a Teams meeting with Senior SCC officers about the Hook Park development which he attended with Cllr Sheppard, Cllr Collon and Cllr Burns. The main takeaways were:
- SCC & the developer have just recently started pre-app discussions and, in particular, proposals we have seen as regards access and egress at the north end of the development were already changing.
- As regards arrangements at the south end, one officer said that they feel the “the front door of the development” should face Kingston. As such, while they were not explicit, it seems SCC have sympathy with the idea that massive traffic flows through Claygate should be avoided.
- An Environmental Impact Assessment needs to be done which it is believed could take six months. As such, it’s unlikely that an application, as such, will be forthcoming this year. As such, we probably have plenty of time to discuss next steps. One possibility is that we consider, at least, trying to meet with the developers, and RBK, at some point.
