Stevens Lane
| H I N C H L E Y W O O D | ||||||||
| E | 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C |
| S | 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
H |
| H | 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E |
| E | 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S |
| R | 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N | |
| O X S H O T T | ||||||||
Planning Applications
№ 11
| ADDRESS: 11 Stevens Lane
|
№ 16
ADDRESS: 16 Stevens Lane
|
№ 31
| ADDRESS: 31 Stevens Lane
|
| 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: |
| (extract from Planning Committee meeting, 28th August 2025, item 6) |
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
Historical Notes
The pillar box at the junction of Stevens Lane and Common Road is one of only 137 in the country with the monogram of the uncrowned King Edward VIII.
Source
- Claygate Heritage Trail, (leaflet produced by Claygate Parish Council)
