Stevens Lane

HINCHLEY WOOD
E	🏘️	🚂	🏘️	🌳	🌳	🌳	🌳	C
S	🏘️	🚂	🏘️	🌳	🏘️	✘	🌳	H
H	🌳	🚂	🛒	🛒	🏘️	✘	🏘️	E
E	🌳	🚂	🏘️	✞	🌳	✘	🏘️	S
R	🌳	🚂	🌳	🏘️	🌳	🌳	🚗	S
	🌳	🚂	🌳	🏘️	🚗	🚗	🌳	N
OXSHOTT

№ 4

• 4 Stevens Lane KT10 OTE — 2020/0572 — PROPOSAL: Tree Preservation Order EL: 02/14 - Fell 1 x Silver Birch. — COUNCIL RESPONSE: No objection

№ 16

ADDRESS: 16 Stevens Lane APPLICATION NUMBER: 2024/1506 PROPOSAL: Variation of Condition: 2 (Approved Plans) of planning permission 2023/2981 (Variation of Condition) to revise fenestration of Plots 1, 2 and 3 and revise internal layouts of Plots 1 and 3.

VIEW DETAILS

• 16 Stevens Lane KT10 0TE — 2021/0160 — PROPOSAL: Detached two-storey house with rooms in the roof space and a pair of semi-detached two-storey houses one with rooms in the roof space, new access and associated parking, following demolition of existing house. — COUNCIL RESPONSE: No objection with three comments: -

1/ CPC is concerned over the proposal to fell 7 of the 13 trees on the site plot and queries whether the level of felling is necessary.

2/ CPC queries whether restrictions are required to ensure that no proposed Juliet Balcony at the front of the proposed dwellings can be subsequently converted.

3/ CPC note that this is a large development for the plot and query whether i’s permitted development rights should be removed to prevent future overdevelopment of the site. (PARISH COUNCIL PLANNING MEETING 25-FEB-21)

№ 20A

• 20A Stevens Lane KT10 0TE — 2020/2378 — PROPOSAL: Tree Preservation Order EL:02/14 - Crown thin 1 x Oak (T5) by 15% and crown raise to 5m. — COUNCIL RESPONSE: No Comment. (PARISH COUNCIL PLANNING MEETING 5-NOV-20)

№ 24

• 24 Stevens Lane KT10 0TE — 2020/1927 — PROPOSAL: Variation of Condition 7 (Tree Retention) of planning permission 2019/2412 (householder extensions) to revise tree protection plan. — COUNCIL RESPONSE: No Comment.
• 24 Stevens Lane KT10 0TE — 2020/1359 — PROPOSAL: Tree Preservation Order EL:02/14 - Crown lift 1 x Oak (T1) to 6m, crown reduce by 2m and reduce lower limb by 3m — COUNCIL RESPONSE: No Comment (PARISH COUNCIL PLANNING MEETING 16-JUL-20)

№ 26

• 26 Stevens Lane, KT10 0TE — 2020/2780 — PROPOSAL: Single-storey rear extension. — COUNCIL RESPONSE: No objection (PARISH COUNCIL PLANNING MEETING 3-DEC-20)

The area

AP83 MS to submit a question to the 16/11 EBC Local Committee Meeting asking why Stevens Lane has been included as a possible road closure. MS to attend meeting and request Stevens Lane is removed from the list. IN PROGRESS. MS attending meeting and submitted the following written question: 'Stevens Lane, Claygate, is a key route through the Village with many homes, in addition to which there are eleven residential streets, with many homes, that can only be accessed from it. It is identified as a potential future Active Travel Scheme (ATL 367) which states ‘Road closure’. Can the Local Committee clarify exactly what is envisioned, as there is significant concern among residents about vehicular access to their homes if such a ‘Road closure’ scheme were to be introduced?' The Officer response was as follows: 'The Government's Emergency Active Travel Fund was announced earlier this year as part of the work to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. This emergency fund tasked Highway Authorities to develop and deliver schemes to promote active travel (cycling and walking) and assist with social distancing. The funding is in two tranches: Tranche 1 supported the installation of temporary measures to support social distancing and cycling and walking. For example, in Farnham town centre we have narrowed roads and widened pavements to provide more space for pedestrians to assist with social distancing and promote active travel. Tranche 2 will fund permanent Active Travel schemes throughout the County. Locations for these schemes have been identified and bid for. However, this announcement prompted hundreds of requests from a variety of sources (Councillors, residents, local groups) for measures within their community that promoted active travel and social distancing. We reviewed all proposals and decided to use Common Place on the Surrey County Council website as a tool to open a conversation with our residents over these ideas. The schemes on the map on Common Place which identifies Stevens Lane are schemes which we do not currently have funding for and are not priorities. Stevens Lane was identified as a possible location to explore the concept of a ‘Low Traffic Neighbourhood’. A Low Traffic Neighbourhood reallocates road space away from road traffic towards pedestrians and cyclists, by introducing point closures. Access for residents would always be available. Please be assured that at this time, the road closure proposal on Stevens Lane is only an idea for future development should there be any possibility to fund further Active Travel works. If in the future, if it was decided to develop this idea, a full public consultation would take place inviting all local residents and businesses to voice their concerns and thoughts over the idea. Depending on the results from this consultation, this idea may or not be progressed.' A verbal follow up question was raised at the meeting by MS: 'What is a point closure? Is it a road closure or expanding footways? What happens to any traffic diverted to other local roads? The Area Highways Manager responded that a point closure is a road closure although access is maintained for residents. Traffic will inevitably move to other routes. He offered to continue a conversation outside the meeting to see if there was any consensus which could lead to a possible scheme being added to the work programme. CPC to write a letter requesting the removal of Stevens Lane from the list. (PARISH COUNCIL HT&E MEETING 11-FEB-21)