Claremont Road

H I N C H L E Y   W O O D
E	🏠	🚂	🏠	🌳	🌳	🌳	🌳	C
S	🏠	🚂	🏠	🌳	🏠	🌳	🌳	H
H	🌳	🚂	🛒	🛒	🏠	🏠	🏠	E
E	🌳	✘	✘	✞	🌳	🏠	🏠	S
R	ℕ	🚂	🌳	🏠	🌳	🌳	🚗	S
	↟	🚂	🌳	🏠	🚗	🚗	🌳	N
O X S H O T T

№ 11

• 11 Claremont Road, KT10 0PL — 2020/2654 — PROPOSAL: Tree Preservation Order EL:05/07 - Crown reduce 1 x Birch (T1) height by 4.5m and spread by 1m. — COUNCIL RESPONSE: Object. This is a very attractive tree with plenty of space around it. The proposed works would be detrimental to its appearance. (PARISH COUNCIL PLANNING MEETING 3-DEC-20)
• 11 Claremont Road, KT10 0PL — 2020/2654 — PROPOSAL: Tree Preservation Order EL:05/07 - Crown reduce 1 x Birch (T1) height by 4.5m and spread by 1m. — COUNCIL RESPONSE: Refused by EBC.

CPC objected on the grounds that the proposed works would be detrimental to its appearance. EBC stated:

“The proposed work will bestow on the Birch the appearance of a readily decaying hat stand. The tree's useful lifespan will be seriously immediately. Submitted reasons are also insufficient. Aerial maps show no significant shading. If there are fears of windthrow the tree should be surveyed by a suitably qualified/insured person” (PARISH COUNCIL PLANNING MEETING 5-JAN-21)

№ 12

ADDRESS: 12 Claremont Road APPLICATION NUMBER: 2024/1339 PROPOSAL: Roof extension incorporating rear dormer, increase in ridge height, rooflights and new chimney.

VIEW DETAILS

№ 15

• 15 Claremont Road, KT10 0PL — 2021/0113 — PROPOSAL: Claygate Foley Estate Conservation Area - Crown reduce 1 x Eucalyptus by 2m (T1). — COUNCIL RESPONSE: No Comment (PARISH COUNCIL PLANNING MEETING 28-JAN-21)

№ 23

• 23 Claremont Road, KT10 0PL — 2020/2708 — PROPOSAL: Tree Preservation Order EL:11/37 and EL:20/12 - Various works to various trees. — COUNCIL RESPONSE: EBC granted permission for lesser works

CPC objected to work on trees T1, T4 & T5-7 on the grounds that the proposed height reduction would spoil the appearance.

EBC granted permission for lesser works stating:

• T1: A 1.5m reduction would be considered unacceptable, encouraging profuse re-growth. 1m reduction would be acceptable.
• T4: There already appears to be sufficient clearance between the Oak and property
• T5-7: A 2.5m reduction of the Birch will significantly reduce the leaf area by using pruning cuts up to 50mm diameter. Unacceptable on Birch trees due to lack of dormant buds (re-establishing leaf area) and poor timber qualities, readily degrading when large areas are exposed. Recommend 1m reduction by thinning.
• T8: Clearance from the property can be gained by reducing branches allowing 2m clearance (PARISH COUNCIL PLANNING MEETING 5-JAN-21)

• 23 Claremont Road, KT10 0PL — 2020/2708 — PROPOSAL: Tree Preservation Order EL:11/37 and EL:20/12 - Various works to various trees.
  T1 Purple plum – Object. The proposed height reduction would detriment the appearance of the tree.
  T4 Oak – Object. The proposed reduction would spoil the appearance of the tree.
  T5,T6, T7 group of 3 birches – Object. The proposed reduction would spoil the appearance of the tree.
  T8 Birch – No objection. — COUNCIL RESPONSE: (PARISH COUNCIL PLANNING MEETING 3-DEC-20)
• 23 Claremont Road, KT10 0PL — 2020/2893 — PROPOSAL: Claygate Foley Estate Conservation Area - Fell 1 x Confier (T2) and crown reduce 1 x Fig (T3) by 1m and reduce one limb towards road by 2m. — COUNCIL RESPONSE: No objection (PARISH COUNCIL PLANNING MEETING 3-DEC-20)
• 23 Claremont Road KT10 0PL — 2020/1365 — PROPOSAL: Tree Preservation Order EL: 11/37 and EL: 20/02 - Crown reduce 1 x Purple Leaf Plum by 2.5m and spread by 1.3m, crown reduce 1 x Birch by 4.5m and spread by 0.5m and crown reduce 1 x Oak by 3m and side by 1-2m. — COUNCIL RESPONSE: EBC refused permission on the grounds that:
  • The combination of both reductions and a 15% thin of the Purple Plump …… will cause unnecessary stress to a protected tree and other tree works can be implemented which will be less damaging.
  • The proposed height reductions of the Oak and Birch will disfigure the appearance of the trees which will detract from their amenity value. Reduction work is not recommended on these trees as further pressure may be applied to prune trees more heavily if trees do not recover from this pruning. Other tree works should be considered such as thinning to maintain trees in a healthy condition or applicant to provide suitable justification for these reductions. (PARISH COUNCIL PLANNING MEETING 13-AUG-20)
• 23 Claremont Road — 2020/1366 — PROPOSAL: Claygate Foley Estate Conservation Area - Fell 1 x Conifer and 1 x Birch. — COUNCIL RESPONSE: No Comment (PARISH COUNCIL PLANNING MEETING 16-JUL-20)
• 23 Claremont Road — 2020/1365 — PROPOSAL: Tree Preservation Order EL: 11/37 and EL: 20/02 - Crown reduce 1 x Purple Leaf Plum by 2.5m and spread by 1.3m, crown reduce 1 x Birch by 4.5m and spread by 0.5m and crown reduce 1 x Oak by 3m and side by 1-2m. — COUNCIL RESPONSE: Application being amended. No Comment (PARISH COUNCIL PLANNING MEETING 16-JUL-20)

Historical Notes

The Foley Estate

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.
• Fitzalan Road was confined between Beaconsfield and Foley Roads and not extended to Church Road.
• 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.