Holroyd Road in previous years

2020

The area

• 14-day Re-consultation land north of Dove Place, Holroyd Road KT10 0LD — 2020/1901 — PROPOSAL: Retrospective application for hardstanding. — COUNCIL RESPONSE: It was unanimously agreed that a further response over and above what CPC had already submitted was not required. (PARISH COUNCIL PLANNING MEETING 25-FEB-21)
• Land north of Dove Place, Holroyd Road — 2020/1902 — PROPOSAL: Retrospective application for hardstanding. — COUNCIL RESPONSE: no objection

Cllr Sugden noted that he knew a lot of people involved in this application, but he would be judging solely on planning policy.

One member of the public spoke to state that they would be speaking in opposition. She said that the retrospective planning application is about future development not about animal welfare. The metal road was not hardstanding. Equally out of the 11 lots on the site only 3 are affected by water coursing. They raised concerns that the ‘road’ will continue to Common Lane and Holroyd Road connecting the area allowing for future development. She stated that the land owners had taken delivering of considerable chalk during July and August despite a visit by EBC planning in June advising that a planning application was needed.

They stated that the field was positioned next to a local nature reserve and badger sets. That the metal road and hardstanding will inevitably impact on local wildlife. The existence of the metal road will inevitably lead to water courses diverting elsewhere. Finally, she stated that many trees were removed from 40 acre and that the solution to the water issue was that the trees should be put back rather than hardcoring. She finished by saying that the metal road will not remove an eyesore it will encourage more development and destroy rural landscape.

A further member of the public spoke in support. She said that the Green Belt is not being subverted. All plot owners use solely for agricultural and horticultural use. The hardcore road is solely for owners to access their animals and land. There were no plans to link up to existing roads. The current access track is very treacherous and has been deteriorating in recent years. Access was needed for monthly hay deliveries, twice daily visits to animals and any emergency visits required. There have been no groundworks carried out and chalk was placed directly on the ground so the plot owners thought no planning application was required. They believed it was an environmentally friendly solution. The plot owners have been very supportive of encouraging local wildlife and biodiversity in the area. They have sown new meadow grasses. They believe that badgers are happy with a chalk environment and make their sets in it. BW34 is made from Type 1 and 2 MOT which is not allowed on the Green Belt. Finally, she said that the owners of the field haven’t brought it as a property investment they just want to use for agricultural and horticultural use. They would like support from the local community. She finished by reiterating that what had been put in place was not a road and was only an access track and it was needed for safe passage.

Cllrs recognised that there is a fear about development on 40 Acre but they do keep a close eye on it. DM19 allows horse-related activities and development on Greenbelt. It also allows for provision of access, storage and waste associated with these activities.

CPC voted for no objection to this planning application but to note that CPC strongly object to any development on the Green Belt and did recognise in this instance that this planning application was horse-related. Regardless the CPC would like EBC to clarify if this is classified as a special circumstance for development according to the NPFF.

The CPC request the following conditions in order to preserve access to the site as a track but prevent it from becoming a road:

• No permanent hardstanding to be laid down on to the access track by any site owner or anyone acting on their behalf without prior consent from EBC.
• No further chalk to be added without prior approval from the council.
• Grass seed, as agreed with council, to be applied, at the first opportunity during the growing season, in order to accelerate the process of chalk being absorbed into the ground and covered by grass. (PARISH COUNCIL PLANNING MEETING 3-DEC-20)

2019

№ 34

• 34 Holroyd Road, KT10 0LG — 2019/2986 — PROPOSAL: Two-storey rear and part two-storey/part first floor side extension. — COUNCIL RESPONSE: Appeal dismissed

Appeal was Dismissed on the grounds that

“due the close juxtaposition between the trees and the proposal there would be an inevitable need for more regular and more extensive pruning than has been the case in the past to maintain sufficient clearance. In addition, there is likely to be increased pressure to prune due to the degree of shading that would be experienced within the extended property and its garden. More extensive and regular pruning would diminish the contribution the trees make to the character and appearance of the area and, in combination with the reduced space for roots, decrease their life expectancy. For these reasons I conclude that the proposal would have unacceptable effects on health and life expectancy of the trees and on the character and appearance of the area” (PARISH COUNCIL PLANNING MEETING 5-JAN-21)

• 34 Holroyd Road KT10 0LG — 2019/2986 — PROPOSAL: Two-storey rear and part two-storey/part first floor side extension. — COUNCIL RESPONSE: EBC refused permission on the grounds that “The proposed development would have an unacceptable juxtaposition between structures and important TPO trees, which will lead to foreseeable pressures to have those trees pruned or removed to the detriment of the character and visual appearance of the area. Furthermore, due to the close proximity to these protected trees and their calculated root protection areas that is anticipated to have a detrimental impact upon the future health and survival of those trees to the detriment of the character and amenity of the street scene and the local area.”

  Appellant asserts that:

  • the Tree Report from a specialist dated Jan 20 which concluded that the trees could be protected has not been accorded sufficient weight
  • future occupiers could easily trim the tree if required subject to planning permission as has happened to these same trees on the other side.
  • the foundations have already been laid in accordance with a previous planning application. (PARISH COUNCIL PLANNING MEETING 13-AUG-20)