Three new houses at 31 Stevens Lane, Claygate, Esher

What was proposed

The application proposed three new houses, a new access for the retained house, garage conversion and related external changes.

“Reference Description Decision 2021/4037 2 detached two-storey houses with rooms in the roof space, one with integral garage and one with detached garage, and alterations to fenestration on existing house. Refused 2021/0988 Two-storey detached house, pair of two-storey semi-detached houses with rear and side dormer windows, associated parking and landscaping. AND Conversion of garage into living space, alterations to fenestration and front portico to existing house.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier schemes were refused, with tree loss and affordable housing among the reasons; an appeal found built form acceptable but identified harm from losing the oak.

“Granted 1988/1013 First-floor side extension Granted 1986/1003 Erection of 2 detached houses with double garages Withdrawn 1985/0960 Erection of 3 detached houses with double garages and formation of improved access Refused and Appeal Dismissed 1984/1340 Erection of 3 detached 4 bedroom houses with double garages and access road Refused 1983/1276 Erection of 5 two storey 3 bedroomed houses each with an attached garage and formation of an access road Refused and Appeal…”

“The decision to refuse 2021/0988 was appealed by the applicant and the Inspector determined that the proposal would not result in harm to the character of the area with regards to the built form but there would be harm to the character of the area with regard to the loss of trees, in particular the Oak tree. The Inspector also upheld the reason for refusal regarding affordable housing.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the replacement planting would address tree concerns and gave substantial weight to three homes and moderate weight to biodiversity gain.

“On the basis of the above it is considered by officers that there would not be any adverse impacts which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits arising from the proposal. There would be benefits arising from the provision of additional housing which given the level of need must be given substantial weight and a biodiversity net gain which is given moderate weight by officers.”

Officer report

What consultees said

The parish council objected over the oak and overlooking, while highways and the tree officer raised no objections subject to conditions.

“Surrey County Council Highways – No objections subject to conditions relating to the new access, parking and turning, a construction transport management plan, cycle parking and electric vehicle charging.”

“Tree Officer – Initially requested additional information and amendments to the replacement tree information, following receipt confirmed that they had no objection subject to conditions.”

Officer report

What residents said

Residents objected to tree loss, access, parking, overdevelopment, highway safety, construction effects, privacy, ecology and the area’s character.

“Very similar to previous application which was refused and therefore this application should be refused. • Loss of trees. • Loss of trees protected by tree preservation orders. • New access to No. Stevens Lane from Raymond Way should not be created. Would result in the loss of a parking lay by and result in additional parking on the pavement. • Building on land under a covenant. • Conversion of the garage needs separate planning permission.”

“Another vehicular access onto Stevens Lane is unthinkable. • Stevens Lane is used by a lot of horse riders and potential for an accident. • Impact on ecology and biodiversity. • Would set a precedent. • Loss of daylight and sunlight to neighbouring properties. • Impact on drainage and flooding in the area. • Insufficient public consultation as neighbouring properties were originally not on the list of consulted addresses. • Impact on health from building works.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector and the agent addressed the Sub-Committee.

The committee’s decision

The Sub-Committee refused permission because losing the category B oak and providing insufficient replacement planting would materially harm Stevens Lane’s character and appearance.

“Having reviewed the relevant material planning considerations, Members concluded that the proposal would cause harm to the character of the area as a result of the loss of the category B oak tree located within the front garden of No. Stevens Lane. Accordingly, the Sub-Committee resolved to…”

“The proposed development, by reason of the loss of the oak tree and the insufficient replacement planting which would not adequately mitigate the loss of the oak tree, would result in material harm to the character and appearance of Stevens Lane. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to Policy CS17 of the Core Strategy 2011, Policies DM2 and DM6 of the Development Management Plan 2015 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2024.”

Minutes