Common Lane in previous years

2020

Keepers Cottage

• Keepers Cottage, Common Lane KT10 0HY — 2020/3071 — PROPOSAL: Single-storey side extensions, single-storey rear extension, single-storey front extension and single-storey outbuilding following partial demolition of existing house and garage. — COUNCIL RESPONSE: MS declared he knew the owner of the property. Comment only. CPC note that this property is on Greenbelt and we assume that the LDC meets any rules and regulations relating to the expansion of a property on Greenbelt. (PARISH COUNCIL PLANNING MEETING 5-JAN-21)
• Keepers Cottage Common Lane KT10 0HY — 2021/0194 — PROPOSAL: Single-storey side extensions, single-storey rear extension, single-storey front extension and single-storey outbuilding following partial demolition of existing house and garage. — COUNCIL RESPONSE: LDC No comment (PARISH COUNCIL PLANNING MEETING 25-FEB-21)

2016

• 2016/1567 The Paddock Common Lane KT10 0HY. Change of use of land to Gypsy site incorporating two pitches for siting of 2 mobile homes, a stable/utility room and hardstanding together with provision of cesspit. ♇: Given the strong local interest in this application the meeting had been moved from the Small Committee Room at the Village Hall to the Claygate Centre for the Community Centre. The Committee Chair recommended, and it was agreed, that this application would be considered first. Prior to consideration by the Committee a number of residents registered their desire to speak on the application which was granted. Residents expressed their strong concerns and outlined a variety of reasons for their objection to it. After the public had commented, Councillors went into Committee to discuss the Application. After consideration of National Planning policy (especially DCLG, August 2015, Planning Policy for Traveller Sites) and Local Planning policy, the CPC Planning Committee: • agreed unanimously to object to this application • agreed that the Chair of the Committee would draft a CPC response to the consultation on this application • agreed to undertake a Land Registry search to ascertain ownership of all the parcels of the land on the Green Belt at 40 Acre Field • agreed potentially to seek expert planning advice on this application. (23JUN16)

Enforcement

• 70 Common Lane. The house concerned has a shed in the front garden, which is totally out of keeping with the street scene. (12MAY16)

2015

Planning Reports in Claygate Courier

Since the last Claygate Courier we have dealt with many planning applications, but there is one particular application that has caused significant concern to very many residents, namely application 2015/3788 The Paddock, Land East of Keeper’s Cottage, Common Lane. This is one of the parcels of land, in Green Belt, on what is commonly known as the 40 Acre Field, part of the former Barwell Farm. There has been much concern from local residents about what is happening at the 40 Acre Field since Barwell Farm was sold in multiple lots as reported in the April 2014 edition of the Courier.

This particular application is a retrospective application for among other things a barn, stables, hardstanding and provision of temporary accommodation, in Green Belt. Around 50 concerned residents attended the Parish Council Planning Committee which discussed this application. Among the many concerns of residents is that if permission is granted it would set a precedent for unconditional development in our precious Green Belt.

As a Planning Committee we try our best to give fair representation to all applications when discussing them and judge them purely on planning policy determined by central government, interpreted by the local planning authority. This is critical in objecting to a planning application and to gaining both a successful refusal and to having this refusal upheld if the application is appealed and goes in front of a planning inspector.

The Parish Council strongly objected to this application. There were 189 objections from local residents submitted directly to Elmbridge which shows the significant level of concern. We will continue to monitor the site and particularly this specific application.

• Source: Claygate Parish Council (2016). Claygate Courier (issue 37 — February).

New Equine Crossing in Claygate after Crash between Horse and Car (4-oct-15)

A woman was taken to St George’s Hospital, Tooting, after she fell from her house into the path of an oncoming car on the junction of Stevens Lane and Common Lane at about 14:45 on Sunday 4th October. The car was reported to be turning out of Ruxley Ridge.

The incident saw the rider sustain suspected neck and pelvic injuries. A emergency vet was called to treat the injured horse, whose condition was reported as "not serious" by Surrey Police. Those in the car were reported to be unharmed. Although the horse punctured its pectoral muscle and chipped its sternum, it is thought it will be okay in a couple of months.

A witness said: “The horse was coming down the bridlepath which runs in between Ruxley Ridge and the old racecourse and something spooked it so it ran and turned right on Claygate Common. I understand the car was coming out of Ruxley Ridge relatively quickly and the horse went into the side-back of it.”

In June 2014, a horse was hit and killed nearby in Woodstock Lane South after being spooked by some fly-tipping dumped on a bridleway.

A bridleway is to be installed on 12th October following the latest in a series of collisions between drivers and horses in Claygate which saw a woman rider taken to hospital.

Elmbridge councillor Mary Marshall said: "Hopefully it will improve the situation, though it doesn’t stop cars driving too fast or horses bolting. [This] safety measure means if a horse does bolt it will run into a pen before it can get to the open road. There’s the combination of Claygate being a very equestrian community and a lot of new residents who don’t understand the rural-ness of the area."

Marshall appealed for all horse riders to wear helmets and even sometimes chest plates in Claygate.

• Sources: Get Surrey, Horse and Hound, and Surrey Comet

• 2015/3788 The Paddock Common Lane KT10 0HY. Retrospective application for 8 stables and barn to include temporary accommodation and associated hardstanding. ♇: When dealing with this application, it has been considered in relation to the national planning framework (n.p.p.f) and local planning framework. Other policies of relevance are core strategy CS11 Claygate, CS14 green infrastructure, CS15 biodiversity and development management plan DM7, DM8, DM17,DM19 and DM21. The application is described as land east of Keeper’s Cottage, Common Lane, Claygate. Locals are more likely to recognize it as '40 Acre Field'. The application seeks to build a permanent barn structure in the green belt, including accommodation, connected to main electricity along with several stable blocks and a hay loft. The current status of the land is a series of paddocks separated by wire fences and populated with wooden mobile stalls. Since the current ownership, several alterations have been made, including repairs and resurfacing of a tarmac area at the top of the field and the dumping of material in the bottom corner of the field. A temporary hive storage structure has been approved as permitted development against planning application number 2014/3267. The structure proposed under this application does not seek to be temporary, so must be considered as a permanent structure and hence more detailed examination. A permanent structure with accommodation and electricity would be the creation of a non-agricultural dwelling, which is therefore incompatible with Green Belt policy. The barn is proposed to have accommodation this seems to suggest the owner wishes to use the field as a stud as the existing horses are hardy and would not require such support as is evident from similar stables around. Alternatively its sole purpose is to create a precedent for housing on the site. A major concern with this application is it's affect on the biodiversity opportunity area. Such a concentration of both horses and all the environmental effects of effluent have not been considered in the application. Liquid waste is likely to seep from the site into the surrounding area, this alone must be sufficient to reject this application. Access to this site is restricted and the proposed collection of waste may be incompatible with the access. No time ranges are specified for waste collection, so as the application stands waste could be removed at any time. Restricted times should be provided to ensure minimum disturbance to neighbor’s. Paved areas around the area do not assist with the ability to control pollution. This application has failed to address basic requirements for development on the green belt. 1) Status of land 2) Control of waste 3) Impact on area of bio diversity 4) Accommodation on the greenbelt. (17DEC15)