Public meeting puts Kingston’s new Local Plan under scrutiny

Council officers presented Kingston’s proposed new Local Plan at a public meeting organised by the Kingston Society on 29 July, before answering questions on housing delivery, tall buildings, infrastructure, protected land and the practical limits of the planning system.

The meeting heard from Tim Naylor, Kingston Council’s director of planning, Wilson Lui from its planning policy team and Paul Young, infrastructure planning and delivery manager.

Lui began by explaining the Regulation 19 consultation, which runs until 4 September. This is the final formal consultation before the plan is submitted for independent examination. Unlike the earlier Regulation 18 consultations, responses should concentrate on whether the plan is legally compliant and whether it meets the four tests of soundness. It must be positively prepared, justified by proportionate evidence, effective and deliverable, and consistent with national policy.

The council intends to submit the plan by the end of 2026, with examination expected in spring 2027. Officers acknowledged the awkward timing, as a new London Plan and further changes to national planning policy are being prepared. Kingston’s plan will nevertheless be examined principally against the current National Planning Policy Framework and the 2021 London Plan.

Housing, design and the environment

The presentation then summarised the principal policies. Kingston is planning for nearly 20,000 additional homes by 2043. The formal housing supply table identifies 17,010 homes between 2028/29 and 2042/43, with further homes expected from existing permissions before the plan period begins.

Of the 17,010 homes, 9,935 would come from allocated sites outside Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land, 4,375 from expected windfall sites, 1,730 from Green Belt releases and 875 from released Metropolitan Open Land.

The plan would prioritise brownfield development while releasing selected protected sites. It retains a 35 per cent affordable housing threshold, rising to 50 per cent on released Green Belt land. It also includes policies for co-living, houses in multiple occupation and permanent Gypsy and Traveller pitches on development sites larger than two hectares.

The council expects housing delivery to be stepped. Officers referred to an initial annual rate of approximately 680 homes during the first five years after adoption, with delivery increasing during the later years of the plan.

On design, the plan would require major developments to undergo at least two design reviews before a planning application is submitted. New buildings should respond to local character, history and setting, while being inclusive, accessible and adaptable over time.

A tall building would be defined as one exceeding 21 metres, broadly seven storeys. The plan identifies areas where tall buildings may be acceptable in principle but does not set fixed maximum heights. It also supports mid-rise development of six storeys and below in town centres and locations within an 800-metre walk of a railway station, subject to heritage and other constraints.

Other policies cover climate resilience, flood risk, overheating, air quality, low-carbon heating and sustainable retrofit. Allocated sites larger than two hectares would be expected to achieve a biodiversity net gain of 20 per cent, compared with the national minimum of 10 per cent.

Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land

The council’s Green Belt Review has informed several proposed releases. These include land at Clayton Road for 1,440 homes, the former Chessington Golf Course for 265 homes and Green Lane Farm Kennels for 25 homes.

Officers said the owners of Green Lane Farm Kennels had recently indicated that they did not intend to develop the site. The council is therefore likely to propose an amendment before or during the examination.

Land connected with Chessington World of Adventures and Silverglade Business Park is also identified to support economic growth.

Paying for infrastructure

Young then explained how the council intends to coordinate development with schools, healthcare, transport and utilities.

Kingston maintains an Infrastructure Delivery Plan through continuing discussions with Thames Water, National Grid, the NHS, Transport for London and other providers. Unlike the Local Plan, the IDP is a live document which can be updated as projects, costs and requirements change.

Infrastructure funding is secured partly through the Community Infrastructure Levy and partly through Section 106 agreements attached to individual planning permissions. These agreements can fund transport improvements, affordable housing, community facilities, employment measures and other mitigation.

The council publishes an annual Infrastructure Funding Statement and an online record showing contributions collected, allocated and spent. Officers said approximately 85 per cent of Section 106 money collected over many years had been allocated to projects.

Questions from the floor

The first questions concerned the evidence behind the plan. An audience member asked where residents could find demographic and census data, how the housing target related to the emerging London Plan, and how the target for 75 per cent of journeys in outer London to be made by walking, cycling or public transport had been calculated.

Officers referred residents to Kingston Data and said an updated Authority Monitoring Report would be published. They confirmed that the plan was proceeding under the current London Plan, although modifications might be needed later. They were unable to provide Kingston’s current sustainable transport figure during the meeting.

The housing total was then questioned. Officers said it was based on identified capacity from planning permissions, windfall development, allocated brownfield sites and releases from Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land. It was not simply a target imposed without reference to available sites.

Residents from the south of the borough asked what infrastructure had been delivered in their area. They referred to long-standing concerns about the Orchard Practice GP surgery and criticised consultation over changes to the 281 bus. Officers explained that lower development values and lower levels of development generated less local CIL, although strategic infrastructure spending was not restricted to the area in which money was collected.

Further questions concerned the ability of the council to influence organisations such as the NHS and Transport for London. Officers said these bodies were consulted during plan preparation and again when major applications were considered. They could request contributions from developments, but the council could not control their budgets or wider investment decisions.

Audience members also asked for better evidence about existing car use, overcrowded trains and level crossings which restrict rail capacity. One speaker questioned what population increase might result from 20,000 homes and whether the council had made assumptions about the age, employment and travel patterns of future residents.

Officers said London was treated as a shared housing market and it was impossible to identify precisely who would occupy future homes. The Infrastructure Delivery Plan would therefore need to be reviewed regularly as population and service requirements changed.

Affordable housing and delivery

The discussion then turned to whether the plan could be delivered. One questioner asked how many recent developments had achieved Kingston’s affordable housing requirement. Officers acknowledged that delivery was probably not as high as they would wish. Developers can submit viability evidence arguing that the full requirement cannot be met. This evidence is independently assessed, after which a reduced provision or financial contribution may sometimes be accepted.

Officers said the plan-wide viability assessment supported the proposed 35 per cent threshold across a range of development types, although it would not be achievable on every site.

Tolworth Tower was cited as evidence of the difference between granting permission and securing development. Officers said several permissions capable of bringing the building back into use had been granted over many years, but none had been implemented. The council had repeatedly tried to engage with the owners but could not compel them to proceed.

The site remains allocated, and the owner has recently indicated an intention to bring it forward during the plan period.

Questions were also raised about the availability of skilled construction workers. A retired carpenter argued that the proposed housing programme would require apprenticeships, effective supervision and a much larger skilled workforce if Kingston was to avoid poor-quality development. Officers pointed to a proposed policy requiring developer contributions towards local employment, skills and training.

Further alternatives and protections

A participant asked whether open land retained within major developments should receive a permanent designation, preventing areas promoted as country parks or public open space from being developed later.

Officers said public open-space and local green-space designations could provide protection without Metropolitan Open Land status. Representations could also challenge whether the protections proposed for released sites were adequate.

The 20 per cent biodiversity net gain policy was questioned as possible overreach. Officers defended it as a proportionate response to the biodiversity emergency and said the requirement had been limited to larger sites where sufficient space should be available.

Another speaker proposed relocating businesses from the Red Lion Road industrial estate and using the site for housing. Officers replied that it was a Strategic Industrial Location protected by the London Plan, making residential redevelopment unlikely to conform with mayoral policy.

The practical dilemma running through the meeting was summed up by Councillor Roger Hayes:

“I think we have to remember that, as Paul says, it is not a perfect system. I would describe it as a very imperfect system. We are at the bottom of a three-tier pecking order.

“The NPPF, set by the government, is the overarching framework. If we are out of kilter with that, it does not matter how beautiful our plan is, the inspector will throw it out. The second tier is set by the Mayor of London. If we are out of kilter with the London Plan, the inspector will throw it out.

“It is an imperfect system. It is a stupid game. It has been broken for years, but it is the only game we have. If we do not get the best we can into our part of it, we stand no chance at all.

“The government has wasted years pretending that the planning process is what is holding up new development, particularly new housing development. That is absolute nonsense.

“We have talked about Tolworth Tower. In the past 20 years, four perfectly good planning permissions have been granted which could have seen that building repurposed and occupied. None of them has been brought forward, and we have no power over that whatsoever.

“We can sit here and bitch and moan all we like about the inadequacies of what we are trying to put forward, but it is the only game in town. We have to play it as cannily as we can, and we have to keep our wits about us while doing so.

“My view is that we operate at our best in the margins, in those areas the legislation does not tie down completely. That is where we can make progress.”