Planning application · Kingston Upon Thames
25/00005/FUL.
Yard Rear Of Kenwood Green Lane Chessington KT9 2DS
Full / Other Planning at Yard Rear Of Kenwood Green Lane Chessington KT9 2DS, received 2 Jan 2025 — refused on 19 Mar 2025 (delegated, Harsha Bhundia).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationKingston Upon Thames profile →
Refused
Outcome
19 Mar 2025
11 wks
Decision time
3 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
16
Documents
16 linked
0
Objections
0 in support
No
Appeal
none recorded
Record from the Kingston Upon Thames planning register as captured; documents link to the council's own files. Nearby applications are context, not part of this application.
Application
What is it?
Engineering work for erection of retaining wall together with raising the land to provide effective levelling for services. (Retrospective). Erection of 2 additional residential pitches for Gypsy/Travellers at an existing Gypsy/Traveller caravan site, each with 1 static caravan, 1 touring caravan and a brick built day room.
Reference
25/00005/FUL
Type
Full Application
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
KT9 2DS
Council
Received
2 Jan 2025
Validated
22 Jan 2025
Target date
19 Mar 2025
Decision date
19 Mar 2025
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Council register
Reference
25/00005/FUL
Type
Full Application
Show all 16 rows
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
KT9 2DS
Council
Received
2 Jan 2025
Validated
22 Jan 2025
Target date
19 Mar 2025
Decision date
19 Mar 2025
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Show all 10 rows
Documents open on the Kingston Upon Thames portal (the portal needs its documents tab opened first — the link handles that). View the application page ↗
Decision
What happened?
Refused on 19 Mar 2025, delegated decision by Harsha Bhundia — 11 weeks from submission (3 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
2 Jan 2025
Application received
22 Jan 2025
Application validated
19 Mar 2025
Statutory target date
19 Mar 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Harsha Bhundia
2 Jan 2025
Application received
22 Jan 2025
Application validated
19 Mar 2025
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
19 Mar 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Harsha Bhundia
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt that would cause substantial
harm to the openness. No considerations exist which would clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt
and other identified harms so as to amount to very special circumstances. The proposed development is
therefore contrary to Policies DM5 and DM10 of the Kingston LDF Core Strategy (2012), Policy G2 of the
London Plan (2021) and the NPPF (2024).
2
The material brought onto the Site, primarily for the laying down of extensive areas of hardstanding on
plots 3 and 4, has been done so without an Environment Agency permit (as required by virtue of section 33
of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales)
Regulations 2016). Such a permit would go towards ensuring that the materials are safe and free of
contaminates, and importing waste without one is a criminal offence, as is failing to ensure that waste is
moved up the waste hierarchy in accordance with national, regional and local planning policies. The
proposal would be contrary to the National Planning Policy for Waste 2014 and Policies SI 7, SI 10 of the
London Plan 2021.
3
The submission does not adequately demonstrate that the material that has been deposited on site does
not contain contaminated material and that the site is suitable for residential use or that material has not or
would not result in contaminated surface water being discharged onto neighbouring properties and the
nearby Bonesgate Stream which is a SINC. The proposal would be contrary to Policies DM1, DM4 Kingston
LDF Core Strategy (2012) and the NPPF 2024.
4
The pre-development biodiversity value of the onsite habitat(s) has not been adequately demonstrated
and therefore proposed net again values cannot be accepted. Furthermore, given the extensive nature of
the works which have taken place and the lack of detailed information pertaining to the materials which
have been deposited on the site, it has not been demonstrated that the development has not, or will not,
cause harm to protected species, the biodiversity values of the site, or the Bonesgate Stream Site of
Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). The proposal would be contrary to the NPPF 2024, Policy G6
of the London Plan and Policy DM6 of the Kingston LDF Core Strategy (2012).
5
The development erodes the well-greened semi-rural character of the area and has an urbanising effect,
contrary to Policies DM4 and DM10 of the Kingston LDF Core Strategy (2012) and the NPPF (2024).
6
The site has poor access to public transport and any occupants would therefore be heavily reliant on the
private motor vehicle. No mitigation measures have been put forward to demonstrate how this might be
addressed. The proposal would be contrary to policies Policies DM9 and DM10 of the Kingston LDF Core
Strategy, 2012 and the NPPF 2024.
1
The proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt that would cause substantial
harm to the openness. No considerations exist which would clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt
and other identified harms so as to amount to very special circumstances. The proposed development is
therefore contrary to Policies DM5 and DM10 of the Kingston LDF Core Strategy (2012), Policy G2 of the
London Plan (2021) and the NPPF (2024).
2
The material brought onto the Site, primarily for the laying down of extensive areas of hardstanding on
plots 3 and 4, has been done so without an Environment Agency permit (as required by virtue of section 33
of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales)
Regulations 2016). Such a permit would go towards ensuring that the materials are safe and free of
contaminates, and importing waste without one is a criminal offence, as is failing to ensure that waste is
moved up the waste hierarchy in accordance with national, regional and local planning policies. The
proposal would be contrary to the National Planning Policy for Waste 2014 and Policies SI 7, SI 10 of the
London Plan 2021.
3
The submission does not adequately demonstrate that the material that has been deposited on site does
not contain contaminated material and that the site is suitable for residential use or that material has not or
would not result in contaminated surface water being discharged onto neighbouring properties and the
nearby Bonesgate Stream which is a SINC. The proposal would be contrary to Policies DM1, DM4 Kingston
LDF Core Strategy (2012) and the NPPF 2024.
Show all 6 rows
4
The pre-development biodiversity value of the onsite habitat(s) has not been adequately demonstrated
and therefore proposed net again values cannot be accepted. Furthermore, given the extensive nature of
the works which have taken place and the lack of detailed information pertaining to the materials which
have been deposited on the site, it has not been demonstrated that the development has not, or will not,
cause harm to protected species, the biodiversity values of the site, or the Bonesgate Stream Site of
Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). The proposal would be contrary to the NPPF 2024, Policy G6
of the London Plan and Policy DM6 of the Kingston LDF Core Strategy (2012).
5
The development erodes the well-greened semi-rural character of the area and has an urbanising effect,
contrary to Policies DM4 and DM10 of the Kingston LDF Core Strategy (2012) and the NPPF (2024).
6
The site has poor access to public transport and any occupants would therefore be heavily reliant on the
private motor vehicle. No mitigation measures have been put forward to demonstrate how this might be
addressed. The proposal would be contrary to policies Policies DM9 and DM10 of the Kingston LDF Core
Strategy, 2012 and the NPPF 2024.
Policies cited
DM5DM10G2NPPFSI7SI10G6DM6DM4DM9
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
0
In support
0
Total comments
0
Objections
0
In support
0
Total comments
0
People
Who is involved?
Name
Role
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer — delegated decision
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer — delegated decision
Place
What affects it?
Context around the site — not part of this application. Designations over the site: use the map's designations filter (conservation areas, listed buildings, Article 4, flood risk …). Decisions within 250 metres of the site are listed below — context, not this application.
Other applications within 250 metres (context — nearby, not this application)
No other geocoded decision is recorded within 250 metres.