Planning application · Kingston Upon Thames
26/00597/FUL.
Holmwood Kingston Hill Kingston Upon Thames KT2 7LX
Full / Other Planning at Holmwood Kingston Hill Kingston Upon Thames KT2 7LX, received 19 Mar 2026 — refused on 14 May 2026 (delegated, Jack Rapson).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationKingston Upon Thames profile →
Refused
Outcome
14 May 2026
8 wks
Decision time
inside the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
12
Documents
12 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?
Change of use from dwellinghouse (use C3) to health and wellness retreat (Sui Generis) for a temporary period in any year and limited to the period of ownership of the applicant
Reference
26/00597/FUL
Type
Full Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
KT2 7LX
Ward
Council
Received
19 Mar 2026
Validated
20 Mar 2026
Target date
15 May 2026
Decision date
14 May 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Council register
Reference
26/00597/FUL
Type
Full Application
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
KT2 7LX
Ward
Council
Received
19 Mar 2026
Validated
20 Mar 2026
Target date
15 May 2026
Decision date
14 May 2026
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 14 May 2026, delegated decision by Jack Rapson — 8 weeks from submission.
Timeline
Date
Event
19 Mar 2026
Application received
20 Mar 2026
Application validated
15 May 2026
Statutory target date
14 May 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Jack Rapson
19 Mar 2026
Application received
20 Mar 2026
Application validated
15 May 2026
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
14 May 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Jack Rapson
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed development would result in the material loss of a Use Class C3 dwellinghouse in a
borough currently unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. The applicant has
failed to demonstrate the genuinely exceptional circumstances required to justify a personal and temporary
permission that would override the strong policy presumption against the loss of permanent residential
accommodation. Furthermore, the proposal introduces a main town centre use in an out-of-centre location,
supported by a sequential assessment that lacks the necessary flexibility in format and scale and is
artificially constrained by land ownership and existing site characteristics. The proposal is therefore contrary
to Paragraphs 11 and 91 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), Policies SD8 and H1 of the
London Plan (2021), and Policies CS10, DM14, and DM18 of the Kingston Core Strategy (2012).
1
The proposed development would result in the material loss of a Use Class C3 dwellinghouse in a
borough currently unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. The applicant has
failed to demonstrate the genuinely exceptional circumstances required to justify a personal and temporary
permission that would override the strong policy presumption against the loss of permanent residential
accommodation. Furthermore, the proposal introduces a main town centre use in an out-of-centre location,
supported by a sequential assessment that lacks the necessary flexibility in format and scale and is
artificially constrained by land ownership and existing site characteristics. The proposal is therefore contrary
to Paragraphs 11 and 91 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), Policies SD8 and H1 of the
London Plan (2021), and Policies CS10, DM14, and DM18 of the Kingston Core Strategy (2012).
Policies cited
National Planning Policy Framework 11National Planning Policy Framework 91SD8H1DM18NPPF
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.