Development Intent
Planning AtlasKingston Upon ThamesChessington South & Malden RushettApplication
Planning Application

25/00005/FUL

Yard Rear Of Kenwood Green Lane Chessington KT9 2DS

Full / Other PlanningChessington South & Malden Rushett wardNeighbourhood Policy: SB1 South of the Borough
Submission
2 Jan 2025
Target
19 Mar 2025
Decision
19 Mar 2025
Outcome
Refused
Delegated decisionRefused
19 Mar 2025
Decided by Harsha Bhundia under delegated powers
Loading map…
Scheme description

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.

Why it was refused
Reason 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).

Reason 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.

Reason 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.

Reason 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).

Reason 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).

Reason 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
DM5
DM10
G2
NPPF
SI7
SI10
G6
DM6
DM4
DM9
Parties
Applicant
Mrs and Mrs Kathleen and Bridgett Doherty and Casey
Timeline
2 Jan 2025
Application submitted
22 Jan 2025
Application validated
19 Mar 2025
Delegated decision: Refused
Supporting documents · 16
Despatch Cover Letter15 Dec 2025View ↗
Appeal Decision15 Dec 2025View ↗
DECISION NOTICE - REFUSE - FUL19 Mar 2025View ↗
Officer Report19 Mar 2025View ↗
GP/01/2420 Jan 2025View ↗
Existing Block Plan, Existing and Proposed Section20 Jan 2025View ↗
240915/02 REV P120 Jan 2025View ↗
Proposed Floor Plan, Roof Plan and Elevations- Plot 420 Jan 2025View ↗
Proposed Floor Plan, Roof Plan and Elevations- Plot 320 Jan 2025View ↗
Proposed Block Plan Plot 420 Jan 2025View ↗
Proposed Block Plan Plot 320 Jan 2025View ↗
Existing Topographical Survey Block Plan20 Jan 2025View ↗
Existing Block Plan Plot 4, Elevation and Photo View20 Jan 2025View ↗
Existing Block Plan Plot 3, Elevation and Photo View20 Jan 2025View ↗
Application Form (No personal data)2 Jan 2025View ↗
Location Plan2 Jan 2025View ↗
View Application Page ↗
Data from the Kingston Upon Thames planning register.
Summary
Reference
25/00005/FUL
Type
Full Application
Applicant
Mrs and Mrs Kathleen and Bridgett Doherty and Casey
Submitted
2 Jan 2025
Decision date
19 Mar 2025
Decision
Refused
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
How long, really
11
wks · this application
Submission → decision · 3 wks over the 8-week target
Public response
Objections
0
In support
0
Total comments
0