Mayor of London Sir Sadiq Khan will decide on controversial plans to redevelop three Kingston gasholders with towers up to 16 storeys tall.

Sir Sadiq has overruled Kingston Council's rejection of the application, from gas firm SGN and developer Berkeley Homes, to demolish three gasholders on protected land in Motspur Park for five apartment blocks with 586 homes.

A letter from Sir Sadiq said he had "called in" the application as it could make a "significant and positive contribution" towards London's housing targets, particularly as the number of homes built in Kingston between 2020 and 2025 was "significantly under target".

The letter said the council had confirmed in 2023 it could not demonstrate a five-year housing supply as required by policy, which meant it had been "accumulating a shortfall in housing completions" against targets outlined in the London Plan.

It added the delivery of 586 new homes, including 175 affordable units, through the application would be equal to 60 per cent of the borough's annual housing target and 15 per cent of its yearly affordable housing need.

Campaigners previously told the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) they were concerned the planning balance would be unfairly tilted in favour of the developer as Kingston could not demonstrate a five-year housing supply, despite it not being suitable for the site.

The site is designated as Metropolitan Open Land (MOL), which means it should be protected from "inappropriate development".



Former Motspur Park Gasholders site. ( Credit: Berkeley Homes (West London) Ltd, provided in Kingston Council documents)

advertisement

Terry Paton, who lives nearby, told the LDRS: "Whilst I appreciate the need for homes, this whole development is out of character for this suburban area – currently made up of two-storey family homes. 

"The sheer scale and density should be a reason to turn this scheme down, and something more appropriate considered."

The scheme, which proposed towers ranging from eight to 16 storeys tall, attracted fierce opposition from residents, who argued the buildings would be too high, overlook people's homes and change the character of the area.

They said the proposed development was too dense, given the area's limited access to public transport and other services, while existing infrastructure would not cope with such an influx of people.

Kingston's planning committee went against officers' recommendations to reject the application in March, after agreeing its mass, height and scale would harm the openness of the MOL and that it was out of character for the area.

One objector told the meeting that application documents showed "poor modelling, selective assumptions and downward adjustment of numbers that significantly understate the true impact of this scheme".

She said: "When the numbers don't add up, and the modelling is so selective, when resident impact is so severe and the benefits are purely commercial, the council should know that a scheme of this scale on such a marginal site is against policy and should be refused."

Another objector said the height of the proposed buildings went against policy. The meeting was told Kingston's emerging tall buildings strategy only identified Kingston, Surbiton, Tolworth and New Malden as suitable for tall buildings up to 10 storeys in height.

The resident said: "These towers represent overdevelopment. They will substantially harm the area's character and openness and strain limited infrastructure."

Councillors also criticised new government rules which set out a more flexible approach to building on MOL in London to deliver more housing.

Lib Dem councillor Roger Hayes said: "We have a very, I think, long and rich and proud tradition in Kingston of taking people with us and we don't do that by telling them what's best for them, and we don't do that by hiding behind bad planning policy, and I'm afraid this government is forcing bad planning policy on us.

"There are occasions when we simply do not have any choice because if we don't do it they will come and do it for us. This is an occasion when I think we should stick our head above the parapet and say 'enough, let's make a stand'."

Independent councillor James Giles added: "I'm quite clear that we as a committee do, as Councillor Hayes said, stick our head above the parapet and say this development, this scheme, is not good enough for Motspur Park."

But Rob Packham, Land Director at Berkeley Homes, said the plans offered a "direct, deliverable and significant contribution" to address Kingston's housing crisis, with the borough unable to demonstrate a five-year housing supply.

He said: "Beyond just meeting housing need, these proposals are shaped by a vision to transform a redundant, closed-off site into an exceptional new neighbourhood that will offer so much to so many. 

"It will offer a genuine mix of housing for everyone, surrounded by beautiful landscape and welcoming and permeable green spaces."

Mr Packham said the scheme had been rigorously tested and found to follow regional and national planning policies, while delivering major social, economic and environmental benefits. 

He said 200 trees would be planted as part of the development, contributing to a biodiversity net gain of over 25 per cent, while the site would be opened up to the community and new links would connect residents to nearby train stations.

Planning documents argued the site was previously developed brownfield land and that while the scheme would result in a "marked change" to the openness of the MOL, this would not be substantial.

The three gasholders were built in 1924, 1932 and 1954 and were used to store gas for distribution until they were replaced by modern methods of gas storage. They have stood redundant since 2007 and were decommissioned by Ofgem in 2012.

Sir Sadiq overriding the council's rejection of the application means the GLA will now consider it at a hearing, on a date yet to be confirmed, and make a final decision.