Tall Buildings

Objections

We object to the Proposed Development on the grounds that the inclusion of five tall buildings ranging from 8 to 16 storeys is inappropriate for this location and fails to comply with the spatial and contextual requirements of London Plan Policy D9 and Kingston Core Strategy (KCS) Policy CS 8. 

Inappropriate Location for Tall Buildings – Non-Compliance with London Plan Policy D9 and KCS Policy CS 8 

Site Not Designated for Tall Buildings

• Policy D9 (Part B) of the London Plan requires boroughs to define appropriate locations for tall buildings in their Development Plans.

• KCS Policy CS 8 states that tall buildings may be appropriate in town centres.

• The Motspur Park Gasholders site is not located within a designated town centre and has not been identified in any adopted Development Plan as suitable for tall buildings.

• The RBK Draft Tall Buildings Strategy 2023 identifies only four locations in the borough as appropriate for tall buildings. 

  • Kingston, New Malden, Surbiton, and Tolworth.” 

• The Motspur Park Gas Holder site is not one of them and lies a significant distance from any designated area. 

• Furthermore, it holds one of the lowest Public Transport Accessibility Levels (PTAL scores of 0 and 1), as shown on page 10 of the Tall Buildings Strategy – a clear indication that it lacks the infrastructure needed to support high-rise development. The proposed site is therefore not compliant with the Council’s own planning guidance. 

• The surrounding neighbourhood is distinctly low-rise in character, comprised predominantly of:

• • 2-3 storey houses 

• •  Low-rise flats (no higher than 4 storeys)

• • Bungalows 

• The proposed tall buildings would be visually dominant and wholly out of scale with their surroundings, leading to:

• •  A disruption of local visual harmony

• •  Loss of privacy and overshadowing

• •  Negative impacts on the park and open spaces, including changes to micro climates and biodiversity due to increased density and overshadowing

• As the Tall Buildings Strategy rightly highlights, green spaces are particularly sensitive to the visual and environmental impact of taller buildings.

• The proposal directly conflicts with the Council’s stated planning objectives:

• •  It fails to comply with the Tall Buildings Strategy by placing tall buildings outside of

• • designated zones.

• •  It does not respect the established character and scale of the area.

Misleading Comparisons with Existing Structures

• The applicant claims that the presence of three decommissioned gasholders (59m, 49m, and 26m) justifies the introduction of tall buildings.

• This is misleading. The gasholders were industrial infrastructure, not residential buildings, and their visual and functional impact differs significantly from occupied high-rise blocks.

• Their removal should be an opportunity to restore openness and character—not to replicate their height with dense residential massing.

Dangerous Precedent for Future Development

• Approving tall buildings in this location would set a damaging precedent, effectively opening up all MOL and low-rise areas in Kingston and adjacent boroughs to similar proposals.

• The Sterling Place (i.e. Tesco site) comparison is misleading: that site is adjacent to the A3 and surrounded by industrial uses, whereas Motspur Park is a quiet, residential, and ecologically sensitive area. Even the Tesco scheme was rejected by Merton Council before being overruled on appeal.

Misuse of Case Law

The applicant cites London Borough of Hillingdon v Mayor of London [2021] EWHC 3387 (Admin) to suggest that tall buildings may be acceptable even where a site is not designated for them under Part B of Policy D9. This is a misrepresentation.

What the Case Actually Says

• The Hillingdon site was adjacent to a major transport corridor, surrounded by motorways, and located next to Hillingdon Station with a PTAL score of 3. 

• The court rejected Hillingdon’s argument that Part B is a “gateway” to Part C.

• It held that Part C can be applied independently, allowing decision-makers to assess tall buildings even if the site is not designated for them.

• Crucially, the judgment does not say that tall buildings are appropriate in all locations—it confirms that Part C assessments must be rigorous and cannot be bypassed.

• The applicant references a legal case involving an 11-storey building in Hillingdon, adjacent to a station and motorways. This context is not comparable to Motspur Park,, limited infrastructure and no strategic designation for intensification.

• The case law merely confirms that the Mayor of London can intervene if a borough is deemed overly cautious—it does not justify tall buildings in inappropriate locations.

FUL-Planning_Statement - Section 9.5 

RBK’s Core Strategy pre-dates the London Plan and has not defined the Site as a location appropriate for tall buildings. However, case law15 has confirmed that Part B of this policy is not a pre-condition to Part C and the assessment of impacts of a tall building (set out below). Where a Site is not identified as being suitable for tall buildings, it can still be assessed under Part C. 

Case Law 15 London Borough of Hillingdon, R (On the Application Of) v Mayor of London [2021] EWHC 3387 (Admin) (15 December 2021) 

• The applicant’s reliance on the Hillingdon case is misplaced. That case confirms that Part C of Policy D9 can be applied where a site is not designated for tall buildings—but only if the proposal can withstand rigorous scrutiny. The Motspur Park site fails this test. It is not comparable to the Hillingdon context, and the proposal causes significant harm to the openness of Metropolitan Open Land, visual amenity, and local character. The case does not override the need for policy compliance or justify tall buildings in inappropriate locations. 

Visual and Townscape Harm

• The Environmental Statement and Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment (TVIA) acknowledge that the proposed buildings would have a high visual magnitude, yet interpret this as “beneficial” based on subjective design opinions.

• The MOL assessment concludes that the removal of the gasholders does not justify the proposed massing, and that the development would cause significant harm to openness.

• No meaningful mitigation is proposed—such as reducing building height to the 21m maximum referenced in RBK’s own planning guidance.

Failure to Meet Policy D9 Criteria

• The proposal fails Part B of Policy D9, as the site is not designated for tall buildings.

• It also fails Part C, which requires mitigation of visual, functional, environmental, and cumulative impacts. No mitigation is proposed for the visual harm to MOL openness, and the claim of “embedded mitigation” is vague and unsubstantiated.

• Subjective design opinions should not substitute for robust, community-validated assessments.