City Hall Greenlights Controversial Development of 586 Homes in Kingston and Merton Despite Over 1,000 Objections

Plans to demolish three gasholders in South London to make way for apartment blocks reaching up to 16 storeys have received approval, despite significant local opposition. The initiative, put forward by gas company SGN and developer Berkeley Homes, involves the construction of five blocks containing a total of 586 homes, of which 175 will be classified as affordable housing. These structures will be erected on land designated as Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) in Motspur Park, a designation intended to shield such areas from inappropriate development.

The scheme prompted a strong backlash from local politicians and residents, who voiced particular concerns regarding the potential impact on the openness of the MOL. Jules Pipe, London’s Deputy Mayor for Planning, sanctioned the project on July 21, asserting that it would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the designated land. In a statement made following a hearing at City Hall, Mr Pipe emphasised the necessity of approving well-designed developments with affordable housing to address London’s ongoing housing crisis.

Local Council Opposition and Housing Supply Concerns

The Greater London Authority (GLA) assumed control of the decision after Kingston Council rejected the proposal in March, citing fears that the development’s mass, height, and scale would adversely affect the openness of the MOL and disrupt the character of the area. A letter from London Mayor Sadiq Khan indicated he had ‘called in’ the application, believing it could contribute significantly to London’s housing targets, particularly given that housing completions in Kingston from 2020 to 2025 had fallen well short of expectations.

The correspondence from the Mayor noted that Kingston Council had confirmed in 2023 its inability to demonstrate a five-year housing supply, which has resulted in a growing shortfall against the targets outlined in the London Plan. Campaigners have expressed fears that the planning balance may be skewed in favour of developers due to Kingston’s housing supply issues, even as they assert that the site is not suitable for such a large-scale project.

Representatives from both Kingston and Merton councils, whose boundaries intersect at the site, voiced their objections during the hearing, arguing that the proposed development would significantly harm the MOL’s openness. They, along with local residents, contended that the height and scale of the buildings were excessive and that local infrastructure, including roads and public transport, would struggle to accommodate the expected influx of new residents. The application garnered 1,190 objections and just 52 letters of support across the respective council websites, with the GLA receiving 569 objections and four letters of support prior to the hearing.

Community Concerns Over Development Impact

Kingston Liberal Democrat councillor Callum Morrissey argued that the development would introduce a permanent and visually overwhelming presence into a protected open setting, effectively creating a barrier against the openness of the expansive MOL. He expressed concerns that the project would overdevelop an isolated site with inadequate access to public transport, asserting it would be “entirely out of place” in the predominantly low-rise neighbourhood.

Additionally, Merton Liberal Democrat councillor Mariam Hakim articulated that the nearby Sir Joseph Hood Memorial Playing Fields and local residences would be overshadowed by the proposed towers. She cautioned that the development would negatively affect the MOL, destroying open views and detracting from the low-rise, village-like character of the West Barnes area, leading some residents to express a desire to relocate should the project proceed.

Local resident Mike Freter remarked that the scheme would obscure the clear vistas currently offered by the existing gasholders, replacing them with a dense wall of development. He stated, “This scheme replaces openness with enclosure, transparency with mass, and established low-rise character… thus conflicting with key policies in the London Plan.” Another local resident, Rebecca Hogan, noted that the site was ill-suited for a development of such magnitude, highlighting the lack of urban infrastructure necessary to support it.

Developer’s Perspective and Justification for the Project

In defence of the project, Rob Packham, Land Director at Berkeley Homes, claimed the development would transform redundant industrial infrastructure into new homes, improved connections, publicly accessible spaces, and a significant amount of affordable housing. He characterised the location as “highly sustainable” and indicated that the application would bring a biodiversity net gain of 25 per cent, including the planting of over 100 new trees.

Mr Packham emphasised the rarity of opportunities of such scale, particularly given Kingston’s current housing supply, which he noted stands at only one and a half years. He posed a rhetorical question to the hearing attendees, asking whether they preferred the gasholders to remain obsolete for another generation or wish to see them evolve into a new neighbourhood that could benefit many.

During the hearing, Mr Pipe concurred with GLA officers that the proposal adhered to relevant development plans as an entirety. He pointed out that the proposed five blocks, reaching heights of up to 52 metres, would still be shorter than the tallest of the existing gasholders at 59 metres. While acknowledging that the plan would cause some harm to the openness of the site, he maintained that the development would not dominate the landscape. Mr Pipe confirmed that the plans included appropriate measures to mitigate impacts on transport and biodiversity, reiterating the importance of seizing opportunities to enhance housing availability, particularly affordable housing, on accessible sites where transport infrastructure is already established.

Objectors at the hearing clarified that they were not opposed to development per se but sought a revised proposal that was more fitting for the area. The three gasholders, which were constructed in 1924, 1932, and 1954, previously served as storage for gas distribution until they were rendered obsolete by modern storage methods. They have remained unused since 2007 and were officially decommissioned by Ofgem in 2012. Demolition of the gasholders is expected to commence later this year.