The Planning Committee of Kingston upon Thames Council met on Thursday 16 July 2026, deciding on three planning applications. The committee approved the demolition of existing student accommodation blocks at Middle Mill Halls of Residence, Portland Road, and the erection of a new five-storey purpose-built teaching building for Kingston University. They also approved the removal of a condition restricting the use of two flats at 3 The Mall, Surbiton, from being converted into Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs). Finally, the committee refused an application for the demolition of Hobkirk House, 109 Blagdon Road, New Malden, and the erection of an 80-bed residential care home.

Middle Mill Halls of Residence, Portland Road

The committee approved the demolition of existing student residential blocks at Middle Mill Halls of Residence, Portland Road, and the erection of a new five-storey purpose-built teaching building for Kingston University. The new building will include a ground-floor café and gallery space, along with associated access, blue-badge parking, and landscaping.

The application, 25/02541/FUL, was recommended for approval by officers, subject to conditions and the completion of a legal agreement. The proposal involves the demolition of Blocks A and G-L of the existing student accommodation to make way for a 4,827sqm teaching building for the Kingston School of Art. This new facility aims to modernise the university's estate, provide enhanced educational spaces, and create a Creative Quarter for Kingston.

During the debate, concerns were raised by objectors regarding the building's height, scale, and massing, with claims that it would be overdevelopment and out of character with the surrounding area. The Kingston Town Society also objected on similar grounds. However, officers highlighted that the site is within an area of mixed-use development, including existing university buildings of varying heights, and that the design had evolved through consultation with the Design Review Panel and other stakeholders. The proposed building's height, at its highest point, is comparable to the existing Knights Park Tower.

Heritage concerns were also discussed, with the Council's Heritage Officer initially objecting due to less than substantial harm to nearby conservation areas. However, this objection was later withdrawn, with the officer concluding that the benefits of the scheme outweighed the harm. The proposed building's design, materials, and landscaping were generally considered to be of high quality and responsive to the site's context and industrial heritage.

The committee voted to approve the application, with Councillor Roger Hayes proposing refusal on grounds of excessive height, volume, and bulk, discordant design, and negative impact on heritage assets. However, this motion was not seconded, and the committee proceeded to vote on the officer's recommendation for approval, which was carried.

3 The Mall, Surbiton

The committee approved an application under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to remove Condition 10 from a previous planning permission. This condition had restricted the use of the two newly created flats at 3 The Mall, Surbiton, from being converted into Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs).

The original permission, 25/01980/FUL, granted in April 2026 by the Surbiton Neighbourhood Committee, allowed for the conversion of the single-family dwelling into two flats. However, members of that committee had requested the imposition of Condition 10 to prevent the flats from being used as HMOs, citing concerns about noise, disturbance, highway safety, and the loss of family housing.

Officers recommended the removal of the condition, arguing that it did not meet the six statutory tests for planning conditions: it was not necessary, relevant to planning, enforceable, precise, or reasonable. They stated there was no evidence of an over-concentration of HMOs in the area, and that HMOs are important for local housing needs. The existing property was already licensed as a seven-person HMO without significant issues. Officers also noted that the removal of the condition would not alter the physical form of the development or result in a loss of family housing, as the flats would still be capable of accommodating families. The potential for anti-social behaviour was considered speculative and manageable through the licensing regime.

Mr. Harry Wilder, speaking as a registered objector, argued that removing the condition would undermine the council's previous decision and that the applicant had secured permission on the basis of family housing. Councillor Olly Wehring, Chair of the Surbiton Neighbourhood Committee, echoed these concerns, stating that Condition 10 was crucial for the original permission's justification and that its removal would allow for a significant increase in occupancy without proper assessment.

Despite the objections, the committee voted to approve the removal of the condition, with five votes in favour and three abstentions.

Hobkirk House, 109 Blagdon Road, New Malden

The committee refused an application for outline planning permission for the demolition of the vacant former care home at Hobkirk House, 109 Blagdon Road, New Malden, and the erection of an 80-bed residential care home.

The application, 26/00807/OUT, had been recommended for approval by officers, subject to conditions and the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement. The proposal involved a part four-storey and part five-storey building. Officers highlighted that the site had a history of care home use and that the council had a significant housing land supply shortfall, meaning the tilted balance under the NPPF favoured development. They also pointed to previous planning decisions that had accepted a substantial building on the site's footprint. The revised design was considered an improvement on a previously refused care home application, addressing concerns about external design.

However, the application attracted significant public objection, with residents raising concerns about the building's height, scale, massing, design, and impact on neighbouring amenity, parking, and servicing. Mrs. Castillo, representing concerned neighbours, argued that the proposed building was too large, out of character, and lacked adequate space for parking and servicing, negatively impacting the quality of life for residents and neighbours.

Councillor Roger Hayes proposed refusal on three grounds: the excessive scale, bulk, and massing representing an overdevelopment of the site; the poor architectural composition and failure to respond positively to the character of the area; and the negative impact on heritage assets due to its scale, height, and bulk, which he argued were not outweighed by the public benefits. Councillor Ian George seconded this motion, agreeing with the concerns about the design and scale.

Following debate and a vote, the committee voted to refuse the application based on the grounds outlined by Councillor Hayes.

The meeting also included discussions on apologies for absence, declarations of interest, and housekeeping matters. The committee noted the attendance of Councillor Mark Beynon as Chair. Apologies were received from Councillors Dunstan, Manders, and Mirza. Several councillors declared interests related to their interactions with residents and the university concerning the Middle Mill development. A site visit to the Middle Mill application was attended by several councillors.

The meeting concluded at approximately 11:15 pm.