Kingston's Planning Committee met on 1 April 2026 and considered two significant housing applications that could reshape two distinct parts of the borough. Neither decision went unnoticed — and neither should you let it.
The committee noted two major proposals. To be clear about what that means: this was not a final approval or refusal. The applications were considered — scrutinised, discussed — but the word "noted" in planning committee language means the committee received and reviewed the applications as part of the ongoing process. Final determinations may still be pending.
That matters, because residents still have time to make their voices heard.
The first proposal concerns Signal Park in Tolworth — a scheme for up to 965 homes in towers reaching up to 16 storeys.
To put that in context: 965 homes is a substantial addition to Tolworth, a neighbourhood that has already seen significant development pressure in recent years. Sixteen storeys is not modest. That is tower-block territory — the kind of height that changes a skyline, alters light and shadow for existing residents, and places real demands on local infrastructure.
The questions residents should be asking:
What are the proposed tenure splits? How many of those 965 homes will be genuinely affordable — and at what definition of "affordable"? The gap between social rent and 80% of market rent is considerable in Kingston.
What transport assessments have been carried out? Tolworth's road network and public transport links are already under pressure. Nearly a thousand new homes will bring hundreds of additional vehicles and commuters.
What happens to local schools, GP surgeries, and green space? Section 106 contributions and Community Infrastructure Levy payments can help, but the committee should be pressing developers on specifics — not accepting headline numbers.
And critically: who benefits? New homes are needed across London. Kingston has a housing target to meet. But density and height alone do not constitute good planning. The design, the infrastructure, and the affordability mix all determine whether a development serves the community or simply serves a developer's balance sheet.
The second application is arguably more sensitive still. A proposal for 150 apartments would replace part of Kingston Hospital's existing estate.
Hospitals are public assets. Land that currently supports healthcare infrastructure — or has the potential to do so — is not ordinary development land. Before any planning consent is granted, residents and councillors alike should be demanding clarity on several points.
Which part of the hospital site is affected? The summary refers to "part" of Kingston Hospital, but the details matter enormously. Is this surplus land genuinely no longer needed for clinical or operational purposes? Has NHS Property Services carried out a proper assessment?
What does Kingston Hospital NHS Foundation Trust say? Hospital trusts sometimes welcome land disposals as a source of capital income. But the long-term healthcare needs of a growing borough — one that is adding thousands of homes through schemes like Signal Park — should be weighed against any short-term financial gain.
Will any of the 150 apartments be genuinely affordable? A hospital site converted into market-rate luxury flats would be a poor outcome for a community that is already struggling with housing costs.
It is worth situating these planning decisions within Kingston's wider financial picture. The council faces a projected four-year budget gap of £18 million under its Medium Term Financial Strategy 2026–2030, against reserves of just £14.2 million.
Council tax for a Band D household now stands at £2,608.12 per year in 2026/27 — up £119.77 (4.99%) from £2,488.35 the previous year.
In that environment, the council has a financial interest in seeing development proceed — new homes generate council tax revenue and, through Section 106 agreements, developer contributions. That is not necessarily wrong. But it does create a risk that the pressure to approve applications overrides the need to scrutinise them properly.
Planning committees should be making decisions on planning merit. Residents should watch carefully for any signs that financial pressure is colouring those judgements.
For both Signal Park and the Kingston Hospital site, the Planning Committee should be asking developers and applicants to demonstrate:
Planning applications of this scale are complex. The committee's job is to be thorough, not quick.
With full council elections scheduled for 7 May 2026 across all 19 wards, every one of Kingston's 48 councillors is seeking a mandate from residents. That includes the members who sit on the Planning Committee.
This is not the moment to be passive. Candidates will be knocking on doors and making promises. Ask them, specifically, what they think about Signal Park. Ask them what safeguards they will demand before 150 apartments are built on hospital land. Ask them how they will ensure that new housing genuinely serves Kingston residents — not just housing targets on a spreadsheet.
The planning process has consultation stages, and your views as a resident carry weight — particularly if you live near either site, use Kingston Hospital, or have concerns about infrastructure capacity in Tolworth.
Don't wait for the final decision to land and then feel powerless.
Use Council Clarity to message your councillors directly. Ask them how they voted, what questions they raised, and what commitments they are seeking from developers on affordability and infrastructure. It takes two minutes — and it sends a clear signal that residents are paying attention.
Visit Council Clarity now and send your councillors a message about these planning applications. Your voice matters, especially before 7 May.
Share this post
Want to have your say on this issue?
Contact your local councillor through Council Clarity. Your message becomes a public thread.
Message your councillor →