Planning appeal decision
Land Rear of Kenwood Green Lane, Chessington, KT9 2DS
Planning appeal 3363669 at Land Rear of Kenwood Green Lane, Chessington, KT9 2DS (Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames) was dismissed on 15 December 2025 by Inspector Nicholls H, following an inquiry. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: whether the engineering works and operational development, or the proposed use of the site to provide two residential pitches amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt and if so, the effects on the openness of the Green Belt.
the creation of 2 additional residential pitches for Gypsy/Travellers at an existing Gypsy/Traveller caravan site, each with 1 static caravan, 1 touring caravan and a brick built day room, and retrospective permission for the erection of a retaining wall together with land levelling engineering works
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- caravan-gypsy · Minor traveller and caravan pitches
- Inspector
- Nicholls H
- Postcode
- KT9 2DS
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- whether the engineering works and operational development, or the proposed use of the site to provide two residential pitches amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt and if so, the effects on the openness of the Green Belt
- whether the appeal site is safe for human habitation with particular regard to land contamination and whether there would be any related effects on surface water quality
- whether the site is, or could be made structurally safe for its intended purpose
- the effects of the development on the landscape character and visual quality of the area
- its effects on the biodiversity value of the site and surrounding area, including the Bonesgate Stream Site of Nature Conservation (the SINC)
- whether the location of the appeal site accords with the development plan in terms of access to facilities and minimising dependency on private vehicles
- the general need for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation in the area and the personal circumstances of the appellants and their needs for accommodation
- if relevant, whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the development
What decided it
The Green Belt harm from inappropriate development, compounded by intentional unauthorised development and unresolved safety concerns, was not clearly outweighed by the need for Traveller pitches and the appellants' personal circumstances, so very special circumstances were not established.
The harms of inappropriate development and loss of openness in the Green Belt, land contamination, structural instability, landscape and visual harm, potential SINC harm and intentional unauthorised development were not clearly outweighed by the Traveller pitch shortfall and the appellants' personal circumstances, so the appeal was dismissed.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy G2 of the London Plan 2021Policy DM5 of the Kingston Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2012)Core Strategy Policy DM1Core Strategy Policy DM4policy DM10 of the Core StrategyPolicy G6 of the London PlanPolicies DM4 and DM6 of the Core Strategy
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 11Paragraph 110Paragraph 115Paragraph 153Paragraph 154Paragraph 155Paragraph 156Paragraph 157Paragraph 187Paragraph 196
- Judgments
- Wheatcroft Ltd v SSE [1982]; Holborn Studios Ltd v Hackney LBC [2017] EWHC 2823; AZ v SSCLG and South Gloucester [2012] EWCA 3660 (Admin); Chapman v UK (2001) ECHR 43; Collins v SSCLG and Fylde BC [2013] EWCA Civ 1193; Stevens v SSCLG and Guildford BC [2013] EWHC 792 (Admin)
How the Inspector dealt with each one is set out in the app, in order: the development plan, national policy, housing land supply, other considerations and the planning balance, beside the letter.
See how each was appliedThe decision letter
Town Planner Pro holds this letter. The Appeals plan opens it and every other letter we hold, all of them searchable, with the main issues and what decided each case picked out. We do not show letters on the free site because they carry people’s names and addresses.
With an account
What an account adds to this decision


More decisions in Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2025
- Allowed29 June 20266005791Sheet Metal Works, 13A Westfield Road, Surbiton, KT6 4EL
- Dismissed27 May 2026600467237 Addison Gardens, Surbiton, KT5 8DJ
- Allowed22 May 20266004895Wighill, Old Malden Lane, Worcester Park, London, KT4 7PU
- Dismissed12 May 20266002544Glanmire Farm, Rushett Lane, Malden Rushett, Chessington, KT18 7TR
- Dismissed12 May 20266002542Glanmire Farm, Rushett Lane, Malden Rushett, Chessington, KT18 7TR
The main issues, what decided it, the planning balance and the policies and judgments listed as cited are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro and are our summary, not the Inspector’s words; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.
®