A proposal for an 80-bed residential care home in New Malden has been refused by Kingston upon Thames Council's Planning Committee due to concerns over its scale, massing, and design.
The committee met on Thursday, July 16, 2026, to discuss several planning applications, including the outline planning application for the demolition of the vacant Hobkirk House at 109 Blagdon Road and the construction of a new care home. Hobkirk House is currently vacant, and the application was specifically for its demolition and the erection of the new care home. Plans for the site if a care home is not built were not detailed in the meeting information.
Despite officers recommending the application for approval, citing the site's previous use as a care home, its location near New Malden District Centre, and the council's significant housing land supply shortfall, the committee voted to refuse the plans. The council can currently demonstrate only a 1.48-year supply of deliverable housing land, engaging the tilted balance under paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which generally favours sustainable development.
Councillor Roger Hayes, who proposed the refusal, cited three main grounds: the excessive scale, bulk, and massing
of the development, which he argued constituted an overdevelopment of the site; the discordant design
that failed to respond positively to the character of the area; and the negative impact on heritage assets due to the building's scale and bulk.
The discordant design
assessment was based on several factors, including excessive height, volume, and bulk, which was seen as an overdevelopment of a sensitive site. The proposal was described as striking a discordant note at odds with the established character of the surrounding locations of residential and light industrial, lower scale residential and light industrial properties.
Concerns were also raised about an oppressive view from the north-west
due to the solid terracotta facade, and the combination of height and bulk was seen as creating a wall effect.
The architectural composition was also criticised for poor architectural composition, excessive and poorly articulated built form, unsatisfactory elevational treatment, and failure to respond positively to the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.
Objectors, including local residents represented by Mrs. Castillo, echoed these concerns, highlighting the building's size, lack of architectural character, inadequate parking, and potential impact on neighbouring amenity and safety. The proposed development would have provided two blue-badged bays, a general parking space, an operational servicing bay, and 18 secure cycle spaces.
However, residents raised concerns about inadequate on-site parking
and increased pressure on existing on-street parking,
as well as lack of turning space for ambulances, delivery vehicles and servicing vehicles.
Despite these concerns, the Highway Authority and TfL raised no objection to the proposed parking arrangements for the care home.
Specifically, the proposed care home's scale and bulk were identified as negatively impacting several heritage assets. These include the Fairfield / Knights Park Conservation Area, where less than substantial harm low to moderate range
was noted, and the Grove Crescent Conservation Area, with less than substantial harm in the low range.
The Grove Lane Local Area of Special Character (LASC) was also identified as experiencing a low degree of harm.
Furthermore, the report noted that the scale, height, bulk massing and architectural treatment would cause less than substantial harm to the significance of heritage assets,
specifically mentioning the Knights Park and Grove Crescent conservation areas, the Grade II listed Church of St John and Old Mill House, and the locally listed St John's Primary School.
The committee's decision means that the plans for the 80-bed care home, which would have been part four-storey and part five-storey, will not proceed in their current form.
For context, council officers had recommended approval for a similar development, the Middle Mill Halls of Residence proposal, based on arguments that it would modernize the university's estate and create a Creative Quarter.
They noted that the university had re-provided accommodation elsewhere. While acknowledging concerns about height and massing, officers highlighted that the building's height was comparable to an existing tower and that the design had evolved through consultation. The council's Heritage Officer initially objected due to less than substantial harm
but later withdrew this, concluding that the benefits of the scheme outweighed the harm. Assessments also indicated that amenity impacts would be minor
and that the parking provision was in line with the minimum standards set in Policy T5 of the London Plan.
The officers highlighted public benefits such as future-proofing of Kingston's heritage as a university town
and economic benefits in terms of employment.
