Hook Park: Clayton Road & Oaklands Close: redevelopment of the Equestrian Centre and the Dell Planning app 25/02749 OUT

 

I took these photos in August during the 'Covid Years', before reports of developing this 50 acre site hit the headlines. It seemed unlikely that a development on such a scale could go ahead, without access from KT9 1DW, as it would be unrealistic to use the existing narrow access roads.

At the time, I had discussions with the Tree Officer, about the different levels created when the lorryloads of spoil/hoggin were brought to the site (planning application 13/10228/FUL & subsequent CEMP 14/10126 requiring the creation of habitat, including woodland). It would be interesting to know how much of the latter - 'here today, gone tomorrow mitigation'- will remain in the new scheme.

The oak trees on site are magnificient and a natural asset to the borough. But we know that the developers have said that this site is 'compromised', 'serving no green belt purpose due to its proximity to the A3', and as the focus of many anti-social behavioural issues, should be defined as grey belt. We can therefore predict how the Tree Reports may describe the Oaks as Cat C's, especially if their root plates were damaged during the execution of the 2014 planning application. 

 The site did appear then to be made 'development ready', with lots of tree surgery, damage to trees, & burnt trees in areas outside the Equestrian Centre . This was unfortunate as many of the tree have TPO orders on in this area of green belt. Now the developer, Poppymill, proposes 2,000 homes on the Greenbelt, to be known as Hook Park https://hook-park.co.uk/. This is said to create a multi- generational community, with family housing alongside affordable homes of various tenures. The public consultations were held in June.

Green Belt newly defined see:https://www.savills.co.uk/blog/article/364960/residential-property/in-plain-english--the-grey-belt.aspx 

The three of the five purposes of green belt mentioned within the definition are:

a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas
b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another
d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns

Given the above definition, sites within the green belt comprising previously developed land and any other parcels and/or areas that make a limited contribution to the aim of the green belt, but excluding areas or assets of particular importance (i.e. land with an existing environmental designation) could constitute ‘grey belt’.

Paragraph 155 of the NPPF also refers to forms of development which are not inappropriate in the green belt. They are:

a. The development would utilise grey belt land and would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan
b. There is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed
c. The development would be in a sustainable location, with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of this Framework
d. Where applicable the development proposed meets the ‘Golden Rules’ requirements set out in paragraphs 156-157 below 

 

As previously indicated, within the government’s consultation on the NPPF, grey belt land must have at least one of the following features: 

Land, containing substantial built development or which is fully enclosed by built form
Land, which makes no or very little contribution to preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another
Land, which is dominated by urban land uses, including physical developments
Land, which contributes little to preserving the setting and special character of historic towns

 

 

What are the ‘Golden Rules’?

There are three ‘Golden Rules’ that have been introduced by the government. They are essentially contributions that should be made where residential development is proposed within the green belt. They concern affordable housing, infrastructure improvements and improvements to publicly accessible green space.

In respect to affordable housing, proposals must reflect the relevant development plan policies produced in accordance with paragraphs 67-68 of the Framework. However, if such policies do not exist or have not yet been adopted, an affordable housing contribution will be sought which is 15% above the highest existing affordable housing requirement which would otherwise apply to the development, with a cap of 50%.

 Adjacent land 

Clayton Road Wood SINC
There is a slip of land along the A3 that has a brook and woodland. It is Clayton Road Wood SINC borough Grade 2 KiBII16. Clayton Road Wood is an area of ancient woodland situated in the west of the borough, adjacent to the A3 and Clayton Road. The site is private with no access the public permitted, it can be partially viewed from the roadside. The site is entirely comprised of ancient woodland habitat consisting of oak with and understory of hawthorn, hazel and holly.

Kelvin Grove Allotments (no. 4 on map)

The allotments are also a SINC: the northern half of these allotments have been allowed to go
wild. This has now developed into a rich mosaic of vegetationand is frequented by a variety of birds such as greenwoodpecker and goldfinch. It also favours invertebrates, particularly flying insects.It would be a challenge to the developers to show that the interests of both SINCs would not be compromised as a result of such a change in the urban gradient. 

Residents social media campaign states:

HOOK PARK: WHAT EVERY CLAYGATE RESIDENT SHOULD KNOW IN ONE POST

*  The Hook Park development (“Hook Park”) covers around 50 acres of land, bordered by the A3/A309 Kingston Bypass to the west and north, Clayton Road to the south, and the Royal Borough of Kingston on Thames land to the east.

*  The site is designated Green Belt, however, the Government’s revised Green Belt Guidance (February 2025), and the new London Plan, now allow re-designation as Grey Belt.

*  Prospects for gaining planning approval have improved, and planning protection weakened.

*  If approved, the development would add, on Claygate’s doorstep, at least as many new households as make-up our village now (UK Census), and a further 5,000+ residents to this area (increasing the population of Chessington by a third).

*  Parking capacity on-site for up to 800 vehicles is proposed. The relative shortage of proposed bus services, and the distance from the nearest rail links (a 20mins walk away) would suggest greater car ownership, based upon a critical analysis of the few other sizeable new developments referenced by the developers in arriving at their estimate. Indeed, based on the national average for car ownership per household, it is more reasonable to assume ownership of 2,400 new vehicles which, in turn, suggests a high risk of ‘proximity parking’ across neighbouring areas.

*  The intention is to commence construction around four years after planning approval and complete the development over the following 10+ years.

*  Planning approval is sought now for a contentious element of the proposals, the Travel Plan (which draws on the developers’ own Transport Assessment).

*  MANY ARE CONCERNED THAT, AS THIS IS BASED ON MULTIPLE FLAWED ASSUMPTIONS BY THE DEVELOPERS, AND GIVEN SOME KEY OMISSIONS, THERE WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE IMPACTS FOR THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES.

*  Outline approval only is sought for the remainder of the proposals, including 2,000+ new homes (2,500 was originally proposed when consultation with Chessington was first launched) and a 50% proportion of affordable homes. However, both these figures could be viewed with scepticism, given recent post-outline planning approval experiences with other proposed developments (including Signal Park in Tolworth), and support from Government and the Mayor of London for significantly reducing the minimum affordable homes requirement.

*  Concerns over the Travel Plan principally relate to local road safety, a significant ramp-up in traffic volumes through the nearby areas (including Claygate and Hinchley Wood, in particular), the cumulative traffic growth from other ongoing local developments, the safety of the planned major access point on the A309 Kingston Bypass, and fundamental omissions from the planning applications that serve to play down the flaws of the proposed development.

*  However, given the current political environment, it could prove a critical mistake to assume the existing planning procedures, our local politicians, and a core of concerned residents will ensure the development does not proceed as proposed.

*  THE STRENGTH OF OPPOSITION FROM LOCAL RESIDENTS COULD PROVE TO BE WHAT ULTIMATELY DETERMINES WHETHER CLAYGATE RETAINS IT’S RENOWNED AND MUCH-LOVED SPECIAL CHARACTER.

*  The impact of increased road traffic on roads surrounding the proposed site has not actually been assessed by the developers.

*  Shortcomings in their Transport Assessment include ignoring traffic from school runs, weekend shopping, leisure peaks; Chessington World of Adventures seasonal surges; A3 incident or congestion diversion traffic; and evening and weekend congestion.

*  In addition, predictions for queuing and congestion appear unrealistically low (e.g. queues of less than one vehicle, junctions with “no capacity issues,” and “infinite capacity” on some key roads.

*  There is heavy reliance on the existing road layout, including existing congestion blackspots.

*  Vehicular access to/from the site will mainly be via a planned new roundabout, to be inserted into the A309 Kingston Bypass westbound carriageway, which runs from the Ace of Spades roundabout towards Hinchley Wood.

*  The existing slip road off the westbound A3 would be changed to merge with the A309 at a point after the turning into Woodstock Lane (by the Travellers Site). Consequently, traffic heading for the site from the westbound A3 must use the Ace of Spades roundabout to join the A309.

*  The Woodstock Lane / A309 westbound junction would be altered to allow vehicles both to turn into and out of Woodstock Lane (i.e. to turn left  onto the A309 only), thereby creating a potential ‘rat run’.

*  As the development progresses, a second “access-only” point for vehicles will be added along Clayton Road at the southern end of the site (thereby increasing the likelihood of residents driving through Claygate to access the site).

*  The developers have envisaged 90% of the site construction traffic flows using the northerly A309 access point during the construction phase. Nevertheless, the potential for greatly increased congestion at the Ace of Spades roundabout could force the developers to establish the southern Clayton Road entrance earlier than planned, thereby increasing the probability of construction traffic accessing the site through Claygate.

*  THE POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT NEW FLOWS ON THE A309 (WESTBOUND AND EASTBOUND), WOODSTOCK LANE, RED LANE, MANOR ROAD SOUTH, OAKEN LANE, HARE LANE, MILBOURNE LANE, COPSEM LANE, CLAYTON ROAD, AND HOOK ROAD / LEATHERHEAD ROAD IS TOTALLY IGNORED IN THE PLANNING APPLICATION.

*  Claygate residents already experience a vulnerability to ‘displaced’ traffic during peak congestion, or after road incidents, yet this possibility has been ignored too.

*  The Travel Plan treats Hook Park in isolation, despite new housing developments at Chessington South (sizeable number of new homes), Tolworth – Signal Park (again, a significant development), and Thames Ditton (150 new homes).

*  These developments will inevitably add to the traffic volumes using the A309 Kingston Bypass, the Ace of Spades roundabout, Hook Lane, Leatherhead Road, and Woodstock Lane. These comprise the very same corridors that Hook Park residents will depend upon, adding to the ‘displacement risk’ and greater use of Claygate’s roads as a ‘rat run.’

*  While such cumulative impacts must be considered by developers and addressed in their planning application, this has been omitted in this case.

*  The potential for traffic congestion caused by pedestrians and cyclists from Hook Park seeking to cross both A309 carriageways via the zebra crossings at the Ace of Spades roundabout has also been overlooked.

*  The proposed new roundabout access onto the A309 is presented in the Travel plan as safe, but this is open to question.

*  The A309 is currently a 50mph+ high-speed corridor and no change to that operating speed is proposed, only “aspirational“, design-led reductions. Real traffic already travels at high speed and could continue to do so without proven, enforced speed reduction measures.

*  The merging of possibly slow-moving traffic leaving the site, and 50mph high-volume traffic joining the A309 via the A3 slip road presents a serious safety risk, particularly in wet conditions, in darkness, for buses and larger vehicles, for cyclists, and when queues form on the A309.

*  The developer’s own analysis identifies multiple serious and fatal collisions on similar sections of local high-speed roads, yet the Transport Assessment omits any independent Road Safety Audit of the new roundabout under real speed conditions, which is unacceptable for a scheme of this scale.

*  The road safety risks arising from a combination of increased traffic using the Ace of Spades roundabout on journeys both into and out of Hook Park, plus increased usage of the zebra crossings across both A309 carriageways by pedestrians and cyclists is also ignored.

*  Despite a claim by the developers to have incorporated elements in their proposals to minimise car ownership amongst Hook Park residents, public transport capacity and reliability have not been assessed. 

*  The developers have simply assumed that trains will run on time, at full frequency, and with infinite capacity, which has demonstrably not been the case to-date.

*  The Travel Plan does acknowledge, however, that the Hook Park site has extremely poor public transport access.

*  Reliance is placed entirely on existing rail services, stating that “two trains per hour” run to London via Chessington North station. However, Chessington residents report this has proven historically to be an unreliable service, with regular cancellations, delays, and short-formed trains.

*  The TA does not assess whether the line can absorb the additional passengers from the nearly 2,000 new Hook Park dwellings, the ongoing housing intensification around Chessington South (the final stop on the line), the ongoing Signal Park, Tolworth major development, nor Taylor Wimpey’s 150-home scheme in Thames Ditton.

*  There are many other Claygate ‘interest groups’ who might be concerned at the potential consequences should Hook Park proceed.

*  There is a pressing need to find a solution to London’s property waiting lists, however, these are partly the result of inadequate public resources to invest in maintaining the existing residential base. Research undertaken by City Hall and published in mid-2023 found there were over 30,000 empty residential properties across London Boroughs (567 of them in RBKT), with an estimated market value at the time of £2.2billion. Existing landbanks held by the major housebuilders are sufficient to sustain historic levels of housebuilding well into the future. There was an historic political bias towards favouring the development of brownfield sites over consuming the Green Belt. Some commentators claim the shift in approach by the current Govt is purely so they can claim to be on track to achieve their targets for new residential building, and to keep the major housebuilders onboard, attracted by the greater profit margin from Green Belt developments.

*  Speeding and dangerous driving on Claygate’s roads is already of concern to many residents and may well become an even greater problem with increased traffic through the village.

*  Parts of Claygate’s road network are already judged dangerous by many, including sections of Hare Lane (notably near Raleigh Drive, between the junctions with The Avenue and The Parade, and as a result of the bus stop near Champion Timber), Oaken Lane (particularly near the Wingham Court Care Home and at the junction with The Avenue), through Old Claygate, and along Red Lane and the southern end of Woodstock Lane. Greater traffic will only increase the risk of a serious incident.

*  Tighter and wider parking restrictions may be required around Claygate station to mitigate the impacts of Hook Park residents driving to Claygate to use alternative train services.

*  The safety of children on their journeys to/from local schools and the Recreation Ground will be a major concern for many. Greater traffic levels call for additional investment in ensuring the safety of children, in particular. While this would likely be a public sector issue to mitigate for pupils of the state schools, it is possible this will be left to the private schools to propose and fund solutions to keep their pupils safe.

*  There has been no attempt by the developers to consider air quality impacts, or the effects on the local flora and fauna. It is suggested a legal requirement to consider the impact on Richmond Park and Wimbledon Common from rising population numbers in Kingston Borough have been ignored by RBKT and are not addressed by the developers.

*  The site is considered an important wildlife habitat and is part of a green corridor from Hook to Malden Rushett. There is a range of birdlife (e.g. red kites, buzzards, woodpeckers, sparrow hawks) and other animals (e.g. foxes, deer, hedgehogs, bats). The land enhances the visual appearance of the area and contributes significantly to residents' quality of life. For many years, local residents were able to access the fields for recreation, including dog-walking and children's play; this ended with the erection of security gates after an illegal occupation by travellers some years ago, but could easily be rectified by creating a pedestrian-only access point.

*  The five existing primary and three secondary RBKT schools likely to see pupil intake from Hook Park cater for an estimated 1,800 and 3,100 pupils respectively. Assuming a similar age breakdown to the existing population (UK Census), an additional 1,100 school places (+22%) would be needed to meet the needs of the increased population. While no immediate impacts for Claygate children are foreseen, it’s difficult to assess how the neighbouring schools within Elmbridge could be impacted in the future.

*  The developer is not proposing any new onsite healthcare facilities and instead expects the 5,000+ new residents to be served by existing GP practices in the surrounding area, including Claygate.

*  The proposed high-rise residential blocks incorporated into the plans, along with those already built / planned for the Signal Park development in Tolworth represent a departure from the style and nature of other residential properties in the area and no consideration has been given to the impacts this may have on the local community. The existing population density in Chessington is 34 people per acre (UK Census), versus at least 120 per acre for Hook Park.

*  Dog ownership is very popular amongst Claygate residents, and it is not unusual to see dogs let off the lead while being walked alongside roads, and/or being walked by a child. Additional traffic levels and noise may lead to distress for dogs and give rise to a serious incident.

*  While it is only a small proportion of Claygate residents who enjoy horse-riding on Claygate’s roads, it is a long-established feature of Claygate life and adds to the character of the village. As the volume of traffic using the same roads rises, so will the risk of a dangerous incident(s).

*  Cycling is a popular and beneficial activity for many Claygate residents. However, an increase in traffic volumes will only add to the potential for conflict between road users and the risk of a serious accident.

As already stated, it may become a political decision as to whether the Hook Park development is allowed to proceed and the strength of local objections may prove one of the most effective ways to influence the outcome.

 

Every concerned resident is asked to register their objection, to both Borough planning committees. The deadline for comments on the RBKT planning application falls just after Christmas, so we ask that comments be submitted by FRIDAY, 12th DECEMBER to be sure of these being considered.

News of the deadline for comments to Elmbridge Borough is awaited and will appear at the weblink posted in the Comments below. Also included is a link to the application on the RBKT website. Further weblinks are included to the developers website for the Hook Park development and the sites of local resident’s groups who are opposed to the development.

 

My objections  12.12.25

 

How can this application be assessed when the environmental documents are redacted. This contravenes the Biodiversity Checklist issued by the council. It also contravenes the CIEEM guidelines if any of the consultants are members of this professional body, which we cannot check. Who has requested the redaction, is it the consultants who are the same company as that chosen for the Cambridge Road Estate redevelopment and did not recognise the bat interest or apply the correct guideline surveys on a building when a bat roost is found. 'RBK recommends that PEA's follow the guidelines produced by the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM), which can be found here: https://cieem.net/resource/guidance-on-preliminary-ecological-appraisal-gpea' We cannot check whether the consultants have undertaken the surveys according to professional standards as we cannot read the methodology. We cannot check whether the mitigation proposed is appropriate as we cannot see the results. I am familiar with this site and there is a SINC within a short distance and a wetland feature not mentioned within the biodiversity checklist. I have had discussions with B. Morgan the former tree and landscape officer regarding the trees on this site.The levels of light pollution that will occur in the proposed development will destroy the biodiversity on this otherwise dark site. Bats, especially light shy species, will be repelled by the increase in lighting. Please supply under the Environmental Information Regulations unredacted reports including: Methodology: dates and times of surveys, weather conditions, equipment used, number of survey visits, qualifications of surveyors, adherence to CIEEM guidance (timing, minimum required visits, procedures when roosts suspected). Results: raw observations, species identified (even if just probable), evidence of roosts, maps showing exact locations of features/roosts and buffer zones. Mitigation: clear, measurable prescriptions (timing of works, licensing requirements if bats present, monitoring and trigger points), who will deliver them, and long-term management/monitoring. Lighting: predicted lux/vertical lux at habitat features, proposed shields/curfews/design measures, compliance with guidance for bats (dark corridors). Resolve the conflict with council checklist: where the documents do not satisfy the council Biodiversity Checklist items (list the missing checklist items). I also wish to see the Flood Risk Assessment and the Heritage Assessment