The Motspur Park Gas Holders will be familiar to anyone who lives in or
travels through the Motspur Park area. They are visible for a
considerable distance away. They've been out of use for some years now,
as gas is no longer stored here, and in common with other similar sites
around London, it's being redeveloped.
The development plan was rejected by Kingston Council, but this was called in by the Mayor of London, and it was approved following the hearing on 21 July 2026.
Here's the site:
The planning documents for the development are here:
https://publicaccess.kingston.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=T3HWRUNHJXJ00
We're only commenting on the transport aspects.
This is a relatively low-car (but not zero car) development with
586 dwellings and 89 surface-level car parking spaces. The surface area
occupied by this car parking is significant, and could be used for other
purposes such as to reduce the overall height of buildings, provide
more housing, or provide attractive public realm. We'd estimate the
population to be somewhere around 1000 - 1500 people. So one car per 15
people on average. It is unclear how car parking spaces are allocated.
Will there be cars that are parked but seldom used, or used for short
journeys that have a viable public transport/active travel alternative, or will parking spaces be reserved for people with a genuine need? It seems likely that most
journeys by residents won't be done by car, so how will these be made?
The very poor Public Transport Access Level (PTAL) points to active travel as the quickest way to do
most relatively local journeys, yet there's no meaningful assessment of this in the planning documents. There's no mention of hire bikes (Lime, Forest) or cargo bikes.
Looking at the most important documents:
Car Park Management Plan:
The Proposed Development is residential comprising 586 homes inclusive of 35%
affordable units, by habitable room.
There are 89 car spaces, = 0.15 spaces per dwelling, inclusive of 18 blue badge bays. So it's low-car, but not zero-car, plus 4 loading bays and 3 car club bays
So that's 71 general bays in total...
Bays are next to the railway track.
It is unclear where visitors park.
No motor access from the north entrance, this is pedestrian/cycle only.
Motor entrance is only from
Kingshill Avenue to the south of the development, which will serve
as the only vehicular access into the development.
Retained and improved access from West Barnes Lane for pedestrians, cyclists and emergency
vehicles; there's new access from Marina Avenue for pedestrians, cyclists and emergency vehicles
No restriction on ownership of/parking of is proposed. So large SUVs are treated the same as small cars, it appears.
There is no mention of hire bike parking, motorcycles, or electric bike charging in this document.
There
is no mention we can see of restrictions on vehicle ownership by
residents, which means that residents could potentially own a vehicle
and park it offsite e.g. in neighbouring roads (which are currently not CPZs (Controlled Parking Zones).
Public Transport Access Level (PTAL):
(PTAL is used to assess how easy it is to get around by public transport)
PTAL in this area is very poor by London standards (officially PTAL of 0-1b - very
poor and poor respectively). To get to Kingston you have to change
trains at Raynes Park, or walk to Worcester Park to get the SL7/213 buses.
Buses:
The K5 bus takes absolutely ages to get anywhere, has a frequency of 2 per hour, and doesn't run Sundays.
Rail:
Table 3.1 Rail Service Summary – Worcester Park / Motspur Park
Destination Approx. Journey Time Approx. Peak Hour
Frequency
from Motspur Park:
Chessington South 14 minutes Every 30 minutes
London Waterloo 25 minutes Every 10 minutes
Dorking 31 minutes Every 30 minutes
Guildford 49 minutes Every two hours
from Worcester Park:
London Waterloo 28 minutes Every 10 minutes
Dorking 28 minutes Every 30 minutes
So cycling should be a very attractive mode.
P16 : "The A2043 [Malden Rd] also benefits from a high-quality public realm" - really ??
P19 :
Looking at the cycle facilities on surrounding roads:
Motspur
Park cycle lanes are advisory and have no parking restrictions. Central
islands are a hazard as the general traffic lane width past these is
inadequate.
North of Blakes Ave the northbound lane becomes compulsory with double-yellow lines.
Compliance with the 20mph limit is likely poor as no effective traffic calming.
Junction with Claremont Ave is complex and dangerous.
Motspur
Park itself (W Barnes Lane) is not pleasant to cycle along, parking
spaces proving a hazard and
width is generally inadequate . There are no cycle facilities north of
the Claremont Ave junction. Cycle routes towards Raynes Park and
Wimbledon are poor, with difficult crossings, mixed surfaces and
inconsistent levels of safety. The area generally lacks a cycle route
network of reasonable quality.
Add into the mix
the new development at Tesco New Malden, that's 2 large new low-car
developments, with very poor PTAL, yet no attempt to serve residents
with a usable cycle network.
There's a need to
formally allow cycling through the Joseph Hood playing fields site.
People should be able to cycle from Marina Ave to Green Lane...access
rights are unclear at the moment (the eastern track has a sealed surface
and has reasonable width, but is signed as a "footpath"), there are
inaccessible chicane barriers, and the path between the horse fields is a
dirt track that gets very muddy in winter/wet weather.
Caverley
Way does have a modal filter so would likely make a good route to Worcester Park.
However Green Lane (between Worcester Park and Kingshill Ave) is
impossible to avoid, is quite busy, and the narrowings are problematic
for cyclists, creating conflict and danger. This really needs a
re-think.
P20 - NCN 208 is difficult to get to and difficult to navigate. It doesn't go to Wimbledon Station.
Is
Blakes Lane a rat-run? This is the cycle route to Coombe Boys school.
Looking at the anti-parking bollards around the school, there must be a
significant problem with school-run traffic, which should likely be
addressed with traffic reduction measures.
Residential Travel Plan
This document has a
"boilerplate" feel to it: it does not seem that much thought has gone
into the practical obstacles to cycle travel. As far as we are aware,
London Cycling Campaign has not been approached for information or
advice about the practicalities of the cycle facilities listed on P19.
There is no mention of the fact that the main issue that prevents people
from cycling is fear of motor traffic, or any assessment of the safety
level of any routes.
P6:
"Cycle parking is
provided in line with London Plan Standards and provides a total of 1035 long-stay cycle parking
spaces for residents, and a total of 28 short-stay spaces for visitors."
There's
no indication of where this parking is located, or how security is
achieved. No indication of how many non-standard bikes are provided for
(cargo bikes, trikes, etc.).
No mention of electric bikes, which are increasingly popular, or the need for charging facilities for these.
No
mention of hire bike parking (Lime, Forest, etc.). Our sense is that
~50% of cycle journeys are make on hire bikes, so this is a major
omission.
