Mixed-use redevelopment at Legal And General Kingswood House, Kingswood

“The proposal also includes excavation works to create accommodation and car parking at basement level; refurbishment of the existing indoor swimming pool and new outdoor swimming pool; new access from St Monicas Road; and associated parking, engineering and drainage works throughout the site and landscape and biodiversity enhancements including the retention of the meadow / open space to the east of Legal & General House and new play area.”

“Planning Committee Agenda Item: 5 9 th September 2026 26/00463/F and 26/00464/LBC Lane, and to the west and south by properties fronting onto Furze Hill and St Monica’s Road. To the east lies open countryside with the boundary of the Area of Great Landscape Value lying to the east of Legal and General house (L & G House). The boundary to the proposed extension of the Surrey Hills National Landscape area is located approximately 1km to the east of the site.”

“The site was in office use until December 2017 and has since then been vacant with only a security presence on site. Legal and General House is a grade II* listed building formerly a headquarters office building but vacant since 2017. A locally listed building St Monica’s is also part of the scheme. Full details of the listed building and St Monica’s House are set out in section 1 of the report.”

“Conclusion: “We are not convinced that the HIA has ‘examined whether the proposal represents the least harmful means of delivering the building’s reuse while sustaining its architectural, spatial and landscape significance’, as per part 6.65 of the Planning Statement, or that this application represents the least harmful means of delivering said reuse.”

“Overall, we hold strong concerns with this application, due to the degree of harmful alteration proposed in comparison to the consented scheme. We object to this listed building consent application as we are concerned that this scheme would compromise the more than special interest of this Grade II*-listed building. We are not convinced that this scheme represents the least harmful means of delivering the building’s sustainable reuse.”

“To date 10 representations have been received in relation to the full application, 3 in support, 3 representations and 4 objections. 9 representations have been received in relation to the listed building consent application including 3 representations and 6 objections.”

“Alternative location/ proposal preferred See paragraph 6.6-6.34 Drainage/sewerage and flooding See paragraph 6.77-6.78 Harm to Conservation Area and Heritage Assets See paragraph 6.20-6.28 Out of character with surrounding area See paragraph 6.29-6.30 Overdevelopment Harm to the Green Belt/Countryside Significant traffic increases causing congestions and highways safety issues Inadequate parking Harm to Wildlife Loss of/harm to trees Harm to neighbours amenities through…”

“Members felt that the application offered suitable accommodation in the north of the borough. The Committee concurred that the construction traffic management plan was essential. In terms of the management of the public open space, a management fee would be charged to residents.”

“With regards to affordable housing, it was acknowledged that the site was not viable for providing this type of accommodation, this had been assessed by independent consultants. This was disappointing for members of the Committee.”

“A) Planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions as per the recommendation and addendum changes, and subject to S106 and Secretary of State call in. Plus, an additional informative to application A to ask for details of fire safety for the cycle stores (condition 58)”

“B) Listed Building Consent is GRANTED subject to conditions.”