UPDATE: Southborough 3G Pitch - Object to Planning via Kingston Council: 26/01183/FUL

15 July 2026

Dear Stakeholder,

This message relates to the resubmitted Southborough High School's proposed development of a 3G Playing Pitch (backed by the football association) at Southborough Playing Fields, off Brook Road, Gladstone Road, Love Lane and Herne Road. 

As happened in December 2024, when this submission was first submitted and then subsequently withdrawn, again the planning process for the proposed 3G pitch at Southborough High School is unfolding in a manner that raises serious concerns about fairness and transparency: the application this time was validated on Monday 6 July 2026 but only made visible to the public on or about Friday 10 July 2024, leaving residents with minimal time to respond. With the neighbourhood consultation period closing on Thursday 9 July 2026, before most people were even aware of the application, and objections due by Thursday 30 July 2024, the process again seems designed to limit community engagement during the busy holiday season.

These concerns are shared widely, as evidenced by our petition.

It would be helpful if you can please urge the council to give proper consideration to the views of the community, who will bear the brunt of the proposed pitch’s impacts, including noise pollution, light pollution, environmental harm, and increased traffic.

You can submit your objection directly to the council here:

https://publicaccess.kingston.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=TG29EFNHH7E00

Thank you for reading this. 

Yours faithfully, 

Local Affected Residents

DRAFT EMAIL TO KINGSTON COUNCIL

We have drafted an email below, which you can amend in your own words: 

Dear Kingston Planning Department,

I am writing to strongly object to Southborough High School’s planning application (Ref. 26/01183/FUL) for the construction of a full-sized 3G sports pitch on its existing playing fields, located near Brook Road, Gladstone Road, Haycroft Road, Herne Road, Love Lane and surrounding areas in Surbiton. This proposal raises significant concerns for the local community, as outlined below, and is opposed by residents, as demonstrated in the petition linked here: 

Key Objections: 

1. Unsuitable for Residential Area: The proposed pitch is not appropriate for this quiet residential neighbourhood. A large 3G pitch, surrounded by a 4.5m metal fence and lit by 12m tall LED floodlights, will negatively impact the aesthetics, peace, and character of the area, which includes Brook Road, Gladstone Road, Love Lane, and surrounding streets.
2. Noise Pollution: Noise from 3G pitches is known to exceed acceptable levels set out in British Standards and WHO guidelines, particularly during evenings when the pitch is proposed to operate, every weekday (including public holidays) from 8.00am until 10:00 pm. The prolonged operating hours, seven days a week, will disturb local residents, particularly families with young children, and result in sleep disruption.
3. Light Pollution: The stadium-grade LED floodlights will cause excessive light spill, affecting nearby homes and natural circadian rhythms. Such lighting is disruptive to residents and harmful to local wildlife, especially nocturnal species.
4. Environmental Harm: The replacement of green space with a synthetic, non-recyclable pitch will destroy local biodiversity. Wildlife, including nesting birds and foxes, will be displaced or harmed. Furthermore, the pitch’s degradation over time will release microplastics into the environment, contributing to long-term ecological damage.
5. Increased Traffic and Pollution: The pitch’s commercial operation will bring significant additional traffic to the area, causing congestion and increased air pollution from idling vehicles. The plan to add parking will exacerbate these issues, with harmful effects on the health and safety of residents. In addition, as the parking in this revised application has been reduced this will lead to more traffic on side streets for drop offs and parking. Residents are already adversely impacted by traffic and rogue cars hitting residents’ cars leading to increased insurance premiums.
6. Application driven by commercial benefit (not school or community benefit): This proposal seems primarily driven by financial incentives, with commercial use prioritised over meaningful community benefit. Moreover, the development is being supported by the Football Association, which possesses significant financial resources. This creates an uneven playing field, leaving local residents at a disadvantage as they strive to protect their neighbourhood from a project that prioritises profit over the well-being of the community. There is no demonstrated community need for another 3G pitch, as several alternatives, including those at Tolworth Recreational Centre and Goals Tolworth, already exist within close proximity.
7. Inadequate Planning for Anti-Social Behaviour: Anti-social behaviour has been recorded in and around the area to local authorities, yet the application still provides insufficient provision for policing or monitoring the pitch during its commercial use. This raises concerns about the potential for further anti-social behaviour, which could impact the safety and well-being of local residents. No updated community use documentation was submitted.
8. Disregard for existing Restrictive Covenant: The current land use by the school was gifted with a restrictive covenant that the school has wilfully not addressed, even when approached about the matter. If approved this will be a nuisance or annoyance to respective owners or occupiers of land in the neighbourhood, which is in direct contravention of the restrictive covenant.

Concerns About the Planning Process

The planning process for this application appears to lack transparency and has limited meaningful community engagement. Under the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/595/contents, councils are required to ensure adequate consultation with affected residents and provide sufficient notice for public comments. However, in this case (26/01183/FUL):

• The revised application was validated on 6 July 20264 but not made publicly visible until 10 July 2026, after the consultation period had closed on 9 July 2026. This deprived residents of the opportunity to submit informed objections, violating the principles of fairness and meaningful consultation required by planning law.
• Letters were received on 14 July 2026 from council, which were sent by second class mail on 9 July 20226. Notices were only posted on the gates of the property on 14 July 2026. This doesn’t align with the required 21 days from display with respect to the objection submission date on council’s website of 30 July 2026
• It is noted that as of the date of this objection the next Surbiton Neighbourhood Committee meetings would be in September 2026 and the next Planning Committee Meeting would also be in September 2026, both of which are well after the objection’s submission date of 30 July 2026
• Holding the consultation period during a time when many are preoccupied with a very busy time of year, considering imminent summer holidays, further limits engagement. Such timing has been criticised in previous cases, including R (Kides) v South Cambridgeshire District Council [2002] EWCA Civ 1370, which emphasises the necessity for local authorities to re-consult or properly account for material changes that occur during the decision-making process. This case has been widely referenced in the context of ensuring procedural fairness in planning applications. Please see paragraph 121 of the judgment: "In my judgment, the officer's report should have fairly drawn members' attention to the new factor, namely the availability of alternative sites, and explained why, in his view, it made no difference to the outcome. The failure to do so rendered the decision-making process legally flawed."
• MacPherson v. City of Edinburgh Council & Ors [2002]: In this case, the court quashed a planning permission due to a material procedural irregularity in the neighbour notification process. The petitioner was not properly notified by name, which prejudiced their opportunity to object. The court held that such a failure rendered the planning consent voidable
• Planning law also emphasises the importance of genuine consultation, as clarified in R (Medway Council) v Secretary of State for Transport [2002] EWHC 2516 (Admin), which established that consultation must be conducted at a formative stage, allow adequate time for responses, and meaningfully consider those responses. By publishing the application late and effectively curtailing the consultation period, there is a clear risk that these principles may have been breached.

For the reasons above, I strongly urge Kingston Council to reject this planning application. The proposal prioritises commercial interests over the well-being of the local community and environment, making it wholly unsuitable for the area.

Thank you for your attention.