Kingston upon Thames planning statistics
Householder applications decided in the year to June 2026, compared with the rest of England.
How long does planning permission take in Kingston upon Thames?
Kingston upon Thames decided 79.9% of householder applications within 8 weeks without an extension in the year to June 2026, against 62.7% across England.
Kingston upon Thames is highlighted on the map. See on the map
Within 8 weeks, no extension
79.9%
39th of 297
17.2 points faster than England
Granted
83.0%
267th of 297
7.5 points lower than England
Extension of time
14.0%
32nd of 297
18.3 points lower than England
Decisions (12 months)
742
Kingston upon Thames decided 742 householder applications in the year to June 2026, granting 83.0%.
79.9% were decided within 8 weeks with no extension, against 62.7% across England (39th of 297 for speed).
A further 14.0% were decided under an extension of time agreed with the applicant.
Of 26 householder appeals decided in the same period, 57.7% were allowed.
How quickly decisions are made
Kingston upon Thames against England, share of householder decisions each quarter
- Within 8 weeks, no extension
- Extension of time
- England, within 8 weeks
Show data
| Quarter | Within 8 weeks, no extension | Extension of time | England, within 8 weeks |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 Q1 | 93.5% | 0.0% | 89.5% |
| 2008 Q2 | 93.6% | 0.0% | 89.4% |
| 2008 Q3 | 89.2% | 0.0% | 89.7% |
| 2008 Q4 | 91.7% | 0.0% | 90.3% |
| 2009 Q1 | 83.3% | 0.0% | 90.3% |
| 2009 Q2 | 92.9% | 0.0% | 91.7% |
| 2009 Q3 | 93.7% | 0.0% | 91.4% |
| 2009 Q4 | 83.0% | 0.0% | 91.0% |
| 2010 Q1 | 88.5% | 0.0% | 88.8% |
| 2010 Q2 | 79.7% | 0.0% | 89.8% |
| 2010 Q3 | 79.1% | 0.0% | 88.4% |
| 2010 Q4 | 81.8% | 0.0% | 87.7% |
| 2011 Q1 | 86.1% | 0.0% | 86.4% |
| 2011 Q2 | 86.8% | 0.0% | 85.9% |
| 2011 Q3 | 86.0% | 0.0% | 84.9% |
| 2011 Q4 | 93.1% | 0.0% | 84.9% |
| 2012 Q1 | 74.1% | 0.0% | 83.7% |
| 2012 Q2 | 81.6% | 0.0% | 84.2% |
| 2012 Q3 | 65.1% | 0.0% | 82.9% |
| 2012 Q4 | 84.5% | 0.0% | 85.2% |
| 2013 Q1 | 88.4% | 0.0% | 85.7% |
| 2013 Q2 | 85.4% | 0.0% | 86.3% |
| 2013 Q3 | 88.7% | 0.0% | 85.3% |
| 2013 Q4 | 79.2% | 0.0% | 86.3% |
| 2014 Q1 | 78.1% | 0.0% | 85.4% |
| 2014 Q2 | 83.0% | 0.0% | 84.9% |
| 2014 Q3 | 85.1% | 0.0% | 82.5% |
| 2014 Q4 | 77.7% | 0.0% | 82.1% |
| 2015 Q1 | 78.9% | 0.7% | 80.4% |
| 2015 Q2 | 72.7% | 10.7% | 80.6% |
| 2015 Q3 | 72.4% | 12.1% | 79.2% |
| 2015 Q4 | 85.0% | 9.3% | 80.0% |
| 2016 Q1 | 79.7% | 6.6% | 78.3% |
| 2016 Q2 | 85.0% | 4.0% | 79.8% |
| 2016 Q3 | 71.9% | 7.6% | 77.7% |
| 2016 Q4 | 76.3% | 11.7% | 78.0% |
| 2017 Q1 | 80.7% | 8.2% | 77.3% |
| 2017 Q2 | 86.1% | 9.8% | 78.5% |
| 2017 Q3 | 81.2% | 8.6% | 76.1% |
| 2017 Q4 | 78.5% | 11.9% | 77.1% |
| 2018 Q1 | 81.8% | 11.3% | 73.7% |
| 2018 Q2 | 82.7% | 8.7% | 74.0% |
| 2018 Q3 | 73.8% | 11.4% | 72.7% |
| 2018 Q4 | 54.5% | 10.0% | 72.7% |
| 2019 Q1 | 15.3% | 8.1% | 69.9% |
| 2019 Q2 | 40.3% | 23.4% | 72.1% |
| 2019 Q3 | 45.2% | 12.7% | 69.6% |
| 2019 Q4 | 44.8% | 36.5% | 71.5% |
| 2020 Q1 | 54.6% | 44.2% | 68.4% |
| 2020 Q2 | 61.2% | 36.9% | 63.9% |
| 2020 Q3 | 67.7% | 31.5% | 63.8% |
| 2020 Q4 | 71.9% | 27.1% | 65.3% |
| 2021 Q1 | 51.7% | 48.3% | 59.4% |
| 2021 Q2 | 58.9% | 36.9% | 58.4% |
| 2021 Q3 | 58.1% | 39.5% | 53.1% |
| 2021 Q4 | 57.6% | 39.4% | 53.0% |
| 2022 Q1 | 68.2% | 29.0% | 51.6% |
| 2022 Q2 | 76.7% | 20.2% | 56.0% |
| 2022 Q3 | 76.8% | 19.9% | 53.3% |
| 2022 Q4 | 76.7% | 20.7% | 54.1% |
| 2023 Q1 | 82.6% | 15.3% | 53.5% |
| 2023 Q2 | 85.2% | 11.2% | 58.5% |
| 2023 Q3 | 77.0% | 16.6% | 59.0% |
| 2023 Q4 | 85.8% | 9.2% | 59.8% |
| 2024 Q1 | 80.1% | 13.9% | 58.8% |
| 2024 Q2 | 80.6% | 11.4% | 64.4% |
| 2024 Q3 | 75.0% | 15.4% | 64.2% |
| 2024 Q4 | 67.0% | 28.5% | 65.6% |
| 2025 Q1 | 83.9% | 6.9% | 62.1% |
| 2025 Q2 | 85.7% | 8.2% | 65.0% |
| 2025 Q3 | 89.4% | 6.9% | 62.5% |
| 2025 Q4 | 63.9% | 31.9% | 64.7% |
| 2026 Q1 | 81.2% | 9.4% | 60.6% |
| 2026 Q2 | 83.1% | 10.1% | 62.7% |
Share of applications granted
Kingston upon Thames against England
- Kingston upon Thames
- England
Show data
| Quarter | Kingston upon Thames | England |
|---|---|---|
| 2008 Q1 | 79.0% | 85.1% |
| 2008 Q2 | 76.8% | 86.1% |
| 2008 Q3 | 79.2% | 86.3% |
| 2008 Q4 | 79.0% | 85.3% |
| 2009 Q1 | 84.8% | 85.9% |
| 2009 Q2 | 67.4% | 86.8% |
| 2009 Q3 | 68.4% | 87.4% |
| 2009 Q4 | 76.4% | 86.9% |
| 2010 Q1 | 79.2% | 87.0% |
| 2010 Q2 | 75.9% | 88.0% |
| 2010 Q3 | 84.8% | 87.7% |
| 2010 Q4 | 82.2% | 87.5% |
| 2011 Q1 | 78.1% | 87.9% |
| 2011 Q2 | 77.3% | 88.5% |
| 2011 Q3 | 84.5% | 88.3% |
| 2011 Q4 | 83.6% | 88.3% |
| 2012 Q1 | 83.8% | 88.2% |
| 2012 Q2 | 84.1% | 89.2% |
| 2012 Q3 | 82.7% | 89.0% |
| 2012 Q4 | 82.6% | 88.9% |
| 2013 Q1 | 84.4% | 89.8% |
| 2013 Q2 | 86.6% | 90.6% |
| 2013 Q3 | 77.9% | 90.3% |
| 2013 Q4 | 75.5% | 89.6% |
| 2014 Q1 | 71.2% | 89.8% |
| 2014 Q2 | 66.4% | 90.5% |
| 2014 Q3 | 66.0% | 90.0% |
| 2014 Q4 | 74.2% | 89.2% |
| 2015 Q1 | 71.1% | 89.3% |
| 2015 Q2 | 81.0% | 90.2% |
| 2015 Q3 | 90.5% | 90.0% |
| 2015 Q4 | 84.6% | 89.2% |
| 2016 Q1 | 87.1% | 90.0% |
| 2016 Q2 | 85.0% | 90.3% |
| 2016 Q3 | 76.8% | 90.2% |
| 2016 Q4 | 78.0% | 89.7% |
| 2017 Q1 | 84.8% | 89.9% |
| 2017 Q2 | 85.7% | 90.5% |
| 2017 Q3 | 83.1% | 90.0% |
| 2017 Q4 | 80.4% | 90.1% |
| 2018 Q1 | 86.5% | 90.5% |
| 2018 Q2 | 84.4% | 91.0% |
| 2018 Q3 | 89.3% | 91.2% |
| 2018 Q4 | 87.4% | 90.5% |
| 2019 Q1 | 87.9% | 90.3% |
| 2019 Q2 | 94.8% | 91.0% |
| 2019 Q3 | 90.0% | 90.6% |
| 2019 Q4 | 84.4% | 89.8% |
| 2020 Q1 | 90.4% | 89.9% |
| 2020 Q2 | 87.4% | 90.2% |
| 2020 Q3 | 78.3% | 90.6% |
| 2020 Q4 | 82.3% | 90.3% |
| 2021 Q1 | 80.2% | 90.9% |
| 2021 Q2 | 81.5% | 91.2% |
| 2021 Q3 | 81.4% | 91.0% |
| 2021 Q4 | 77.0% | 90.1% |
| 2022 Q1 | 71.6% | 90.0% |
| 2022 Q2 | 77.0% | 90.4% |
| 2022 Q3 | 75.6% | 89.8% |
| 2022 Q4 | 82.8% | 89.4% |
| 2023 Q1 | 75.7% | 89.3% |
| 2023 Q2 | 80.7% | 89.2% |
| 2023 Q3 | 76.6% | 88.6% |
| 2023 Q4 | 72.5% | 88.2% |
| 2024 Q1 | 74.5% | 88.2% |
| 2024 Q2 | 78.2% | 89.1% |
| 2024 Q3 | 77.1% | 89.4% |
| 2024 Q4 | 77.1% | 88.6% |
| 2025 Q1 | 77.1% | 89.3% |
| 2025 Q2 | 83.1% | 90.4% |
| 2025 Q3 | 81.9% | 90.1% |
| 2025 Q4 | 83.7% | 90.1% |
| 2026 Q1 | 79.0% | 90.6% |
| 2026 Q2 | 87.0% | 91.0% |
How long decisions took
Householder decisions over the last 12 months
- Within 8 weeks79.9%
- 8 to 13 weeks5.0%
- 13 to 26 weeks0.9%
- Over 26 weeks0.1%
- Extension of time agreed14.0%
Show data
| Time taken | Decisions |
|---|---|
| Within 8 weeks | 593 |
| 8 to 13 weeks | 37 |
| 13 to 26 weeks | 7 |
| Over 26 weeks | 1 |
| Extension of time agreed | 104 |
Appeals
- Decided
- 26
- Allowed
- 57.7%
- Median wait
- 10 weeks
Householder appeals to the Planning Inspectorate decided in the same 12 months. England: 34.4% allowed.
Refusals overturned at appeal
6.8% of refusals were later overturned at appeal (July 2021 to June 2026): 70 appeals allowed against 1,033 refusals.
78th lowest of 299 planning authorities. England: 8.9% (July 2021 to June 2026).
Householder refusals from MHCLG table PS2; appeals allowed from the Planning Inspectorate. Approximate: appeals decided in the period, which can relate to earlier refusals.
Larger home extensions (prior approval)
Single-storey rear extensions deeper than 4 metres on a detached house (3 metres otherwise), up to 8 metres (6 metres), can use prior approval instead of a planning application, except in conservation areas, National Landscapes and other protected areas.
Of 56 larger extension notifications between July 2025 and June 2026, 34 needed no approval, 2 were approved and 20 were refused.
Where Kingston upon Thames had to decide, it refused 20 of 22 (90.9%), against 56.1% across England (2,210 of 3,939 decided).
Figures as first published (provisional).
MHCLG live table PDR 1.
Enforcement
0 planning enforcement notices issued in the year to June 2026.
0.00 per 1,000 homes, against 0.17 across England. 1st lowest of 294 planning authorities.
Covers all types of development, not only extensions.
MHCLG table P130; homes from the VOA Council Tax stock of properties.
Protected areas
28 conservation areas: CADOGAN ROAD CONSERVATION AREA, CHRIST CHURCH CONSERVATION AREA, CLAREMONT ROAD CONSERVATION AREA, COOMBE HILL CONSERVATION AREA, COOMBE HOUSE CONSERVATION AREA, COOMBE WOOD CONSERVATION AREA, FAIRFIELD/KNIGHTS PARK CONSERV AREA, FISHPONDS PARK CONSERVATION AREA, GROVE CRESCENT CONSERVATION AREA, KINGSTON HILL CONSERVATION AREA, KINGSTON OLD TOWN CONSERVATION AREA, KINGSTON VALE CONSERVATION AREA and 16 more.
45 Article 4 areas: Ace of Spades, Alexandra Drive, Barwell Business Park A4D area, Berrylands Road, Burlington Road, Cambridge Road (Nos.15-25), Cambridge Road (Nos.31-35), Canbury Park LSIS A4D area, Chessington North, Chessington SIL A4D area, Chiltern Drive, Coombe Road and 33 more.
Both can remove permitted development rights, so check with the council before relying on them. Permitted development rules
To check one postcode for a conservation area, listed buildings nearby, flood zone and radon, use the address check.
planning.data.gov.uk.
Builders
800 registered building and trade firms in 2026, 11.3 per 1,000 homes, about 0.9 householder decisions per firm a year.
100th highest of 294 planning authorities. England median: 10.1 per 1,000 homes and 0.5 decisions per firm.
Counts VAT or PAYE registered firms only, rounded to 5 by ONS; self-employed builders below the VAT threshold aren't included.
ONS UK Business Counts; homes from the VOA Council Tax stock of properties; decisions from MHCLG table PS2.
Compared with neighbouring councils
Decisions and approvals in the year to June 2026; overturns over each council's appeal window; builders per 1,000 homes in 2026.
Decided within 8 weeks, no extension
- Kingston upon Thames79.9%
- Elmbridge54.7%
- Epsom and Ewell87.8%
- Mole Valley43.0%
- Merton39.9%
- Richmond upon Thames70.9%
- Sutton91.2%
- Wandsworth61.1%
- England62.7%
Granted
- Kingston upon Thames83.0%
- Elmbridge81.0%
- Epsom and Ewell86.9%
- Mole Valley76.6%
- Merton92.9%
- Richmond upon Thames83.3%
- Sutton91.8%
- Wandsworth91.9%
- England90.5%
Refusals overturned at appeal
- Kingston upon Thames6.8%
- Elmbridge9.2%
- Epsom and Ewell9.0%
- Mole Valley7.4%
- Merton7.8%
- Richmond upon Thames11.2%
- Sutton8.0%
- Wandsworth14.5%
- England8.9%
Registered building firms per 1,000 homes
- Kingston upon Thames11.3
- Elmbridge11.5
- Epsom and Ewell14.8
- Mole Valley14.2
- Merton14.5
- Richmond upon Thames7.9
- Sutton17.1
- Wandsworth5.0
- England median10.1
Questions about planning in Kingston upon Thames
How long does planning permission take in Kingston upon Thames?
Kingston upon Thames decided 79.9% of householder applications within 8 weeks without an extension in the year to June 2026, against 62.7% across England.
Is my house in a conservation area in Kingston upon Thames?
28 conservation areas: CADOGAN ROAD CONSERVATION AREA, CHRIST CHURCH CONSERVATION AREA, CLAREMONT ROAD CONSERVATION AREA, COOMBE HILL CONSERVATION AREA, COOMBE HOUSE CONSERVATION AREA, COOMBE WOOD CONSERVATION AREA, FAIRFIELD/KNIGHTS PARK CONSERV AREA, FISHPONDS PARK CONSERVATION AREA, GROVE CRESCENT CONSERVATION AREA, KINGSTON HILL CONSERVATION AREA, KINGSTON OLD TOWN CONSERVATION AREA, KINGSTON VALE CONSERVATION AREA and 16 more. Most councils publish a conservation area map showing whether a street is inside one.
How many builders are there in Kingston upon Thames?
800 registered building and trade firms in 2026, 11.3 per 1,000 homes, about 0.9 householder decisions per firm a year. Counts VAT or PAYE registered firms only, rounded to 5 by ONS; self-employed builders below the VAT threshold aren't included.
Do I need planning permission for an extension in Kingston upon Thames?
Many extensions can be built under permitted development without an application, but conservation areas and Article 4 directions can remove those rights, so check whether your address is in a conservation area or covered by an Article 4 direction before relying on them. Do you need planning permission?
Property prices and energy performance in Kingston upon Thames
Homes sold July 2023 to June 2026, matched to the floor area and energy rating on their Energy Performance Certificate.
Median price per m²
£6,667
5,168 sales
In line with London
Homes sold rated EPC A to C
41.7%
Median energy score 66
6.0 points below London
Value added by extending, per m²
£3,774
21.4% on the sale price
14% above London
Energy upgrade, no extension
+2.5%
Sale-price uplift when the energy score rose 5+ points
In line with London
The median home sold in Kingston upon Thames was £565,000 for 83 m² of floor space. Price per m² is up 19% since 2015 (£5,673 to £6,736 per m², 2025). Across all 53,353 homes with a certificate, 46.7% are rated A to C on their latest one.
416 houses here were extended between two sales (second sale 2016 to 2026), adding a median 33 m². They sold for a median 21.4% more than similar unextended houses, £3,774 for each m² added. Will an extension pay for itself here?
Medians from HM Land Registry sale prices and MHCLG Energy Performance Certificates; groups under 30 sales or 50 extended houses are not shown. These describe past sales across many homes, not a valuation of any one. How these are worked out
Next steps for your extension
Get new blog posts by email
One email each time we publish a new post on project managing your build. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.