Kingstonian's New Stadium: The Surbiton Search Is Moving Forward

Two months after our Surbiton report, something has changed

When The Pyramid examined Kingstonian's long search for a permanent home in July, one part of the story could not be found in a planning application or club announcement. Based on information from a source familiar with the discussions who spoke on condition of anonymity, we reported that a potential site in Surbiton was under discussion. We did not identify the location more precisely because the project had not been announced and the discussions remained confidential.

Kingstonian still have not named the site. There is, however, now considerably more public evidence that a live stadium project exists behind those discussions. On 25 September, the club announced Guildford-based Quarry Architects as its new main shirt sponsor, and buried inside the commercial announcement was a more significant disclosure: Kingstonian said it had been working closely with Quarry "on all aspects of planning regarding our proposed new ground in the Borough for some time now."

Chairman George Vasilaras said he had been working closely with Quarry director Richard Wilkinson on the proposed stadium, while Wilkinson went further, describing the prospect of Kingstonian eventually playing in a new ground for which Quarry had helped obtain planning permission and contributed to the design and construction.

The sponsorship and the professional relationship are therefore intertwined. Quarry has not arrived merely as a company putting its name on the shirt; it is already involved in the stadium project. For a club without its own ground since leaving Kingsmeadow in 2017, that represents a more substantive development than another statement that the search continues.

It does not mean planning permission has been obtained, funding has been secured or construction is imminent, and there is no public stadium application identifying the site. What Quarry's involvement establishes is narrower but important: Kingstonian have progressed from looking for possible locations to carrying out professional planning work on a proposed ground.

Hawker was the previous attempt, not the current one

The distinction matters because Kingstonian have been here before. In July 2024, the club announced that a project manager had identified several potential stadium locations and that an architect had drawn plans for one of them, which had been presented to the site's leaseholder and Kingston Council.

That project subsequently became clearer. Kingstonian confirmed in September 2024 that they had spent approximately 18 months negotiating with YMCA over the possibility of developing a stadium at the Hawker Centre. Kingston Council had advised the club that June to submit a pre-planning proposal, but YMCA subsequently decided not to proceed, and the Hawker project was effectively over.

The architectural work disclosed in 2024 should therefore not be assumed to be the project Quarry is working on today. After Hawker failed, Kingstonian moved on to alternative locations and met senior council officers to discuss the way forward.

By April this year, the club was describing "slow but steady progress" towards a permanent ground in the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames, while explaining that confidentiality agreements and the requirements of the planning process prevented fuller disclosure. Vasilaras said supporters should expect a detailed update between June and the start of the season in August, followed by another between December 2026 and February 2027. That summer update did not arrive in the form supporters might have expected; instead, September brought the Quarry announcement and the first public identification of the architects working on the current project.

The sequence is significant. Hawker failed, alternative sites were considered, a new project progressed confidentially, and a named architectural practice is now confirmed to be working on its planning. Kingstonian have not disclosed enough to establish how advanced that work is, but the current position is materially different from simply maintaining a list of possible sites.

The location remains the missing piece.

What we know about Surbiton

The Pyramid's July reporting that a potential site in Surbiton was under discussion came from a source familiar with those discussions who spoke on condition of anonymity. Nothing Kingstonian has subsequently announced identifies the site, so that reporting should not be extended beyond what the source established.

One location has separately circulated publicly among Kingstonian supporters: Surbiton Town Sports Club at River Hill Estate in Worcester Park. It is an established sports site and has itself become the subject of further development proposals, with a planning application submitted this year seeking permission for six padel courts with lighting, fencing and canopies, together with a clubhouse and cycle parking. There is no documentary evidence currently connecting that application to Kingstonian or Quarry Architects.

That leaves a deliberately narrow position. The Pyramid reported that a potential site in Surbiton was under discussion. Kingstonian have subsequently confirmed that architects are working on planning for a proposed new stadium. Whether those two pieces of information concern the same place cannot currently be established from public documents — and if Quarry's work ultimately produces a formal planning application, the location and much of the project's structure should become considerably clearer.

From five groundshares to one final move?

The urgency behind the project is easier to understand against Kingstonian's recent history. The club left Kingsmeadow in 2017 and has since moved through a succession of groundshares while trying to find a route back to the borough: Leatherhead, Corinthian-Casuals, Tooting & Mitcham United, Raynes Park Vale and now Ashford Town.

The Ashford agreement was announced in March and initially covers two seasons, taking Kingstonian through 2027/28. Vasilaras has described the move in unusually definitive terms, telling supporters in April that, subject to obtaining the necessary planning permission, the board's intention was that Ashford would be Kingstonian's last groundshare before moving into its own ground.

That ambition creates a demanding development timetable. A permanent stadium requires site control, design, planning, funding and construction, and the club has not publicly announced completion of any of the decisive stages. Quarry's involvement establishes that planning work is happening, but it does not establish whether Kingstonian are in early pre-application discussions, preparing a submission or substantially further through the process.

The initial two-year Ashford agreement should therefore not automatically be read as a stadium opening deadline. It establishes the club's current ground arrangement and the board's intention; planning and construction will determine when another move can take place.

The Kingsmeadow money can fund the process, not the stadium

Kingstonian's search carries an unusual financial history, because the club once had the asset it is now trying to recreate.

Kingstonian built Kingsmeadow in 1989, but the ground was subsequently separated from the football club during one of the most damaging periods in its history. When the lease was sold in 2003 for £2.4m, the proceeds went to the club's then owners rather than providing Kingstonian with the capital base for another stadium. AFC Wimbledon later acquired Kingsmeadow and, when it sold the ground to Chelsea in 2016, agreed to pay Kingstonian approximately £1m, most of which was ringfenced towards establishing a permanent home.

That fund has inevitably been drawn upon since. In July 2024, Kingstonian explained that expenditure was required both to support groundsharing and to progress the stadium project, saying the proposed withdrawal would leave approximately £550,000 in escrow with a further £50,000 expected to be matched against grant support. The development expenditure identified included surveys, architects, project-management fees, legal work and planning costs — which is the important distinction when assessing what remains. The Kingsmeadow money is capable of financing the expensive work required to turn a potential site into a deliverable proposal, but it should not be confused with a construction budget.

There has been no subsequent public disclosure allowing the current balance to be calculated. Kingstonian FC Limited's latest statutory accounts, for the year to 31 May 2025, are filed as micro-company accounts and do not provide sufficient detail to reconstruct the ringfenced fund or establish how much has since been spent. The £550,000 is therefore the last disclosed position following the club's proposed 2024 withdrawals, not a current cash figure.

Quarry's involvement suggests some of that development process is now happening. It does not answer how Kingstonian will finance what comes afterwards. A permanent non-league stadium would require a much larger capital package than the last disclosed escrow balance, potentially combining grants, fundraising, commercial arrangements, contributions from a land or development partner and other financing — and the structure will depend heavily on the site. If Kingstonian acquire or control land directly and build the ground themselves, the club could be creating a substantial long-term asset. A partnership with an existing landowner or sports organisation could reduce the upfront requirement but produce a different ownership outcome. A long lease could provide security without giving Kingstonian the underlying property.

That is why the location matters financially as well as geographically. Supporters have spent years waiting for Kingstonian to have a home again, but where the club plays and what the club actually owns are not necessarily the same question. Until the site and proposed property structure are disclosed, the remaining Kingsmeadow money is best understood as capital capable of advancing the project rather than evidence that the stadium itself is funded.

Quarry changes the stage of the story

For much of Kingstonian's post-Kingsmeadow history, the stadium story has consisted of possible sites, negotiations and schemes that ultimately failed. The club has repeatedly had to bridge the gap between wanting a permanent ground and having a project capable of being planned, financed and built.

Quarry's involvement does not bridge that gap by itself, but it provides an identifiable professional counterparty working on the current proposal. The practice says it has experience in sports facilities and schools, while Wilkinson's comments specifically refer to obtaining planning permission and contributing to design and construction rather than merely assessing whether a stadium might be possible.

There are still several stages at which the project could fail. Site control, planning, financing and construction all remain material hurdles, and Hawker demonstrates how far a project can progress before the party controlling the land decides not to proceed. The difference now is that there is enough public evidence to say Kingstonian are not simply searching for possible land — professional planning work is taking place on a proposed new ground.

Our earlier reporting places a potential Surbiton site within the club's search. It does not establish that Quarry is working on that site. The next public documents should begin to close that gap.

Why it matters

Kingstonian's ground problem is unusual even by non-league standards because the club once had the asset it is now trying to recreate. Kingsmeadow was built for Kingstonian, subsequently changed hands while the football club became increasingly detached from it, and eventually ceased to be the club's home. The later payment from AFC Wimbledon provided capital intended to help establish another permanent base, but almost a decade after leaving Kingsmeadow the process remains unfinished.

A successful project would therefore do more than bring Kingstonian matches back to the borough. Depending on its structure, it could restore a permanent asset base to a club that has spent years paying to use other clubs' grounds.

The ownership structure will determine how complete that restoration actually is. A Kingstonian-controlled stadium on secure land would be fundamentally different from another tenancy, even if that tenancy provided greater permanence than the club's existing groundshares. The eventual freehold, lease or development agreement is consequently almost as important as the identity of the site.

Quarry's involvement is the clearest public evidence since our July investigation that the current proposal has moved into professional planning work. The next disclosures will tell us whether that work can be converted into a deliverable and financeable stadium.

What to watch

The site. Once the location is public, its ownership, planning history, physical constraints and potential development structure can be examined properly.

A planning application. That would provide the first detailed public view of what Kingstonian actually propose: capacity, stands, facilities, access, parking, community use and the construction footprint. Quarry's involvement tells us planning work is underway, not how close the club is to submission.

Funding. The remaining ringfenced Kingsmeadow money can support development work, but Kingstonian have not disclosed a complete construction financing package. Any grant applications, landowner contribution, development partnership or new investment will be significant.

Ownership. Whether Kingstonian own the eventual stadium, hold a long lease or occupy a facility controlled by another organisation will determine whether the project genuinely recreates the permanent asset base lost with Kingsmeadow.

In July, the question was whether Kingstonian were finally getting their own ground again. The evidence has moved on since then: Quarry's involvement establishes that professional planning work is taking place, while Vasilaras's description of Ashford as the intended final groundshare gives the project a clearer direction than Kingstonian have had for some time.

The decisive evidence is still to come. A named site will tell us what Kingstonian are trying to build and on whose land. A planning application will show whether the scheme is deliverable. And a funding package will tell us whether the remaining Kingsmeadow money can be turned from development capital into the permanent asset the club has spent nearly a decade trying to replace.