Planning application · Lambeth
24/02771/FUL.
Full / Other Planning at 9 Park Hill London SW4 9NS, received 3 Sep 2024 — refused on 1 May 2026 (delegated, Eloise Kiernan).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationLambeth profile →
Refused
Outcome
1 May 2026
86 wks
Decision time
78 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
48
Documents
48 linked
0
Objections
0 in support
No
Appeal
none recorded
Record from the Lambeth planning register as captured; documents link to the council's own files. Nearby applications are context, not part of this application.
Application
What is it?
Mixed-use redevelopment comprising : Block A = Demolition of the building and erection of a 3 storey building to provide 6 commercial units of 452.1sqm (Use Class E(g)); Block B = Refurbishment of the 228.1sqm commercial building involving the erection of a roof extension and retention of Abbey House (Use Class C3); Block C = Demolition of the building and erection of 5 storey mixed use building to provide 3 commercial units of 357.2sqm (Use Class E(g)) at ground floor and 12 residential units (Use Class C3) on the upper floors; Block D = Erection of 3 storey building to provide 6 x 1 bed residential units (Use Class C3); Block E = Refurbishment/retention of the building with 7 residential u
Reference
24/02771/FUL
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SW4 9NS
Council
Received
3 Sep 2024
Validated
15 Nov 2024
Target date
1 May 2026
Decision date
1 May 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
24/02771/FUL
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SW4 9NS
Council
Received
3 Sep 2024
Validated
15 Nov 2024
Target date
1 May 2026
Decision date
1 May 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Show all 10 rows
Documents open on the Lambeth portal (the portal needs its documents tab opened first — the link handles that). View the application page ↗
Decision
What happened?
Refused on 1 May 2026, delegated decision by Eloise Kiernan — 86 weeks from submission (78 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
3 Sep 2024
Application received
15 Nov 2024
Application validated
1 May 2026
Statutory target date
1 May 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Eloise Kiernan
3 Sep 2024
Application received
15 Nov 2024
Application validated
1 May 2026
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
1 May 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Eloise Kiernan
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed development would materially harm the future vitality and viability of the Clapham Park Hill
Key Industrial and Business Area, which amongst other things aims to protect land in Class E g uses usually
associated with industrial areas such as builders' yards, haulage, employment-training, bus garages and
telecommunications. The residential intensification of the site and loss of any additional industrial floorspace and/or
land would essentially end any prospects of industrial intensification of this site and future viability, which still
remains a feasible option at this time. The Clapham Park Hill KIBA continues to be viable prospect to help provide
and Lambeth's strategic supply of business, industrial, and storage functions and therefore very limited weight is
given to the residential development that has occurred within the KIBA. The proposals are thereby contrary to the
stated aims and objectives of Policy ED3 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and Policies E4, E6 and E7 of the
London Plan (2021).
2
Insufficient and inadequate viability information has been submitted and therefore the proposed
development has failed to demonstrate that the quantum proposed is the maximum reasonable provision of on-site
affordable housing the development can deliver. This is contrary to Policies D4 and H2 of the Lambeth Local Plan
(2021), H4 and H5 of the London Plan (2021), Lambeth's Development Viability SPD (2018), the Mayor's
Affordable Housing and Viability SPG (2017) and Lambeth's SHMA (2017).
3
The proposed development does not provide a policy compliant range of dwelling sizes and types for both
the market and affordable housing element of the proposal and does not provide a preferred tenure split of
affordable units. The Council would require a better range of types and sizes of units in accordance with adopted
policies, particularly in terms of the affordable housing element. The proposal would therefore fail to meet current
and future housing needs that are necessary for creating mixed and balanced communities, which is contrary to
Policy H4 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and Policy H6 of the London Plan (2021) and Lambeth's SHMA
(2017).
4
The proposed five-storey building (Block C), by reason of its height, scale and massing would fail to remain
subordinate in its backland context, would fail to provide a positive response to the prevailing local character, and
would represent an over-intensification and over-development on the site. The proposal is contrary to Policies Q5,
Q6, Q7, and Q14 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021).
5
The proposed five-storey building (Block C), by reason of its siting, scale and massing would result in an
overbearing and unneighbourly form of development that would result in undue loss of residential amenity for the
occupiers of neighbouring property, namely the residential units of no. 146 Clapham Park Road (known as St.
Pauls Court) in terms of loss of privacy and outlook. Furthermore, the proposal would be overly dominant and fail to
maintain the visual amenity of the area. The proposal would be contrary Policies Q2, Q5 and Q7 of the Lambeth
Local Plan (2021).
6
The proposed development would provide substandard residential accommodation which would be to the
detriment of the amenities of future residents. This is due to, the lack of adequate communal amenity space to
serve the proposed units and the loss of existing communal amenity space to serve the units within 3 Park Hill: lack
of private amenity space for some of the units (Block E) and compromised privacy and poor outlook (bedrooms) for
some of the units within the proposed five-storey building (Block C). The proposal is therefore considered to be
contrary to Policies H5, Q2 and Q14 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021), D6 of the London Plan and the London
Plan Housing SPG (2016).
7
The proposed development falls within an area of open space deficiency, where all major developments
should seek to alleviate these deficiencies. The proposed development would not provide an appropriate provision
of on-site and would therefore fail to alleviate open space deficiencies within the area. The proposal would be
contrary to EN1 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and the Lambeth Open Spaces Strategy (2013).
8
In the absence of a Unilateral Undertaking or other legal agreement securing appropriate mitigation by
restricting future occupiers of the development from obtaining parking permits within the Controlled Parking Zone
and providing car and cycle club membership along with a contribution towards Healthy Routes, the proposed
development would likely exacerbate existing parking stress and congestion on the surrounding highway network.
The application is therefore contrary to Policies D4, T1, T2, T3, T4 and T6 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021).
9
Insufficient and inadequate highways information has been submitted to allow officers to make a full
assessment of the proposed development. This includes the need for an updated Transport Assessment and
further information regarding pedestrian access, pedestrian visibility, emergency service access, revised TRICS
generation, Trip generation for commercial vehicles, parking surveys, cycle parking, disabled parking, electric
charging points, refuse storage, delivery and servicing, revised swept path for refuse vehicles, drag distances and
a draft Construction Management Plan. As such, the proposals are thereby unacceptable and prejudicial to
highways safety and the safe and free flow of traffic, including the needs of pedestrians and cyclists. The proposals
are thereby contrary to policies T1, T2, T3, T4, T6 and T7 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and T1, T2, T3, T4,
T5, T6, T7 and D12 of the London Plan (2021).
10
In the absence of an adequate energy strategy to illustrate how the scheme would meet the requirements
of the energy and sustainability targets as set out in the London Plan; and in absence of a S106 agreement to
provide a carbon offset contribution (if required), it has not demonstrated that the proposal minimise carbon dioxide
emissions or meet the zero-carbon target for major residential developments. Therefore, the proposed
development is contrary to Policies EN4 and D4 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and Policy SI 2 of London Plan
(2021).
11
In the absence of a S106 agreement to secure an Employment and Skills Plan for the construction phase
of the development, and also to secure a payment towards an employment and skills training, the proposals would
fail to provide the opportunities for local residents to benefit from new development in the Borough, and would fail
to comply with Policies D4 and ED15 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021), and the Employment and Skills SPD
(2018).
12
The proposed erection of Block D and subsequent loss of garden land serving the existing flatted units at
no. 3 Park Hill by virtue of its bulk, siting and design would fail to retain subordinance in terms of height and scale
and would give rise to an unacceptable loss of amenities to neighbouring occupiers and thereby represent an
incongruous and cramped form of development. The principle for loss of such garden land development is
therefore contrary to the objectives outlined within policy Q14 of the LLP (2021).
1
The proposed development would materially harm the future vitality and viability of the Clapham Park Hill
Key Industrial and Business Area, which amongst other things aims to protect land in Class E g uses usually
associated with industrial areas such as builders' yards, haulage, employment-training, bus garages and
telecommunications. The residential intensification of the site and loss of any additional industrial floorspace and/or
land would essentially end any prospects of industrial intensification of this site and future viability, which still
remains a feasible option at this time. The Clapham Park Hill KIBA continues to be viable prospect to help provide
and Lambeth's strategic supply of business, industrial, and storage functions and therefore very limited weight is
given to the residential development that has occurred within the KIBA. The proposals are thereby contrary to the
stated aims and objectives of Policy ED3 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and Policies E4, E6 and E7 of the
London Plan (2021).
2
Insufficient and inadequate viability information has been submitted and therefore the proposed
development has failed to demonstrate that the quantum proposed is the maximum reasonable provision of on-site
affordable housing the development can deliver. This is contrary to Policies D4 and H2 of the Lambeth Local Plan
(2021), H4 and H5 of the London Plan (2021), Lambeth's Development Viability SPD (2018), the Mayor's
Affordable Housing and Viability SPG (2017) and Lambeth's SHMA (2017).
3
The proposed development does not provide a policy compliant range of dwelling sizes and types for both
the market and affordable housing element of the proposal and does not provide a preferred tenure split of
affordable units. The Council would require a better range of types and sizes of units in accordance with adopted
policies, particularly in terms of the affordable housing element. The proposal would therefore fail to meet current
and future housing needs that are necessary for creating mixed and balanced communities, which is contrary to
Policy H4 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and Policy H6 of the London Plan (2021) and Lambeth's SHMA
(2017).
Show all 12 rows
4
The proposed five-storey building (Block C), by reason of its height, scale and massing would fail to remain
subordinate in its backland context, would fail to provide a positive response to the prevailing local character, and
would represent an over-intensification and over-development on the site. The proposal is contrary to Policies Q5,
Q6, Q7, and Q14 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021).
5
The proposed five-storey building (Block C), by reason of its siting, scale and massing would result in an
overbearing and unneighbourly form of development that would result in undue loss of residential amenity for the
occupiers of neighbouring property, namely the residential units of no. 146 Clapham Park Road (known as St.
Pauls Court) in terms of loss of privacy and outlook. Furthermore, the proposal would be overly dominant and fail to
maintain the visual amenity of the area. The proposal would be contrary Policies Q2, Q5 and Q7 of the Lambeth
Local Plan (2021).
6
The proposed development would provide substandard residential accommodation which would be to the
detriment of the amenities of future residents. This is due to, the lack of adequate communal amenity space to
serve the proposed units and the loss of existing communal amenity space to serve the units within 3 Park Hill: lack
of private amenity space for some of the units (Block E) and compromised privacy and poor outlook (bedrooms) for
some of the units within the proposed five-storey building (Block C). The proposal is therefore considered to be
contrary to Policies H5, Q2 and Q14 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021), D6 of the London Plan and the London
Plan Housing SPG (2016).
7
The proposed development falls within an area of open space deficiency, where all major developments
should seek to alleviate these deficiencies. The proposed development would not provide an appropriate provision
of on-site and would therefore fail to alleviate open space deficiencies within the area. The proposal would be
contrary to EN1 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and the Lambeth Open Spaces Strategy (2013).
8
In the absence of a Unilateral Undertaking or other legal agreement securing appropriate mitigation by
restricting future occupiers of the development from obtaining parking permits within the Controlled Parking Zone
and providing car and cycle club membership along with a contribution towards Healthy Routes, the proposed
development would likely exacerbate existing parking stress and congestion on the surrounding highway network.
The application is therefore contrary to Policies D4, T1, T2, T3, T4 and T6 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021).
9
Insufficient and inadequate highways information has been submitted to allow officers to make a full
assessment of the proposed development. This includes the need for an updated Transport Assessment and
further information regarding pedestrian access, pedestrian visibility, emergency service access, revised TRICS
generation, Trip generation for commercial vehicles, parking surveys, cycle parking, disabled parking, electric
charging points, refuse storage, delivery and servicing, revised swept path for refuse vehicles, drag distances and
a draft Construction Management Plan. As such, the proposals are thereby unacceptable and prejudicial to
highways safety and the safe and free flow of traffic, including the needs of pedestrians and cyclists. The proposals
are thereby contrary to policies T1, T2, T3, T4, T6 and T7 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and T1, T2, T3, T4,
T5, T6, T7 and D12 of the London Plan (2021).
10
In the absence of an adequate energy strategy to illustrate how the scheme would meet the requirements
of the energy and sustainability targets as set out in the London Plan; and in absence of a S106 agreement to
provide a carbon offset contribution (if required), it has not demonstrated that the proposal minimise carbon dioxide
emissions or meet the zero-carbon target for major residential developments. Therefore, the proposed
development is contrary to Policies EN4 and D4 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and Policy SI 2 of London Plan
(2021).
11
In the absence of a S106 agreement to secure an Employment and Skills Plan for the construction phase
of the development, and also to secure a payment towards an employment and skills training, the proposals would
fail to provide the opportunities for local residents to benefit from new development in the Borough, and would fail
to comply with Policies D4 and ED15 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021), and the Employment and Skills SPD
(2018).
12
The proposed erection of Block D and subsequent loss of garden land serving the existing flatted units at
no. 3 Park Hill by virtue of its bulk, siting and design would fail to retain subordinance in terms of height and scale
and would give rise to an unacceptable loss of amenities to neighbouring occupiers and thereby represent an
incongruous and cramped form of development. The principle for loss of such garden land development is
therefore contrary to the objectives outlined within policy Q14 of the LLP (2021).
Policies cited
ED3E4E6E7D4H2H4H5H6Q14Q2Q5Q7D6EN1T1T2T3T4T6T7T5D12EN4SI2ED15
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
0
In support
0
Total comments
0
Objections
0
In support
0
Total comments
0
People
Who is involved?
Name
Role
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer — delegated decision
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer — delegated decision
Place
What affects it?
Context around the site — not part of this application. Designations over the site: use the map's designations filter (conservation areas, listed buildings, Article 4, flood risk …). Decisions within 250 metres of the site are listed below — context, not this application.
Other applications within 250 metres (context — nearby, not this application)
No other geocoded decision is recorded within 250 metres.