Planning application · Lambeth
26/00141/FUL.
367 Kennington Road London SE11 4PT
Full / Other Planning at 367 Kennington Road London SE11 4PT, received 16 Jan 2026 — refused on 11 May 2026 (delegated, Joanne Broadbent).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationLambeth profile →
Refused
Outcome
11 May 2026
16 wks
Decision time
8 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
39
Documents
39 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?
Application for Full Planning Permission for the change of use from Office (Use Class E) to a mixed-use development comprising a Gym (Use Class E) and residential accommodation (Use Class C3), including the creation of 1 x 2 bed and 1 x 3 bed residential units within the north and south wings, together with associated internal and external alterations and the provision of refuse and cycle storage.
Reference
26/00141/FUL
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SE11 4PT
Ward
Council
Received
16 Jan 2026
Target date
12 May 2026
Decision date
11 May 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
26/00141/FUL
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SE11 4PT
Ward
Council
Received
16 Jan 2026
Target date
12 May 2026
Decision date
11 May 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
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 11 May 2026, delegated decision by Joanne Broadbent — 16 weeks from submission (8 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
16 Jan 2026
Application received
12 May 2026
Statutory target date
11 May 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Joanne Broadbent
16 Jan 2026
Application received
12 May 2026
Statutory target date
11 May 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Joanne Broadbent
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposal does not deliver any significant planning benefits, nor has it been demonstrated that the
maximum feasible and viable proportion of office floorspace is included in the scheme, nor has it been
demonstrated that it would not be feasible and/or viable to refurbish, renew, modernise or redevelop in order to
Lambeth Planning Telephone 020 7926 1180
PO Box 80771 www.lambeth.gov.uk
London planning@lambeth.gov.uk
SW2 9QQ
REFULZ
meet the requirements of future occupiers. There is also no further exploration of the adaptation of the office
floorspace as smaller office units to meet demand from small businesses. Further, there is no evidence provided
that the replacement space will result in an intensification of office use. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy
ED1 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021).
2
The proposed development fails to make the best use of land, optimise the capacity of the site and
optimise housing delivery, contrary to Policy H1 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021), Policy H2 of the London Plan
(2021) and paragraphs 129 and 130 of the NPPF.
3
The waste storage for the office / gym use is not appropriately accessible and the quantity of waste storage
provided cannot be verified given the ambiguity on the nature of the proposed use. As a result, the proposed
development fails to comply with Policy Q12 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021).
4
The residential cycle storage for the office / gym use is not appropriately accessible and the quantity
provided cannot be verified given the ambiguity on the nature of the proposed use. As a result, the proposed
development fails to comply with Policy Q12 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021).
5
The proposed works, including the extension of the existing store at ground floor level, would result in less
than substantial harm to the special interest of the Grade II listed building, as a result of the incongruous
appearance of the ground floor extension. A clear and convincing justification has not been provided for this harm,
contrary to paragraph 213 of the NPPF (2024). In addition, insufficient information has been provided to establish
whether the introduction of the gym; including any required service runs and plant equipment would cause further
harm to the special interest of the Grade II listed building. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies Q11 and
Q20 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021). Insufficient heritage or public benefits would be delivered to outweigh the
harm identified, nor is there sufficient evidence that the proposed development would secure its optimum viable
use, contrary to Paragraph 215 of the NPPF (2024).
1
The proposal does not deliver any significant planning benefits, nor has it been demonstrated that the
maximum feasible and viable proportion of office floorspace is included in the scheme, nor has it been
demonstrated that it would not be feasible and/or viable to refurbish, renew, modernise or redevelop in order to
Lambeth Planning Telephone 020 7926 1180
PO Box 80771 www.lambeth.gov.uk
London planning@lambeth.gov.uk
SW2 9QQ
REFULZ
meet the requirements of future occupiers. There is also no further exploration of the adaptation of the office
floorspace as smaller office units to meet demand from small businesses. Further, there is no evidence provided
that the replacement space will result in an intensification of office use. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy
ED1 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021).
2
The proposed development fails to make the best use of land, optimise the capacity of the site and
optimise housing delivery, contrary to Policy H1 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021), Policy H2 of the London Plan
(2021) and paragraphs 129 and 130 of the NPPF.
3
The waste storage for the office / gym use is not appropriately accessible and the quantity of waste storage
provided cannot be verified given the ambiguity on the nature of the proposed use. As a result, the proposed
development fails to comply with Policy Q12 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021).
Show all 5 rows
4
The residential cycle storage for the office / gym use is not appropriately accessible and the quantity
provided cannot be verified given the ambiguity on the nature of the proposed use. As a result, the proposed
development fails to comply with Policy Q12 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021).
5
The proposed works, including the extension of the existing store at ground floor level, would result in less
than substantial harm to the special interest of the Grade II listed building, as a result of the incongruous
appearance of the ground floor extension. A clear and convincing justification has not been provided for this harm,
contrary to paragraph 213 of the NPPF (2024). In addition, insufficient information has been provided to establish
whether the introduction of the gym; including any required service runs and plant equipment would cause further
harm to the special interest of the Grade II listed building. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies Q11 and
Q20 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021). Insufficient heritage or public benefits would be delivered to outweigh the
harm identified, nor is there sufficient evidence that the proposed development would secure its optimum viable
use, contrary to Paragraph 215 of the NPPF (2024).
Policies cited
ED1H1H2NPPFQ12Q11Q20
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.