Lambeth has days to decide: reconsider ‘unlawful’ Streatham sports-pitch approval, or defend it in court

Lambeth Council must decide by 7th July 2026 whether to back down over its approval of a floodlit artificial sports pitch on protected woodland at Bishop Thomas Grant School (BTG) in Streatham, or defend a decision that residents’ lawyers say is unlawful, and risk a judicial review in Court.

The deadline follows a formal pre-action (judicial review) letter sent to the Council on 23 June by Richard Buxton Solicitors, acting for residents.

The Council’s response next week will decide whether the scheme is paused for the proper environmental assessment residents say the law requires, or heads toward the courts.

Crucially, planning permission has not yet been formally issued – it is understood to await a Section 106 agreement, so the Council can still reconsider its 14 April resolution without a court order.

That makes the coming days the last clear opportunity to change course.

What residents want Lambeth to do by 7th July

Residents are opposed to the scheme as it stands. They are calling on the new council to halt it and require a full environmental impact assessment before any permission is issued – rather than wave through a decision taken by the previous administration on flawed and incomplete information. Specifically, they ask the Council to:

Reconsider its 14 April resolution and not issue permission, or enter a Section 106 agreement, on the basis of it;

Carry out a lawful environmental impact assessment (EIA) screening and require a full Environmental Statement before any further determination;

If the application is re-determined, address the substantive legal concerns raised.

What is at stake

The scheme would fell over 75% of the woodland at a hillside Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) and import an estimated 20,000–25,000m³ of soil to regrade the slope for a raised, floodlit pitch.

It was approved unanimously on 14 April 2026 – weeks before Labour lost control of the council – despite 125 written objections.

Why residents oppose it

More than three-quarters of the woodland would be felled. Committee members were initially told the scheme would remove around 38.6% of canopy cover across the whole site. A late addendum corrected this to 0.91 of 1.19 hectares of woodland — but members were not told this meant over 75% of the woodland within the protected SINC would be lost, and the officer’s recommendations were left unchanged.

Thousands of cubic metres of imported soil, and a pitch at roof height. An estimated 20,000–25,000m³ of soil (the application’s own figures conflict) would be imported via 2,200+ HGV loads through narrow streets to regrade the hillside, raising the pitch to roughly the roof height of homes on Valleyfield Road, immediately to the north, with 12m floodlights above. Residents say impacts on surface-water drainage and on springs to the north have not been assessed, and question whether the imported material is “waste” requiring a permit.

Increased flood risk to homes downhill. Independent flood consultants (EPS) found the drainage pond – sited immediately above residential gardens – undersized, with a freeboard of just 5mm against a recommended 300mm minimum, relying on outdated rainfall data and wrongly treating the artificial pitch as planted ground. They concluded the scheme would increase the flood risk to homes on Valley Road, at the bottom of the hill to the west.

Loss of protected wildlife. Seven bat species – including the light-sensitive Brown Long-eared and Natterer’s – have been recorded at the site, along with protected stag beetles and nesting tawny owl and sparrowhawk. Over 30 bird species have been recorded on the site, several of them Red- or Amber-listed under the UK’s Birds of Conservation Concern (BoCC5), including Red-listed swift, cuckoo and greenfinch. The applicant’s ecological surveys date from 2021, and no breeding-bird survey was carried out.

A rushed, defective environmental screening. Told on 9 April there had been no EIA screening, the Council produced one dated 13 April and published it on the day of the committee meeting, concluding no assessment was needed – applying, residents argue, the wrong legal test (assessment is required wherever there is “any serious possibility” of significant effects).

Extensive floodlit use, with details concluded behind closed doors. The scheme allows pitch use of up to 91 hours a week in winter and 81.5 in summer under six 12m floodlights; noise has not been fully assessed; a commitment to clear vegetation “after the nesting season” contradicts the summer construction start; and most environmental detail would be settled after permission, in private between officers and the school.

A spokesperson for a group of residents In Valley Road, Valleyfield Road, Belltrees Grove, Strathdale and Hill House Road said:

“We are in favour of school sport – but we are against a decision taken on rushed and incomplete, conflicting, and in places inaccurate information, in the final weeks of the outgoing Labour administration.

For the first time in twenty years Lambeth is no longer Labour-run. We hope the new council will show that decisions affecting our environment and our residents can be taken more sensibly – beginning by pausing this scheme and carrying out the proper assessment the law requires.”

Background

Bishop Thomas Grant School is on Belltrees Grove, five minutes’ walk from Streatham Common, in Streatham Wells ward.

At the 7 May 2026 local elections, Labour lost overall control of Lambeth Council for the first time since 2006. The Green Party is now the largest party (29 of 63 seats), with Labour on 26 and the Liberal Democrats on eight; the council is under no overall control and is led by Green councillor Martin Abrams (council leader since 1 June 2026). The pitch was approved on 14 April 2026, under the outgoing Labour administration; the response to the pre-action letter falls to the new council.

The pre-action letter of 23 June 2026 was sent by Richard Buxton Solicitors under the Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review. Proposed defendant: London Borough of Lambeth. Interested party: Bishop Thomas Grant School. Response requested by 7 July 2026.

Planning documents: Lambeth Planning Portal, ref 24/02396/FUL. Committee minutes (14 April 2026) are on the Lambeth ModernGov site; a transcript of the discussion is available on request.