Support a Judicial Review of Lambeth Council's Planning Decision

What this case is about

Lambeth Council has approved a development of 92 units spanning the current Council car park in Leigham Court Road, the former Synagogue to the rear of South Lodge, and the former bowling green to the rear of 49 Leigham Court Road, plus the demolition of the old toilet block and construction of commercial property. Only 15 of the properties will be social housing. The remaining 77 homes will be retained by the developer and will be rental-only. Blocks B1 and B2 will incorporate shared accommodation of 46 en-suite bedrooms with communal living rooms and kitchens - a new-build version of HMO - and not the much-needed affordable housing for families.

Full details of the development by Pocket Homes can be read on the Lambeth Planning portal:

www.lambeth.gov.uk/planning-building-control/planning-applications/

Then search for ref: 25/02438/FUL

Image below from Pocket Homes planning application. Property details and proximities to proposed blocks added by Streatham Leigham Group.

We support new housing, but not when based on flawed decision-making.

Lambeth Council has approved a development that its own evidence shows will cause severe harm to local residents, including many elderly neighbours, while ALSO failing to meet key legal and policy requirements.

Why This Case Is Strong

We have taken initial legal advice and have been advised there are strong grounds to challenge this decision.

At the heart of this case is a fundamental issue:

The council’s own evidence shows serious harm, yet the scheme was approved without a clear or reasoned explanation of why that harm is acceptable.

⚖️ There is a strict legal deadline of 6 weeks from when the final decision notice is published.

If we do not act in time, this decision cannot be challenged or undone.

Decisions that are confirmed today are impossible to reverse tomorrow!

What Your Support Will Fund

We are initially raising £2.5k to fund the first stage of legal action.:

Stage 1. We have instructed specialist planning solicitors, Richard Buxton Solicitors, to review the case and prepare a formal communication to Lambeth

Funding needed ~£2.5k

Stage 2. Preparation of a formal Pre-Action Protocol letter to challenge the decision, requiring expert counsel (barrister) advice

Funding needed ~£7.5k

Stage 3. Seek Judicial Review including Court filing, additional legal representation, and administrative costs

Funding needed ~£45k

We hope that Lambeth will remit the decision to Planning without us needing to move to stage 3, and without each side incurring significant legal costs.

We will ensure full transparency and regular updates at every stage of the process.

💳 All funds go directly to our solicitors via CrowdJustice.

What’s Gone Wrong

Planning law requires serious harm to be properly identified, assessed, and justified.

If the development proceeds, a significant proportion of neighbouring windows would fail recognised daylight standards, including 20 out of 29 in a sheltered housing building with elderly residents, some in their 90s. Many of the 68 homes in Streatham Close would also be impacted by loss of daylight in living and bedrooms due to the excessive height and proximity of blocks B and C.

Within the documents, there is clear awareness of elderly and vulnerable residents affected by the scheme, yet there is no evidence of any attempt to consider or mitigate those impacts.

Severe harm is clearly evident yet approved without proper justification. “Reduction of daylight is obviously caused by the proposed development massing.” Arup, Lambeth council’s independent technical reviewer.

Public authorities are legally required to properly consider the impacts of development on vulnerable residents.

Within the documents, there is clear awareness of elderly and vulnerable residents affected by the scheme, yet no evidence of an assessment of those impacts.

This concern is reinforced by the housing association at South Lodge commissioning an independent Right to Light assessment, indicating impacts may be serious and measurable, particularly as 69% of windows fail BRE guidelines.

Lambeth Council was legally required to apply this duty. There is no clear evidence that it did so.

Vulnerable residents identified at various addresses, but the impacts were not properly assessed as required by law.

The law requires major developments to deliver at least 10% Biodiversity Net Gain.

The council's own officers confirm it falls 37% short of the legal requirement, with no secured or deliverable plan to address the shortfall, despite local policy identifying this site as a "key opportunity for urban greening due to its proximity to a nearby nature conservation area".

Lambeth Council was legally required to apply this duty. There is no clear evidence that it did so, and the committee approved a scheme without clear evidence that this legal requirement or local policy would be met.

Despite a previous planning application note in this area to keep the green space, this scheme builds housing directly on it and approves a further biodiversity net loss 37%.

Part of the application site lies within the Leigham Court Road (North) Conservation Area, encompassing the bowling green (“the LCRNCA”). The LCRNCA was designated as a conservation area in 2002. The officer’s report observes that other conservation areas surround the application site. The law requires decision-makers to give “considerable importance and weight” to heritage impacts.

The committee report spends two full pages explaining this duty, but assesses three conservation areas and two listed buildings in just 13 lines, without properly engaging with its own heritage evidence. It concludes there is “no harm” without a clear or reasoned assessment.

Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that decision makers must ensure they pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. We believe that the council failed to discharge its duty under section 72(1) in failing to understand the LCRNCA’s character by not having regard to the character appraisal and designation report published in 2002.

Heritage duty explained in depth, reduced to 13 lines in practice, and then dismissed as ‘no harm’.

Tall buildings in a low-rise area were approved without a lawful assessment.

Planning law requires consultation to be fair, accurate, and transparent.

Public materials presented neighbour distances of 18–27 metres, while omitting a building just 1 metre from an existing home, and others at 10 metres away, meaning residents were not properly informed of the true scale of impact.

Lambeth Council and Pocket Living (the developers) were legally required to ensure fair and accurate consultation. There is clear evidence the developers provided misleading information about the impact to neighbours.

New buildings are shown to be 18–27m away from existing residents' properties, but the materials do not indicate the ones that are only 1 metre and 10 metres away.

Decision-makers are required to properly understand and assess the evidence before approving a development.

Key information was:

Misleading: selective presentation of data

Incomplete: the most affected properties not assessed

Contradictory: claims of “excellent daylight” for new homes despite severe loss to existing residents

These are not isolated issues, but representative examples of a wider pattern of errors and inconsistencies throughout the evidence base. Lambeth Council was legally required to properly assess the evidence. There is clear evidence that the decision to approve this development was based on flawed and inconsistent information.

A lawful and fair decision should not be based on assumptions, omissions and inconsistencies, yet that is what happened here.

Urgent: We Must Act Now

Judicial Review cases are subject to strict and short time limits.

We have just 6 weeks from the publication of the Decision Notice (expected imminently) to act. If we miss this deadline, the opportunity to challenge this decision will be lost permanently.

How You Can Help

Every contribution, large or small, makes a big difference to real lives.

Your support will help:

Protect residents from serious and lasting harm

Ensure legal and environmental standards are upheld

Hold decision-makers accountable