Support a Judicial Review of Lambeth Council's Planning Decision
Support a Judicial Review of Lambeth Council's Planning Decision
Latest: May 28, 2026
New Council set-up may be in-coming soon!
Hope everyone is coping okay with the unseasonal heatwave.
Following the local elections on 7th May, the new Council met yesterday evening (27th May). A new Mayor (Green) and Deputy Mayor (LibDem) ha…
Read moreWhat 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.
.PNG)
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
1. Severe Harm to Residents is Ignored
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.
“The garden at 33A Leigham Court [sic] shows a significant reduction with the proposed building in place and the results do not meet BR 209 guidance. This level of impact can be considered major adverse.”
Policy Q2 of the Lambeth local plan is entitled “Amenity”. It is the primary development plan policy that protects neighbour and occupant amenity of all types. Development will be supported if it meets a number of criteria. One of those criteria is:
“iv. it would not have an unacceptable impact on levels of daylight and sunlight on the host building or adjoining property including their gardens or outdoor spaces”
As it stands the application will have a “major adverse” impact on 33A Leigham Court Road. The officer’s report analyses overshadowing from the development onto 33A Leigham Court Road at para 4.2.8.61 onwards. The officer’s report recognises that the proposed development would result in some significant daylight and overshadowing impacts, but it fails to raise the independent review’s conclusion that there would be a major adverse impact.
This was a material omission and, accordingly, the report was materially misleading in that respect.
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 per the independent technical review, 69% of windows fail BRE guidelines. Impacts on the living spaces of residents of Streatham Close are also serious and measurable. The overshadowing of the communal gardens amenity was dismissed by the Council as within acceptable parameters.
The Committee were materially misled as to the proposed development’s compliance with Policy Q2 because the officer’s report failed to draw to their attention the fact that there would be a major adverse impact on amenity at 33A Leigham Court Road.
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.
2. Failure to Consider Impacts on Vulnerable Residents
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.
3. Biodiversity Law Breached (37% Net Loss)
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%.
4. Heritage Duties Not Properly Applied
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’.
5. Tall Building Policy Not Properly Assessed
Planning policy requires buildings significantly taller than their surroundings to be properly assessed against specific criteria.
Two buildings in the development reach over 21 metres, far taller than neighbouring homes, yet relevant policies are listed but not applied anywhere in the assessment.
Lambeth Council was legally required to properly assess this harm. There is no clear evidence that it did so, and the committee voted without clear evidence that this level of harm was acceptable and was outweighed by demonstrable public benefits.
For example, Block A, a commercial building with no confirmed use or tenant, would be built just 1 metre from an existing home, rising to around three times its height, severely restricting light and outlook. This level of harm is acknowledged in the technical evidence, yet there is no clear or evidence-based explanation of what public benefit justifies it.
Tall buildings in a low-rise area were approved without a lawful assessment.
6. Misleading Public Consultation Information
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.
7. Evidence Misleading, Incomplete, or Contradictory
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
👉 Please support this legal challenge today
Streatham Leigham Group
May 28, 2026
New Council set-up may be in-coming soon!
Hope everyone is coping okay with the unseasonal heatwave.
Following the local elections on 7th May, the new Council met yesterday evening (27th May). A new Mayor (Green) and Deputy Mayor (LibDem) have been elected, but we still await news on the leadership of the Council and Committee memberships.
The Green Councillors have proposed moving the Council from the current Cabinet arrangement to a Committee process. There will be a further meeting on Monday, 1st June to consider this. We don't yet know what effect any of these changes might have on our case, but we are keeping a close eye on developments.
In the meantime, Lambeth Planning's only response to our Solicitor's detailed letter setting out some of the substance of our claims was that these issues were covered in the Planning Committee Report. The Solicitor has reverted to the Planning Department, asking them to detail where in the Report the issues are addressed. We await the Planning Department's further response.
Please continue to discuss this case with your networks and share the link to this crowd-funding page. We very much appreciate everyone's support.
Streatham Leigham Group
May 11, 2026
Letter sent to Lambeth Planning by our Solicitors
Good afternoon! We hope you had a good weekend. You might like to read the letter that our solicitors, Richard Buxton and Co, sent on 21 April to Lambeth Planning and to Councillors on the Planning Committee. This letter sets out in detail the case for the Leigham Court Road development to be reviewed, due to numerous flaws and inconsistencies in the processes used.
https://static.crowdjustice.com/crowdjustice_document/260421_Council_out_Final.pdf
We are checking whether the membership of the Planning Committee has changed following the Council Elections last week as we may need to alert any new members of that committee to this case.
Please keep sharing our case. Brixton Buzz recently reported on the issue and this was also picked up by Streatham Life.
Have a great week and thank you again for all the support!
Carole
Streatham Leigham Group
May 6, 2026
Almost at our initial target!
Thank you so so much to everyone who has donated so far. In just a few days, we have almost reached our initial target of £2500 which will fund legal advice on taking this case forward. This is just the first step. The next phase will be to raise sufficient funds for an expert barrister to present the case for Judicial Review.
We are really grateful for your support. Please continue to help this case by spreading the word to your friends, families, networks, social media on Facebook, NextDoor, Instagram, LinkedIn etc. Thank you!
Recent contributions