Mixed-use co-living development at 68-86 Clapham Road, London SW9
Summary of planning committee decision
Decided by Lambeth Planning Applications Committee on 22 Sept 2026.
What was proposed
The application proposed demolishing existing buildings and structures and building co-living rooms, four homes, education space, parking, landscaping and related works.
“Proposal description 2.2.1 The submitted drawings and documents for the application can be found at: Simple Search (lambeth.gov.uk) with the planning application reference 24/03151/FUL. Full planning application is sought for the demolition of an end of terrace 4-storey building containing self-contained dwellings (Use Class C3) as well as building and structures belonging to existing car rental depot (Use Class Sui Generis), and erection of mixed-use building…”
“Purpose-built shared living, also referred to as co-living, is a type of non-self-contained housing that combines the privacy and independence of a private individual room with an emphasis on communal living given by the sharing of spaces and facilities. 2.2.7 134x rooms would be provided out of which 13x rooms (10%) would be wheelchair accessible.”
Officer report
The site and surroundings
The 0.24-hectare brownfield site contains three homes, a vehicle rental depot and ancillary structures between Clapham Road and Palfrey Place.
“↑ To contents 2. Site context and proposal 2.1 Site description The Application Site 2.1.1 The application site (‘Site’) covers an area of 0.24 hectares, and it has two road frontages. Clapham Road (A3) to the west which is a Transport for London (TfL) road, and Palfrey Place to the east is an unadopted road.”
“↑ To contents 2.1.5 Adjoining to the south of the Site along Clapham Road (no.’s 90 – 86) are 4-storey (plus basement) residential buildings consisting of flats but are not listed. Opposite the Site on Clapham Road is a 5-storey contemporary office building (43 – 59 Clapham Road) and a terrace row of 3-storey (plus basement) residential properties (61 – 73 Clapham Road) and a detached residential property at 75 Clapham Road. No.’s 63-73 are grade II listed as a group and no.”
Officer report
Earlier applications
Earlier proposals were refused, approved but not implemented, or withdrawn, including a 2017 permission for 32 homes and continued vehicle hire.
“Ref: 15/04010/FUL – Decision: Approve permission – Date: 24.05.2017 Partial demolition of existing structures associated with the existing ground floor use and the demolition of Nos.68-70 Clapham Road (with the exception of the front facade to Nos. 68-70 Clapham Road).”
“This application was not implemented, and it expired on 23.05.2020. Ref: 20/02908/FUL – Decision: Application withdrawn – Date: 21.06.2024 Demolition and redevelopment of the site for the erection of an aparthotel with ancillary workspace, replacement car rental facility with associated parking, provision of new residential units, and associated landscaping and highway works.”
Officer report
Why officers supported it
Officers considered the scheme policy-compliant overall, with substantial housing and regeneration benefits outweighing limited heritage and local daylight and sunlight effects.
“Public benefits 4.6.13 The public benefits of the scheme are summarised below: Effective use and regeneration of previously developed land (substantial weight) 4.6.14 Policy L2 of the NPPF requires substantial weight to be given to the benefits of development which makes better use of vacant or under-utilised land and buildings and which creates additional homes within settlements through sensitive redevelopment.”
“The proposal would deliver substantial benefits through the effective redevelopment of under- utilised brownfield land and the provision of additional housing to meet evidenced need. It would also provide affordable housing funding, education floorspace, heritage and townscape improvements, enhanced public realm, urban greening and sustainable transport benefits.”
Officer report
What people said
Objectors cited height, design, daylight, sunlight, privacy, construction and nursery impacts; supporters welcomed redevelopment, co-living, education, landscaping and car-free travel.
“Detailed responses to the raised issues are discussed and assessed under ‘Design’ section of the report at paragraphs 4.2.57- 4.2.66. Amenity impact • The proposal would have negative impacts on the liveability of the surrounding area • Impact on daylight and sunlight received by neighbouring properties including nursery • The submitted daylight and sunlight report inaccurately describe key windows as non-habitable, but they serve habitable rooms • The development would…”
“The development is required to be constructed in accordance with this document (see Condition 18). SUPPORTING COMMENTS Summary of comments • Support for site redevelopment that would improve a neglected, unsafe, and visually unappealing site • Support for the new accommodation/living model and range of amenities provided • Support for the proposed education use and the type of courses that would be offered by the end user secured • Positive view on building height and design…”
Officer report
The committee vote
Councillors moved and seconded the proposal, and the committee resolved unanimously to grant conditional planning permission.
“To grant conditional planning permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory deed under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing the planning obligations as set out in this report, addenda and/or PAC minutes.”
Minutes
The decision
Permission was granted subject to a satisfactory Section 106 deed, with delegated authority for conditions and planning obligations.
“In the event that the Section 106 deed is not completed within six months of the date of the Committee meeting, delegated authority is given to the Director of Planning and Sustainability to refuse planning permission for failure to enter into a Section 106 deed securing the obligations considered necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms as identified in this report, addenda and/or the PAC minutes.”
Minutes
Councillors at the meeting
- Kita OgdenChairLib Dem
- Joanne SimpsonChairLabour
- Viktor WesterdahlGreen
- Elizabeth FraserGreen
- Jacqueline BondGreen
- David FordLabour
- Diogo CostaLab Co-op
Also attending Bryn Scott Lab Co-op
Source: Plota analysis of the council's minutes; parties from the council's list of councillors.
Sources
- Lambeth Planning Applications Committee minutes, 22 September 2026
- Agenda and papers (council website)
Source: Plota analysis of Lambeth's committee minutes and officer report. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.
Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API
The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.
See the API →At the meeting
- Council
- Lambeth
- Date
- Tuesday 22 September 2026
- Recommendation
- Officers recommended approval
- Committee decided
- Approved
- Vote
- Unanimous
- Councillors
- 7Green 3Labour 2Lab Co-op 1Lib Dem 1Show councillors
- Minutes
- The council's minutes
- Meeting
- Agenda and papers (council website)
- Application
- The application (council website)
- All decisions
- Lambeth committee decisions →
This committee's year
37 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 1 against officer advice.
Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.