College educational extension at Lambeth College, London SW4

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing a sports hall and building a four-storey educational extension with cycle, refuse, plant and landscaping works.

“↑ To contents 1. Summary of application 1.1 Executive summary 1.1.1 This application seeks full planning permission for the demolition of the existing sports hall forming the northern wing of Block A at Lambeth College’s Clapham Campus, and the erection of a four-storey extension to provide additional educational floorspace (Use Class F1), together with associated cycle storage, plant, refuse facilities, landscaping and related works.”

“↑ To contents 2.2 Proposal description 2.2.1 Full planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing sports hall forming the northern wing of Block A, and the erection of a four-storey extension to provide additional educational floorspace. The proposed extension would have a total Gross External Area (GEA) of 2,435 sqm.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is part of an established college campus with nearby homes, educational buildings and a highly accessible location.

“↑ To contents 2. Site context and proposal 2.1 Site description 2.1.1 The application site (“Site”) measures approximately 0.318 hectares and comprises Block A of Lambeth College’s Clapham Campus. The College is a further and higher education institution (Use Class F1) providing education, apprenticeships and training for young people and adults. The Site is owned and managed by South Bank Colleges, part of the London South Bank University group.”

“13/04304/FUL) and subsequently amended in 2014 under Section 73 (ref. 14/01504/VOC). The Site comprises entirely built form and hardstanding. A landscaped courtyard providing student amenity space is located immediately to the west of the Site. Pedestrian access is primarily via the main College entrance on Clapham Common Southside and via Mitchell’s Lane to the north. Vehicular access is taken from Elms Road to the south, shared with Lambeth Academy.”

Officer report

Earlier plans for the site

A wider residential-led redevelopment received a resolution to grant permission, but its Section 106 agreement was not signed and the decision was not issued.

“↑ To contents 2.4 Relevant planning history 2.4.1 Application site 2.4.1.1 The planning application history of the Site can be found at https://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/online-applications/simpleSearchResults.do?action=firstPage 2.4.1.2 The relevant planning history is as follows: Planning applications 2.4.1.3 22/03713/FUL was submitted on 10 October 2022 for: “Demolition of the existing buildings and the phased re-development of the site incorporating a basement car/cycle…”

“The GLA’s Stage 2 decision was published in July 2025, with the Deputy Mayor confirming that LBL could determine the application, subject to any action that the Secretary of State may take. Notwithstanding this, the Section 106 agreement has not been signed, and as such, the decision has not been issued.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the sports hall was underused and private, while the extension would improve college facilities without increasing student or staff numbers.

“Proposed use 4.2.1.6 The proposal is to demolish a sports hall of 785 sqm and replace it with 2,159 sqm of classrooms at the Clapham campus of Lambeth College. Both uses would fall under Use Class F1 (a) and there would be a net increase in educational floorspace. Loss of sports hall 4.2.1.7 LLP Policy S1 protects social infrastructure, which includes facilities for higher and further education as well as indoor recreation and sports facilities.”

“In this case it is noted that the sports hall forms part of the college campus. The applicant has confirmed that sports hall no current public use and is indeed solely a private facility which does not perform any wider function for members of the local community. Supporting information states that the sports hall is no longer required to support the current or anticipated curriculum at the campus and has been underutilised for some time.”

Officer report

Main planning issues

Officers assessed land use, design, heritage, sustainability, amenity, transport, trees, landscaping, ecology and other environmental matters as acceptable subject to conditions.

“Main planning considerations The main planning issues raised by the application that the Committee must consider are: • Principle of land use • Design • Heritage impact • Sustainable design and construction • Amenity impact • Transport • Trees, landscaping and ecology…”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Four objections raised concerns about design, plant noise, construction disturbance, air quality, traffic, earlier schemes and planning controls.

“↑ To contents Concern that fugitive dust from demolition and construction could adversely affect human health, especially given the proximity of residential properties. Objection that Waldo Close properties fall within the highest sensitivity buffer zones (<20m) for demolition, construction and trackout activities. Significant concern about construction and operational noise affecting health, wellbeing, sleep and quality of life.”

“↑ To contents Request for implementation of Best Practicable Means to control dust, noise and vibration during construction. Concern that insufficient mitigation undermines sustainable construction objectives and protection of human health. Procedure Query regarding how the current application relates to earlier schemes (22/03713/FUL and 24/00483/FUL). The application is assessed on its own merits. Earlier unimplemented schemes carry no material weight.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An officer read an opposing statement on behalf of students, and an interested party spoke in support.

Committee discussion

Officers answered committee members’ questions before the chair put the recommendation to a vote following discussion.

“Officers responded to questions from Committee Members.”

“Further to a discussion, the Chair moved to vote on the Officer’s recommendation to approve the application.”

Minutes

The vote

Councillors voted three in favour, one against and one abstention on the motion to approve the application.

“25/03234/FUL It was MOVED by Councillor Joanne Simpson and SECONDED by Councillor Malcolm Clark…”

“And RESOLVED With three votes For, one Against, and one Abstention.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee granted conditional planning permission, subject to a satisfactory Section 106 deed and delegated authority for conditions and obligations.

“To grant conditional planning permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory deed under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 containing the planning obligations as set out in this report, agenda and/or PAC minutes.”

“In the event that a satisfactory Section 106 deed is not completed within six months of the date of the Committee meeting, delegated authority is given to the Director of Climate, Planning and Transport to refuse planning permission for failure to enter into a Section 106 deed providing for the obligations considered necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms as identified in this report, addenda and/or the PAC minutes.”

Minutes