The Lambeth Council Planning Applications Committee met on 7 October 2025 and approved plans for a self-storage facility on Clyston Street and a flexible-use commercial space on Kennington Lane. The committee voted to grant conditional planning permission for both applications, subject to conditions and Section 106 agreements¹.

40 Clyston Street

The committee approved a full planning application for the erection of a part four, part six-storey self-storage building at 40 Clyston Street, Stockwell West and Larkhall, following the demolition of the existing building. The development was recommended for approval subject to conditions and a Section 106 agreement.

Robin Vaughan, Development Director at Attic Self Storage, spoke in support of the application, highlighting the company's commitment to long-term investment in the area and the creation of flexible, affordable storage solutions for local businesses. He also emphasised the scheme's sustainability credentials, including on-site renewable energy, a BREEAM² score of excellence, a green roof, and a biodiversity net gain of over 150%.

During the discussion, Councillor Sarbaz Barznji raised concerns about the noise assessment, questioning whether it relied on measurements from different sites and whether a specific nighttime noise survey had been conducted. Rob Ivins from Regulatory Support Services, the environmental health officer, clarified that the noise survey included measurements taken during the quietest period of the day, past 4am, and that using measurements from another site was best practice.

Councillor Barznji also raised concerns about air quality, questioning why officers were comfortable with the application not being air quality neutral, given the nearby adventure playground. An officer responded that the application only slightly exceeded the transport emissions benchmark and that offsetting payments would be used to fund projects aimed at cutting emissions across the borough. They added that background pollutant levels were well below interim targets set in Lambeth's air quality vision.

Councillor Emma Nye suggested adding an informative note about potentially putting a green screen around the playground to mitigate the impact of dust and pollution. She also suggested a maintenance agreement on the CDU³.

Councillor Scott Ainslie questioned the rationale for not considering housing on the site, and asked about the consideration given to keeping the building within the height of neighbouring buildings. An officer responded that the intensification of uses in key industrial business areas (KIBAs) is encouraged, and that the design broke up the massing to avoid appearing over dominant.

Councillor Malcolm Clark said that initial planning considerations had been mitigated through conditions, particularly regarding transport and pedestrian safety. He supported the officer's recommendations, but echoed concerns about the health and wellbeing of children and carers at the adventure playground.

Councillor Diogo Costa supported the application, noting that industrial uses are to be protected and that it was good to keep jobs near where people live. He welcomed Councillor Nye's suggestion about the green screen and the green roof.

The committee voted to approve the application, subject to an amendment to condition 11 and an additional condition for the green screen.

Tesco Stores, 275 Kennington Lane And 145-149 Vauxhall Street

The committee then considered an application for a change of use at Tesco Stores, 275 Kennington Lane And 145-149 Vauxhall Street, Oval. The application sought permission for a change of use of Use Class E(g)(i) office space to a flexible/alternative Use Class E (a-g(i) and g(ii)) or Use Class F.1(a-b). The officer recommendation was to grant conditional planning permission subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement.

Tom Fox, Senior Development Manager at Barkley Homes, spoke in support of the application, explaining that the company had been unable to secure a tenant for the office space despite continuous and proactive marketing efforts. He argued that expanding the use class beyond solely office would enable the best possible chance of securing a tenant and generating genuine employment opportunities and growth.

Councillor Clark sought clarification on the feasible types of education and medical uses that would come under the application, given the lack of good ground floor space. An officer responded that they were speculating, but that it could be something more appointment-based or specialist diagnosis, or specialist education.

Councillor Ainslie questioned why the council was suddenly adapting to have a more flexible use, and what had happened to the previous constraints. An officer responded that it was because the current uses had been marketed and there was no demand for them, and that the applicant was seeking a more flexible use to make it more attractive.

Councillor Martin Bailey questioned what the council was trying to prevent by solving a problem that didn't exist, given that the applicant's evidence said the impact would be imperceptible. An officer responded that the retail impact assessment was done on a worst-case scenario where the entire space becomes a retail unit, and that the conditions were to mitigate the risk of smaller units competing with existing local centres.

Councillor Barznji asked what happens after the 10-year flexible use period, and whether there was a review mechanism. An officer responded that whatever use is there becomes the established use, and that if the use were to dramatically change, they would need to apply for planning permission.

Councillor Bailey questioned the purpose of condition 5, the 10-year period, given the 2020 use classes reform which gives Class E a pattern of flexibility. An officer responded that the 10-year period was still attached for clarity, but that the E class use flexibility is retained.

Councillor Barznji raised confusion about the store layout being replaced by changing rooms and showers, and how deliveries and waste collection would be coordinated with the existing Tesco loading base. An officer responded that if the application was to receive planning permission, the applicant would need to come back with details explaining how the waste would be stored, and that deliveries would continue to take place from the existing loading bays.

During the discussion, Councillor Clark said that it was important to ensure that there were mitigations in place for some of the additional uses where there is an impact.

Councillor Bailey expressed concerns that there were too many conditions that just restrict things that don't exist, and that conditions 3, 4 and 5 and 9 to 12 were superfluous.

Councillor Costa said that having flexible land use was a good idea, and that office space was unlikely to be rented out to a tenant. He questioned why the conditions were so strict, especially on the operating hours.

Councillor Simpson suggested giving the space some sort of temporary office space as an experimental, heavily subsidised arrangement, to test the water.

Councillor Nye said that the proposal brings a new building back into productive use and allows flexibility for genuinely local needs.

The committee voted to accept the officer's recommendation and approve planning permission.