LPA Profile
What we hold on a single planning authority: appeal behaviour, what they refuse on, which policies they cite, and how current their local plan is. For the national league table and 47-year statistical history, see Council Performance. New: which refusal reasons survive appeal here — measured from real Inspectorate decision letters.
Lambeth London Borough Council
GSS E09000022 · Portal: idox (ok) · council register
Official statistics — is development moving through the system?
MHCLG quarterly planning returns (PS1/PS2), last 4 quarters 2025 Q3 to 2026 Q2, and the government's latest Housing Delivery Test. These are the authority's own statutory returns, not our scrape.
Peer ranks compare only London boroughs with more than 50 decisions in the window, the same floor as the national rank. A rank among peers is the fairer read: types of authority carry very different caseloads.
| Type | Decisions | Approved | In time |
|---|---|---|---|
| Major | 33 | 87.9% | 100.0% |
| Minor | 748 | 79.9% | 90.5% |
| Other | 1,012 | 77.6% | — |
| of which householder | 595 | 83.4% | 94.1% |
Delivery below 75%: the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development applies to housing applications here. A material point for any housing proposal.
| Dataset | Publisher | Covers this authority | Loaded | Official source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Planning application decisions (PS2) | MHCLG | 1979 Q2 to 2026 Q2 (189 quarters) | 25 Oct 2026 · 68,583 rows nationally | Live tables |
| Planning application flow (PS1) | MHCLG | 1979 Q2 to 2026 Q2 (189 quarters) | 25 Oct 2026 · 42,861 rows nationally | Live tables |
| Housing Delivery Test 2025 | MHCLG | 2022/23 to 2024/25 | 18 Aug 2026 | Measurement |
What this authority refuses on
Classified from the reasons in decision notices we hold for this council. Categories can overlap — one reason often engages more than one issue.
| Objection type | Reasons |
|---|---|
| Missing information or evidence | 6 |
| Highways and access | 3 |
| Neighbour amenity | 2 |
| Design, scale or layout | 1 |
| Flood risk and drainage | 1 |
| Principle of development | 1 |
How this council decides
Measured against the published determination target on 1,244 decisions. Average window from valid date to target: 53 days (the statutory period is 56 days for most applications, 91 for majors).
(4+ days before target)
(final 3 days)
(after the target)
valid date to decision
This authority is mixed: a substantial share of decisions land after the statutory target, so treat the target as indicative.
Which day applications are submitted, validated and decided
| Submitted (n=1,244) | Validated (n=1,244) | Decided (n=1,244) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mon | 26.8% | 26.4% | 18.3% | |||
| Tue | 21.1% | 21.1% | 17.4% | |||
| Wed | 18.5% | 18.8% | 20.1% | |||
| Thu | 15.8% | 15.6% | 23% | |||
| Fri | 16.5% | 16.8% | 21.2% | |||
| Sat | 0.6% | 0.6% | 0% | |||
| Sun | 0.7% | 0.6% | 0% | |||
An even working week is 20% a day. Amber marks a day carrying 26% or more. Submitted is the date the council received the application; validated is the date it was made valid and the clock started. All three columns use the same applications, so they can be read across.
By application type
| Type | Decisions | Before deadline | On deadline day | Late | Average days |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full planning permission | 146 | 20% | 30% | 50% | 102 |
| Tree works: Trees in conservation areas/subjec | 141 | 82% | 1% | 17% | 32 |
| Approval of details reserved by a condition (d | 120 | 39% | 28% | 33% | 58 |
| Householder planning permission | 119 | 18% | 51% | 30% | 62 |
| Full | 112 | 13% | 38% | 49% | 73 |
| All Other | 74 | 19% | 26% | 55% | 103 |
| Lawful development: Proposed use | 73 | 22% | 45% | 33% | 59 |
| Conditions | 69 | 36% | 19% | 45% | 60 |
Delegated vs committee
| Route | Decisions | Before deadline | On deadline day | Late | Average days |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Delegated | 903 | 27% | 32% | 41% | 72 |
What "after the target" means. Published data cannot distinguish an agreed extension of time from a target that was simply missed — both appear the same way. This measures when the decision was issued relative to the statutory target, and nothing more. Deadline data comes from the council's own published determination target, captured where its portal exposes it (Idox councils and the London Datahub).
Policies most often cited in refusals
Case officers in our data
| Officer | Applications | Decided | Approved | Refused | Withdrawn | Approval rate | Average days | Late | Mostly handles | Seen |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Callum Henderson | 75 | 75 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 75% | 20 | — | Approval for works to trees in CA (70) | May 2026 – Oct 2026 |
| Dominic Harris | 20 | 20 | 17 | 1 | 1 | 94% | 47 | — | Full Planning Permission (8) | Apr 2026 – Oct 2026 |
| Larissa Hinds | 18 | 18 | 14 | 4 | 0 | 78% | 50 | — | Full Planning Permission (6) | Apr 2026 – Oct 2026 |
| Miss Nadia Harper | 18 | 18 | 11 | 5 | 1 | 69% | 48 | — | Certificate of Lawful Use proposed (4) | Apr 2026 – Sep 2026 |
| Katherine Leftwich | 14 | 14 | 7 | 5 | 1 | 58% | 46 | — | Approval of Details (7) | Apr 2026 – Oct 2026 |
| Mrs Ruth Brown | 14 | 14 | 10 | 2 | 2 | 83% | 47 | — | Full Planning Permission (5) | Apr 2026 – Oct 2026 |
| Miss Felicia Onabanjo | 13 | 13 | 10 | 3 | 0 | 77% | 45 | — | Approval of Details (5) | Apr 2026 – Oct 2026 |
| Thomas Howell | 13 | 11 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 50% | 49 | — | Full Planning Permission (8) | Apr 2026 – Oct 2026 |
| Ms Camilla Bebb | 12 | 12 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 64% | 45 | — | Full Planning Permission (4) | Apr 2026 – Sep 2026 |
| Matthew Duigan | 11 | 11 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 29 | — | Approval of Details (9) | Apr 2026 – Sep 2026 |
| Ms Rowena Folkes | 10 | 10 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 78% | 40 | — | Approval of Details (4) | Jul 2026 – Oct 2026 |
| Georgia Knott | 9 | 9 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 80% | 46 | — | Certificate of Lawful Use proposed (3) | Apr 2026 – Oct 2026 |
Counts come from the applications we have scraped, which is a fraction of each officer's caseload. Approval rate is approvals as a share of approvals plus refusals; withdrawn and other outcomes are excluded. Average days runs from the validated date to the decision. Late is the share decided after the published determination target, shown only where we hold a target for at least five of that officer's decisions. "Mostly handles" is the application type they appear on most often. Treat as a sample of who is active, not as a performance measure of an individual: a caseload of majors runs longer than one of householder applications. Click a name for the full officer profile.
Agents most active here
| Agent / firm | Applications | Decided | Approved | Refused | Withdrawn | Success rate | Average days | Mostly brings | Seen |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BPTW | 24 | 9 | 8 | 0 | 1 | 100% | 56 | Conditions (19) | May 2026 – Oct 2026 |
| Rolfe Judd Planning Ltd | 20 | 16 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 42 | Approval of Details (8) | May 2026 – Oct 2026 |
| Potter Raper | 15 | 7 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 83% | 57 | Full (12) | Apr 2026 – Oct 2026 |
| Constructive Thinking Studio | 15 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 54 | Outline (9) | Jul 2026 – Sep 2026 |
| Foxy Arboriculture Ltd | 15 | 11 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 23 | Trees (8) | Oct 2024 – Oct 2026 |
| GraftinGardeners Ltd | 13 | 11 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 100% | 24 | Approval for works to trees in CA (7) | Oct 2024 – Oct 2026 |
| CANOPY PLANNING SERVICES LTD | 11 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 100% | 57 | Full (6) | May 2026 – Oct 2026 |
| Iceni Projects | 11 | 6 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 100% | 47 | Conditions (8) | Oct 2024 – Oct 2026 |
| Faithorn Farrell Timms LLP | 10 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 62 | Full (6) | May 2026 – Sep 2026 |
| Montagu Evans | 10 | 7 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 71% | 48 | Approval of Details (3) | May 2026 – Sep 2026 |
| DP9 Limited | 9 | 7 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 42 | Approval of Details (5) | Apr 2026 – Sep 2026 |
| Redwoods Projects | 9 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0% | 67 | Full (7) | Jul 2025 – Sep 2026 |
Success rate is approvals as a share of approvals plus refusals; withdrawn and other outcomes are excluded, so an agent who withdraws rather than takes a refusal will look stronger than the raw numbers suggest. Average days runs from the validated date to the decision. "Mostly brings" is the application type the firm appears on most often, which explains much of the difference: tree works and conditions discharge are approved far more often than new build. Counts are from the applications we have scraped, not the firm's full workload.
Development plan
Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2035
Adopted 2021-09-22 · plan period 2020-01-01–2035-01-01
Plan documents
National statistics for this authority →
Councils with data on file
On the numbers. The refusal rate, officers and agents here are computed from the applications PlanningCore has collected for this authority — for most councils that is a recent sample rather than the full register, and the date range above tells you which. The appeal overturn rate comes from Planning Inspectorate decisions and covers a much longer period. Use the national statistics page for complete, official volumes.
About this tool: LPA Profile
Deep-dive authority analysis — approval rates by type, refusal reason clustering, appeal overturn rates, average decision times, and strictness rankings.
Use to understand how your LPA behaves. Every council has different tendencies — some are design-focused, some are policy-strict, some are more pragmatic.
MHCLG planning statistics, appeal decision analysis
Use these tools to understand how your Local Planning Authority behaves — what they approve, what they refuse, how often appeals succeed, and what strategy gives you the best chance. This is behavioural intelligence, not just policy research.
Guidance to help you prepare — not formal planning advice. Check the current policy text and your council's local plan before relying on it.