Development Intent
AtlasLambethPolicyQ14
Planning AtlasLambethQ14
PolicyPoliticalCommitteeOfficersAgents & developersViabilityMapAppeals
Lambeth · Local Plan · Policy

Q14 — Development in gardens and amenity spaces.

How Lambeth actually applies Q14: who leans on it, where it bites hardest, and how often it's invoked. The policy text is the rule; this is the behaviour.

Q14 is a published Lambeth planning policy. This page records where it appears in the council's published planning decisions.

Cited under: Lambeth Local Plan (adopted)

Lambeth · Q14
Where Q14 is quoted — by ward
Fewer ~0
More citations ~23
Showing
re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
164
times cited
in parsed decision notices
81%
appeal survival
21 dismissed · 5 allowed at appeal
38 of 70
officer reach
54% of officers recorded in this period
Clapham Town
top hotspot ward
23 citations
What this policy is about

Policy Q14 restricts garden development to prevent biodiversity loss and poor drainage. It applies to front and rear gardens, with stricter rules for front gardens. The council will resist development harming visual amenity or biodiversity.

Plain-English summary of the adopted policy text below. The full text is the rule; this is the gist.

The policy — as adopted

Development in gardens and amenity spaces

A. Development in gardens (or on land most recently used as gardens) should not result in loss of biodiversity, loss of trees of value, or poor drainage and accord with the requirements set out in parts (b), (c ), (d) and (e) below. B. Front gardens and prominent corner/side gardens are not considered appropriate for development. Car parking in these locations will only be  To table of contents Lambeth Local Plan 2020–2035 | Section 10: Quality of the Built Environment permitted for Blue Badge holders where a Blue Badge parking space cannot be accommodated on-street within an acceptable distance. In such cases, the proposal should demonstrate that: i. there would be no harm to the visual amenity or biodiversity value; ii. there would be no harm to residential outlook; iii. an adequate boundary treatment can be maintained across the street frontage (without the need for outward opening gates); iv. perimeter shrub planting is provided to act as a screen; v. as much soft landscaping as possible is retained and the parking area surface is permeable to water; vi. access arrangements meet relevant standards (including inclusive mobility guidance), are safe and direct; vii. the creation or widening of a crossover would not result in the unacceptable loss of on-street parking spaces, result in more than one crossover at the property, be at odds with local distinctiveness or harm the character or appearance of a conservation area; and viii. parking spaces meet the minimum standard dimensions. C. New development in rear gardens (or on land last used as rear gardens) will be supported where: D. outside of conservation areas, the total area of ground covered by buildings within the curtilage does not exceed 50 per cent of the total area of the curtilage excluding the ground area of the original dwelling; and E. Local Plan policy H5 requirements for external amenity space for both new and existing residential properties on the site are achieved, plus an additional 10m2 amenity space for every bedroom above three in the host building; and i. it is subordinate in height and scale to the host building; and ii. access arrangements meet relevant standards (including inclusive mobility guidance), are safe and direct; and iii. there would be no unacceptable impacts on amenity. F. Domestic curtilage structures such as garden sheds, garages and summer houses should not exceed one storey and should be set back at least 1m from all site boundaries (to allow access for the maintenance and to provide gaps between buildings) unless site circumstances dictate otherwise. G. In addition to the requirements in (c) and (d) above, development on return frontages (rear gardens that front a side road) will only be supported where: i. sufficient gaps between buildings, and views to the rear are retained maintained; and ii. established building lines are respected.

Verbatim from the adopted Lambeth plan · source document. The council's published plan is the authoritative version.

How it lands
27% in approvals · 73% in refusals
164 citations in the selected period
The approval/refusal split is subscriber intelligenceUnlock →
Where it bites
Clapham Town23
Knights Hill17
Streatham St Leonard's12
What cites it — application types
all years on record · click a slice to filter
What it means in practice

Not filled in yet. This will hold how officers actually argue Q14 case by case, classified from their decision reports — the classification pass hasn't run. Nothing is paraphrased in its place.

What the published record shows

Q14 appears most often in Clapham Town, Knights Hill, Streatham St Leonard's. It appears across 38 of 70 officers recorded in this period. The map shows the pattern for the selected period.

Who cites it — case-officer spreadfrom parsed decision notices · click an officer
Who leans on this policy — and how often — is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Why it is cited — and what follows
27%
in approvals
45 citations
73%
in refusals
119 citations

This shows the decision reports in which Q14 appears. It does not yet claim that the policy caused those outcomes.

Reason · role · consequence

Not filled in yet — the classification pass over the citing passages hasn't run. When it has, this shows why Q14 was used, whether it supported approval or refusal, and what changed as a result. No conclusion is shown until that classification has been checked.

Why this policy is cited, and what follows, is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Does it hold up? — appeal performance
81% survival
21 dismissed · 5 allowed26 PINS appeal decisions cite Q14

From Planning Inspectorate decision letters that cite Q14. Dismissed = the council's refusal stood, the policy held; allowed = overturned. The tighter join — this borough's own refusals citing Q14 traced to their specific appeals — is still to come.

Related — follow the thread
Lambeth
Back to the borough policy record
Open →
Committee record
What reaches members, and what they do with it
Open →
Case officers
Lambeth's decision-makers
Open →
Citations, officer spread, ward and application-type counts parsed from published Lambeth decision notices (high-confidence parses, approvals and refusals), joined to the canonical application record. One citation = one decision citing the policy. See the policy overview for every policy cited.

Atlas intelligence summarises patterns and observations from published planning records. Past decisions do not indicate how any future application will be determined. Every application is assessed on its own merits, having regard to the proposal, site, evidence and policies applying at the time. This information is provided for general information only and is not planning, legal, financial or professional advice.