Development Intent
Planning AtlasLambethT6
PolicyPoliticalCommitteeOfficersAgents & developersViabilityMapAppeals
Lambeth · Local Plan · Policy

T6 — Parking.

How Lambeth actually applies T6: who leans on it, where it bites hardest, and how often it's invoked. The policy text is the rule; this is the behaviour.

T6 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 · T6
Where T6 is quoted — by ward
Fewer ~0
More citations ~37
Showing
re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
443
times cited
in parsed decision notices
81%
appeal survival
66 dismissed · 15 allowed at appeal
53 of 70
officer reach
76% of officers recorded in this period
Clapham Town
top hotspot ward
37 citations
What this policy is about

Policy T6 restricts parking, promoting reduced car ownership and trips. It applies to residential and non-residential developments, with specific standards for different areas. The council will support developments with limited parking and alternative transport options.

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

The policy — as adopted

Parking

A. The council will apply London Plan policy T6 to promote a reduction in car ownership and private car trips. B. The council will apply the maximum residential car parking standards set out in London Plan policy T6.1 apart from in PTAL areas 1 and 2, where the following Lambeth specific maximum standards will apply: PTAL 2 Up to 0.25 spaces per unit PTAL 1 Up to 0.5 spaces per unit  To table of contents Lambeth Local Plan 2020–2035 | Section 8: Transport and communications C. The council will apply the maximum non-residential car parking standards set out in London Plan policies T6.2, T6.3, T6.4 and T6.5. D. Development should: i. be permit free where the development has a PTAL of 4-6 and/or where the development falls within an existing or planned controlled parking zone; ii. avoid reliance on the public highway to meet the parking requirements of development, including in relation to parking for people with disabilities, motorcycle and coach parking. Where evidence is presented that it is not possible to accommodate parking requirements within the site the council will seek planning obligations in the form of a commuted sum, considering both the cost of implementation and maintenance of any parking bay and infrastructure for electric or other Ultra-Low Emission vehicles, as well as the opportunity cost of lost kerbside space, for example in terms of parking revenues. The approach to calculating commuted sums is set out in Annex 9. iii. make car club membership available to all residents in new residential development and in mixed development that includes housing, and provision of car club spaces where appropriate: all development schemes should promote and provide for car club membership or car pool schemes in place of private parking; iv. comply with London Plan policies for motor-cycles, electric vehicle charging points and coaches; v. ensure that all outdoor and open parking areas are permeable to water. E. Parking in new shopping and leisure developments in opportunity areas and centres should serve the area/centre as a whole and not be reserved solely for use in connection with the development proposed. Preference should be given to short-stay parking. Blue Badge parking and cycle parking should be located closest to town centres and the entrance of facilities. F. In mixed-use development, flexible, shared use of car parking should be provided with consideration of parking spaces for occupants such as families and older residents. G. Lambeth expects that parking control and management should be consistent across the borough, regardless of land ownership or highway status. Parking regimes on housing land should be fully integrated and aligned with parking controls on the surrounding public highway. H. Lambeth will consider the introduction of parking controls across the borough in order to manage demand for parking and allow for more efficient uses of the kerbside such as car club spaces, the creation of better conditions for walking and cycling and in line with carbon reduction objectives. I. When considering parking impacts, the council will prioritise alternative kerbside uses supported in the Transport Strategy, such as car club cars,  To table of contents Lambeth Local Plan 2020–2035 | Section 8: Transport and communications cycle parking and electric vehicle charge points, ahead of parking for private motor vehicles. J. The redevelopment of existing car parks and garages for other uses will be supported. Parking provision in development proposals on existing car park and garage sites should comply with the standards for the uses proposed and should not seek to replace or re-provide the parking spaces that existed previously.

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

How it lands
44% in approvals · 56% in refusals
443 citations in the selected period
The approval/refusal split is subscriber intelligenceUnlock →
Where it bites
Clapham Town37
Gipsy Hill26
Knights Hill22
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 T6 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

T6 appears most often in Clapham Town, Gipsy Hill, Knights Hill. It appears across 53 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
44%
in approvals
195 citations
56%
in refusals
246 citations

This shows the decision reports in which T6 appears. It does not yet claim that the policy caused those outcomes; 2 citations sit outside the approval/refusal split.

Reason · role · consequence

Not filled in yet — the classification pass over the citing passages hasn't run. When it has, this shows why T6 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
66 dismissed · 15 allowed81 PINS appeal decisions cite T6

From Planning Inspectorate decision letters that cite T6. Dismissed = the council's refusal stood, the policy held; allowed = overturned. The tighter join — this borough's own refusals citing T6 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.