Development Intent
AtlasCamdenPolicyC5
Planning Atlas›Camden›C5
PolicyPoliticalCommitteeOfficersAgents & developersViabilityMapAppeals
Camden · Local Plan · Policy

C5 — Safety and security.

How Camden actually applies C5: who leans on it, where it bites hardest, and how often it's invoked. The policy text is the rule; this is the behaviour.

C5 is a published Camden planning policy. This page records where it appears in the council's published planning decisions.

Cited under: Camden Local Plan (adopted)

Camden · C5
Where C5 is quoted — by ward
Fewer ~0
More citations ~3
Showing
re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
7
times cited
in parsed decision notices
71%
appeal survival
27 dismissed · 11 allowed at appeal
7 of 57
officer reach
12% of officers recorded in this period
Holborn & Covent Garden
top hotspot ward
3 citations
What this policy is about

Policy C5 requires developments in high-crime areas to incorporate design principles and security measures to contribute to community safety and security. This applies to developments in wards with high crime levels, such as Holborn and Covent Garden. The Council will resist developments that do not meet these requirements.

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

The policy — as adopted

Safety and security

The Council will aim to make Camden a safer place. We will: a. work with our partners including the Camden Community Safety Partnership to tackle crime, fear of crime and antisocial behaviour; b. require developments to demonstrate that they have incorporated design principles which contribute to community safety and security, particularly in wards with relatively high levels of crime, such as Holborn and Covent Garden, Camden Town with Primrose Hill and Bloomsbury; c. require appropriate security and community safety measures in buildings, spaces and the transport system; d. promote safer streets and public areas; e. address the cumulative impact of food, drink and entertainment uses, particularly in Camden Town, Central London and other centres and ensure Camden’s businesses and organisations providing food, drink and entertainment uses take responsibility for reducing the opportunities for crime through effective management and design; and f. promote the development of pedestrian friendly spaces. Where a development has been identified as being potentially vulnerable to terrorism, the Council will expect counter-terrorism measures to be incorporated into the design of buildings and associated public areas to increase security.

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

How it lands
86% in approvals · 0% in refusals
7 citations in the selected period
The approval/refusal split is subscriber intelligenceUnlock →
Where it bites
Holborn & Covent Garden3
Cantelowes1
Hampstead Town1
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 C5 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

C5 appears most often in Holborn & Covent Garden, Cantelowes, Hampstead Town. It appears across 7 of 57 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
86%
in approvals
6 citations
0%
in refusals
0 citations

This shows the decision reports in which C5 appears. It does not yet claim that the policy caused those outcomes; 1 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 C5 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
71% survival
27 dismissed · 11 allowed — 38 PINS appeal decisions cite C5

From Planning Inspectorate decision letters that cite C5. Dismissed = the council's refusal stood, the policy held; allowed = overturned. The tighter join — this borough's own refusals citing C5 traced to their specific appeals — is still to come.

Related — follow the thread
Camden
Back to the borough policy record
Open →
Committee record
What reaches members, and what they do with it
Open →
Case officers
Camden's decision-makers
Open →
Citations, officer spread, ward and application-type counts parsed from published Camden 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.