Development Intent
AtlasCity Of LondonPolicy
Planning Atlas›City Of London›Policy
PolicyPoliticalCommitteeOfficersAgents & developersViabilityMapAppeals
City Of London · Local Plan · Policy

Policy.

The policies that actually decide outcomes in City Of London — how often each is cited in the officers' own reports, where it bites hardest, and who leans on it. The plan text is the rule; this is the behaviour.

36 citations11 reports parsedCity Of London Local Plan (adopted…
City Of London · policy map
Where policy is quoted most — by ward
Fewer ~0
More citations ~2
At a glance
36[1]
Total citations
across 11 officer reports
0%[1]
Citations on refusals
borough baseline — see the In refusals column
City Of London Local P[1]
Development plan
most-cited framework in reports
—
CIL (residential)
schedule not yet sourced
—
5-year land supply
position statement not yet sourced
Citations by policy — what gets invoked 🔒click a policy — reshapes the map
DE2 · Design Quality
10
DE1 · Sustainable Design
4
HL3 · Noise
4
HE1 · Managing Change to the Historic Environment
3
DE6 · Advertisements
3
CR3 · Sustainable drainage systems (SuDS)
1
OS2 · Urban Greening
1
HL2 · Air quality
1
Full citation counts are subscriber dataSubscribe to see the counts →
What kind of ground gets cited[1]
Design & heritage47%
Amenity11%
Highways & transport6%
Sustainability8%
Other grounds28%

Grounds classified from each policy's own cited title. Click a slice — reshapes the map.

The policies that decide outcomes — City Of London

Every plan policy recurring in City Of London officer reports, ranked by how often it's cited. Click a policy for its full record — and the officer who leans on it most.

PolicyCitationsIn refusalsAppeal survivalCites it most
DE2 — Design Quality100%1 appealsubscriber data
DE1 — Sustainable Design40%—subscriber data
HL3 — Noise40%—subscriber data
The full policy roster and per-policy officer breakdown are subscriber data.Subscribe to see all policies →

Citation counts from City Of London officer reports.[1] “In refusals” = share of a policy's citations that sit on refusals; × = that share against the borough average (needs 20+ citations). Appeal survival = of PINS appeal decisions citing the policy, the share dismissed (refusal held); a rate needs 5+ decisive appeals, fewer show the count. Methodology →

The borough framework

The development-plan documents City Of London officers actually cite, counted across parsed reports. CIL and land-supply figures aren't sourced yet and are shown as pending, not estimated.

Most cited
City Of London Local Plan (adopted)
36 report mentions
The hierarchy
National — NPPFpage pending
Strategic — London Planpage pending
Local — City Of London plan →
What wins here — approval rate by application type[2]

Bar = volume · figure = approval rate, across City Of London's substantive decisions.

Conditions & amendments
100%
Full / major planning
98%
Listed building
99%
Lawful development
99%
Prior approval
96%
Grounds for refusal at committee[3]

Why the planning committee refuses applications, from 12 refusals in the loaded minutes. Committee refusals are relatively few — most decisions are settled by officers.

Heritage Conservation
4
Design Character
3
Land Use
3
Amenity
2
Neighbour Impact
1
Policies cited on refusal — borough-wide[4]

City Of London's decision-notice parsing doesn't have enough high-confidence coverage yet to publish a borough-wide refusal-citation breakdown.

Sources & method
  1. [1]Policy citations, per-policy officer counts and ward citation counts — parsed from 12 published City Of London officer reports (delegated and committee), joined to the canonical application record for wards. Approvals included — refusal notices alone only show the refusal side.
  2. [2]Approval rate by application type — City Of London's substantive decision record. · methodology
  3. [3]Committee refusal grounds and committee-cited policies — published City Of London planning-committee minutes. · committee record
  4. [4]Borough-wide refusal-notice policy citations — decision-notice parsing (high-confidence notices only).
Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.