Development Intent
AtlasCity Of LondonPolicyCR3
Planning Atlas›City Of London›CR3
PolicyPoliticalCommitteeOfficersAgents & developersViabilityMapAppeals
City Of London · Local Plan · Policy

CR3 — Sustainable drainage systems (SuDS).

How City Of London actually applies CR3: who leans on it, where it bites hardest, and how often it's invoked. The policy text is the rule; this is the behaviour.

CR3 is a published City Of London planning policy. This page records where it appears in the council's published planning decisions.

Cited under: City Of London Local Plan (adopted)

City Of London · CR3
Where CR3 is quoted — by ward
Fewer ~0
More citations ~1
Showing
re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
1
times cited
in parsed decision notices
—
appeal survival
no PINS appeal decisions cite it
1 of 8
officer reach
13% of officers recorded in this period
Cheap
top hotspot ward
1 citations
What this policy is about

Policy CR3 requires all development in the City to incorporate sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) principles, minimising rainwater run-off into the combined drainage network. This applies to all development, transportation and public realm proposals. The council will resist proposals that do not meet these requirements and support those that demonstrate SuDS designs integrated with building and landscaping, minimising discharge points and contributing to water efficiency and biodiversity.

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

The policy — as adopted

Sustainable drainage systems (SuDS)

1. All development, transportation and public realm proposals must incorporate SuDS principles and be designed to minimise the volume and discharge rate of rainwater run-off into the combined drainage network in the City, ensuring that rainwater is managed as close as possible to the development. 2. The design of the surface water drainage system should be integrated into the design of proposed buildings and landscaping, unless there are exceptional circumstances which make this impractical. Proposals should demonstrate that run-off rates are as close as possible to greenfield rates and the number of discharge points has been minimised. 3. SuDS designs must take account of the City’s archaeological and other heritage assets, complex underground utilities, transport infrastructure and other underground structures, incorporating suitable SuDS elements for the City’s high density urban situation. 4. SuDS should be designed, where possible, to maximise contributions to water resource efficiency, water quality, biodiversity enhancement and the provision of multifunctional open spaces. 5. An operation and maintenance plan will be required to ensure that the SuDS elements will remain viable for the lifetime of the building.

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

How it lands
100% in approvals · 0% in refusals
1 citations in the selected period
The approval/refusal split is subscriber intelligenceUnlock →
Where it bites
Cheap1
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 CR3 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

CR3 appears most often in Cheap. It appears across 1 of 8 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
100%
in approvals
1 citations
0%
in refusals
0 citations

This shows the decision reports in which CR3 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 CR3 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

No Planning Inspectorate appeal decisions on record cite CR3. When one lands (the appeals table refreshes each weekday), the dismissed/allowed record appears here — never estimated.

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