Development Intent
Planning AtlasCity Of LondonHL1
PolicyPoliticalCommitteeOfficersAgents & developersViabilityMapAppeals
City Of London · Local Plan · Policy

HL1 — Inclusive buildings and spaces.

How City Of London actually applies HL1: who leans on it, where it bites hardest, and how often it's invoked. The policy text is the rule; this is the behaviour.

HL1 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 · HL1
Where HL1 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
Walbrook
top hotspot ward
1 citations
What this policy is about

Policy HL1 requires buildings, open spaces and streets in the City of London to meet high accessibility and inclusive design standards. Developers must submit Design and Access Statements and Equality Impact Assessments for major applications, engaging with user groups and demonstrating how to achieve inclusivity. This policy applies to all major applications and the City of London will resist applications 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

Inclusive buildings and spaces

Buildings, open spaces and streets must meet the highest standards of accessibility and inclusive design, ensuring that the City of London is: 2. Inclusive, welcoming and safe for all, regardless of age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation. Major applications should develop and submit equality impact assessments, demonstrating how this will be achieved; 3. Convenient and welcoming with no disabling barriers, ensuring that everyone can experience independence without undue effort, separation or special treatment; 4. Responsive to the requirements of all users who visit, work or live in the City, whilst recognising that one solution might not work for all; 5. A place that promotes equity, diversity and social inclusion in the design and use of buildings and public spaces, including through the provision of spaces that are free to access. City Plan 2040 | Shaping the Future City fety Health, Inclusion & Saf Reason for the policy 3.2.0 An inclusive environment is one that recognises that everyone benefits from improved accessibility including disabled people, older people, families with children, carers, people with temporary medical conditions or impaired mobility and non-disabled people. The built environment needs to be safe, accessible and convenient to improve the quality of life for all City users. Despite progress in building a more accessible City, some people still experience considerable barriers to living independent and dignified lives as a result of the way the built environment is designed, built and managed. The outcome of embracing inclusive design should be a City where people want to live, work and visit and which feels open and welcoming to people from different backgrounds. 3.2.1 Under the public sector equality duty, local authorities are required to have regard to the objectives of eliminating discrimination, harassment and victimisation; to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and those who do not; and foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and those who do not. City Plan 2040 | Shaping the Future City fety How the policy works 3.2.2 Developers will be required to submit Design and Access Statements which demonstrate a commitment to inclusive design and the promotion of equity, diversity and social inclusion. Applicants should engage with relevant user groups, including health and social care providers, at early stages to inform their approach. Such engagement should take place before the detailed design stage prior to submission of an application to ensure maximum effectiveness and inclusive design within the building and in the surrounding public realm. Design and Access Statements must include details both on how best practice standards have been complied with and how inclusion will be maintained and managed throughout the lifetime of the building. 3.2.3 Applicants should submit Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs) for major developments to ensure the needs of people belonging to groups with protected characteristics are met, and demonstrating how the development would promote equality, diversity and inclusion.

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
Walbrook1
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 HL1 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

HL1 appears most often in Walbrook. 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 HL1 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 HL1 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 HL1. 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.