Development Intent
Planning AtlasHammersmith And FulhamDC1
PolicyPoliticalCommitteeOfficersAgents & developersViabilityMapAppeals
Hammersmith And Fulham · Local Plan · Policy

DC1 — Built environment quality and integration.

How Hammersmith And Fulham actually applies DC1: who leans on it, where it bites hardest, and how often it's invoked. The policy text is the rule; this is the behaviour.

DC1 is a published Hammersmith And Fulham planning policy. This page records where it appears in the council's published planning decisions.

Cited under: Hammersmith And Fulham Local Plan (adopted)

Hammersmith And Fulham · DC1
Where DC1 is quoted — by ward
Fewer ~0
More citations ~24
Showing
re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
221
times cited
in parsed decision notices
67%
appeal survival
80 dismissed · 40 allowed at appeal
30 of 31
officer reach
97% of officers recorded in this period
Munster
top hotspot ward
24 citations
What it means in practice

Not filled in yet. This will hold how officers actually argue DC1 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

DC1 appears most often in Munster, Palace And Hurlingham, Fulham Town. It appears across 30 of 31 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
96%
in approvals
213 citations
3%
in refusals
6 citations

This shows the decision reports in which DC1 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 DC1 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
67% survival
80 dismissed · 40 allowed120 PINS appeal decisions cite DC1

From Planning Inspectorate decision letters that cite DC1. Dismissed = the council's refusal stood, the policy held; allowed = overturned. The tighter join — this borough's own refusals citing DC1 traced to their specific appeals — is still to come.

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