Development Intent
AtlasKensington and ChelseaPolicyC1
Planning Atlas›Kensington And Chelsea›C1
PolicyPoliticalCommitteeOfficersAgents & developersViabilityMapAppeals
Kensington And Chelsea · Local Plan · Policy

C1 — Infrastructure Delivery and Planning Contributions.

How Kensington And Chelsea actually applies C1: who leans on it, where it bites hardest, and how often it's invoked. The policy text is the rule; this is the behaviour.

C1 is a published Kensington And Chelsea planning policy. This page records where it appears in the council's published planning decisions.

Cited under: Kensington And Chelsea Local Plan (adopted)

Kensington And Chelsea · C1
Where C1 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
2 appeals
appeal survival
1 dismissed · 1 allowed at appeal — too few to rate
1 of 76
officer reach
1% of officers recorded in this period
St Helen's
top hotspot ward
1 citations
What this policy is about

Policy C1 requires new development to be coordinated with infrastructure provision. The Council will consider the development's impact and seek compensatory measures if necessary. Planning contributions, such as the Community Infrastructure Levy, will be applied and negotiated on a case-by-case basis. The Council will review S106 contributions in the context of a viability study, which the applicant must fund.

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

The policy — as adopted

Infrastructure Delivery and Planning Contributions

Infrastructure Requirements and Delivery New development will be coordinated with the provision of appropriate infrastructure to support the development. The Council will require that there is adequate infrastructure to serve developments, through the use of planning contributions, working with infrastructure providers and stakeholders to identify requirements. In determining applications for planning permission, the Council will take into consideration the nature, scale and location of the proposed development. Where development generates a need either because of its individual or cumulative impact, compensatory or mitigatory measures will be sought to secure the necessary infrastructure, or improvements to the proposals submitted to enable the development to proceed, in accordance with advice in national guidance. Planning Contributions Community Infrastructure Levy will be applied in accordance with the Regulations and planning obligations will be negotiated on a case by case basis in accordance with current legislation, national policy and guidance. In determining what planning obligations would make development acceptable in planning terms, account will be taken of the proposed development, individual characteristics of the site, the infrastructure needs of the site and the surrounding area, and the London Plan. Proposals that form part of potentially wider sites will be assessed in terms of the capacity of the site as a whole. The viability of the development will also be taken into account. Where the development is unable to deliver all the policy requirements for reasons of viability or where enabling development is necessary to bring development forward, a viability study will be required to accompany the planning application. S106 contributions will be reviewed in the context of this viability study. The applicant will fund the independent assessment of the viability study, or other technical studies requiring independent assessment, prior to the application being determined. 17.3 Planning Enforcement 17.3.1 The NPPF states that effective enforcement is important as a means of maintaining public confidence in the planning system and suggests that Councils should consider publishing a Local Enforcement Plan to manage enforcement proactively, in a way that is appropriate in their area. A Local Enforcement Plan should set out how the Council will monitor the implementation of planning permissions, investigate alleged cases of unauthorised development and take action where it is appropriate to do so. The Council intends to publish a Local Enforcement Plan as a separate document to the Local Plan.

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

How it lands
0% in approvals · 100% in refusals
1 citations in the selected period
The approval/refusal split is subscriber intelligenceUnlock →
Where it bites
St Helen's1
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 C1 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

C1 appears most often in St Helen's. It appears across 1 of 76 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
0%
in approvals
0 citations
100%
in refusals
1 citations

This shows the decision reports in which C1 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 C1 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
— survival
1 dismissed · 1 allowed — 2 PINS appeal decisions cite C1

From Planning Inspectorate decision letters that cite C1. Dismissed = the council's refusal stood, the policy held; allowed = overturned. Too few decisive appeals for a rate — the counts are the record. The tighter join — this borough's own refusals citing C1 traced to their specific appeals — is still to come.

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