Development Intent
Planning AtlasKensington And ChelseaCE2
PolicyPoliticalCommitteeOfficersAgents & developersViabilityMapAppeals
Kensington And Chelsea · Local Plan · Policy

CE2 — Flooding.

How Kensington And Chelsea actually applies CE2: who leans on it, where it bites hardest, and how often it's invoked. The policy text is the rule; this is the behaviour.

CE2 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 · CE2
Where CE2 is quoted — by ward
Fewer ~0
More citations ~10
Showing
re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
100
times cited
in parsed decision notices
17%
appeal survival
1 dismissed · 5 allowed at appeal
29 of 76
officer reach
38% of officers recorded in this period
Norland
top hotspot ward
10 citations
The policy — as adopted

Flooding

The Council will require development to address a To deliver this the Council will: Flood Risk a. resist vulnerable development, including self-co 3 and Critical Drainage Areas as defined in the Water Management Plan; b. require a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment, i in Flood Risk Zone 2 and 3 as defined in the Str Drainage Areas and for all sites greater than on c. where required undertake the ‘Sequential Test’ 2 and 3, and for sites in Critical Drainage Areas d. require development at risk from flooding in Floo Areas, or sites greater than 1ha to incorporate s conditions in accordance with Building Regulatio of the site-specific Flood Risk Assessment, the Flood Risk Management Strategy. These meas i. address all flood depths for the 1 in 100 ye the development will remain safe during a ii. take into account access, egress and eme iii. ensure buildings remain safe for occupant sewer flooding through the installation of a development includes floors below the lev iv. apply where required the measures and a Management Strategy Action Plan; e. require that flood risk measures and flood risk as operational and provide adequate protection for f. require development adjacent to the Thames to enable the sustainable and cost effective upgra recommendations of the Thames Estuary 2100 Surface Water Run-off and Sustainable Drainag g. require major development to achieve greenfield a reduction of 50% of existing rates, ensuring th its source as possible, through: i. the increase of permeable surfaces; ii. recognising opportunities for SuDS to prov iii. factoring all flows into the sewer system (i groundwater or other flows) in the calculat sewer level should be pumped. Fitting only a ‘non not effective in directing the flow of sewage away red by Policy CL7 for basement properties. e need a policy to ensure that development urces and incorporates measures to reduce and urface water and sewer flooding. and reduce flood risk and its impacts. ontained basement dwellings, in Flood Risk Zone Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and the Surface including an ‘Exception Test’ for all development rategic Flood Risk Assessment, for sites in Critical ne hectare; for planning applications within Flood Risk Zones s; od Risk Zones 2 and 3, in Critical Drainage suitable flood risk measures to account for site ons, existing guidance and the recommendations Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and the Local sures should: ear storm event plus climate change to ensure a flood event throughout its lifetime; ergency exit routes; ts in case of flooding, and are protected from a suitable pumped device when the new vel of the sewer; actions included in the Local Flood Risk ssets are protected and maintained to remain r the lifetime of development; o be set back from the Thames flood defence to ade of flood defences and to implement any other plan (TE2100). ge Systems (SuDS) d run-off rates and minor development to achieve hat surface water run-off is managed as close to vide other environmental benefits; including swimming pools discharges, tions of greenfield run-off rates; h. require SuDS to have regard to DEFRA non-sta ensure SuDS are adequately designed, built an i. resist impermeable surfaces in gardens and lan j. encourage the retrofitting of SuDS in buildings e implications. Water Infrastructure Projects k. support the Thames Tideway Tunnel in principle l. support the provision of water and sewage infra long-term reduction of local flooding, providing t construction and operation and appropriate miti Waste 24.3.32 In 2015-16, the Council collected 79,068 Authority Collected Waste172 (including 5 per cent was sent to Belvedere Energy f waste was recycled or composted, which cent. No waste was sent to landfill. The a in 2015-16 was 445kg in the borough, th kg in 2014-15173. In such a highly built u functional refuse and recycling storage s developments to ease collection and kee need to be fully functional to the end use 24.3.33 Major development in Kensal and Earl’s population, with an increase in the produ management is taken into account in all new uses. 24.3.34 The borough is very accessible by river a sustainable transportation of residual wa transported from Wandsworth by barge t 24.3.35 Considerable volumes of waste come fro and a half years, almost 2,000 incidents borough. Ensuring this waste is manage 24.3.36 The Waste Management Plan for Englan waste should be dealt with (prevention, p disposal) and confirms the importance o The evidence on waste management sh dealing with waste in the borough includ 172 Household, commercial & industrial waste collected b 173 The residual household and domestic waste tonnage DEFRA by WRWA. The recycling rates are figures subm atutory SuDS standards and local guidance to nd maintained for the lifetime of development; ndscaped areas; even if the development will not have drainage e; astructure which will lead to a substantial and the need outweighs any adverse effects during igation measures are in place. 8 tonnes (26,797,000 tonnes nationally) of Local 54,094 tonnes of domestic waste), of which 74.1 from Waste (EfW) plant and 25.9 per cent of this h is lower than the national average of 44.9 per average residual waste produced per household his has decreased from 449kg in 2013-14 and 461 up borough, it is important that well designed and space is allocated and integrally designed into all ep the streets litter free. Such storage space will er. Court will have an impact on the borough’s uction of waste. It is important that waste development to handle waste arisings from the and rail, which can provide opportunities for aste. All the borough’s residual waste is to Belvedere EfW plant. om the construction process. Over the last two of dumped builders waste were reported in the ed responsibly is therefore important. nd confirms a ‘waste hierarchy’ setting out how preparing for re-use, recycling, other recovery and of the National Planning Policy for Waste (NPPW). hows that we need to examine new ways of ding promoting the principles of a circular economy by the Council e are RBKC figures and not the figures submitted to mitted to DEFRA. (i.e reduce, reuse and recycle). Moreove meets its waste apportionment figure wh 24.3.37 The Council is statutorily required to deli as directed by the Western Riverside Wa Authority Collected Waste goes to WRW treatment (Western Riverside Transfer S Transfer Station next to Battersea Powe Materials Recycling Facility at Smuggler down river to the Riverside Resource Re the London Borough of Bexley where the the largest EfW facility in the UK and one generate 72MW of power. The WRWA’s tonnes of waste per year although the W waste to it. The contract runs until 2031 borough and the other WRWA Waste Pl Bexley. The Belverdere Energy from Wa Council will continue to work jointly with can continue and if necessary its apporti 24.3.38 The London Plan sets out the waste app The apportionment figure includes house other waste streams. 24.3.39 The Council has prepared a joint Waste WRWA area. The Waste Technical Pape area for waste streams175 and the ability establishes that the available waste trea waste apportionment is 30,660 tpa. The future waste use which has an estimated borough will therefore increase to 54,060 24.3.40 The Waste Technical Paper concludes t capacity to meet its apportionment within safeguarded Cremorne Wharf site, this w constrained nature of the borough and c no opportunities to allocate waste sites. the apportionment could be met within th 24.3. 41 The Waste Technical Paper also covers and excavation, low level radioactive, ag Plan does not set an apportionment targ Paper that there is little or no waste arisi waste therefore there is no need for add streams. No additional facilities are requ during the plan period as this is being ad and expansion of the Beckton Sewage T 24.3.42 In respect of construction, demolition an forecasts arisings of 175,980tpa in the b area by 2036. There is no existing capac 174 London Plan Policies 5.16 (Waste Net Self-sufficienc target covers household and commercial & industrial wa 175 Municipal/household, Commercial & industrial, Cons Radioactive, Agricultural, Hazardous, Waste water. er, the Mayor of London requires that the borough hich is set out in the London Plan174. iver its Local Authority Collected Waste to places aste Authority (WRWA). Currently all of the Local WA facilities in Wandsworth for transfer and Station near Wandsworth Bridge and Cringle Dock er Station). Since 2011, recyclables go to a rs Way in Wandsworth and residuals are barged ecovery Limited (RRRL)’s facility at Belvedere, in e waste is incinerated to generate electricity. It is e of the largest in Europe, which will eventually s has stated that the facility can handle 670,000 WRWA supplies around 300,000 tonnes of residual meaning that, in reality, waste arisings from the lanning Authorities (WPAs) are dealt with in aste plant opened in Bexley in May 2012. The the WRWA to ensure that existing arrangements ionment gap can be met at the plan. portionment to be managed by London boroughs. ehold and commercial & industrial waste, but not Technical Paper with the other WPAs in the er sets out the waste arisings within the WRWA y to meet the London Plan apportionment. This atment capacity in the borough to help meet the Council is safeguarding Cremorne Wharf for d capacity of 23,400 tpa. The capacity in the 0 tpa by 2036. that there is currently a shortfall of 167ktpa of n the borough. Including capacity from the will reduce to 143,940 tpa by 2036. Due to the competing land use demands there are currently However as a group of WPAs in the WRWA area he WRWA area s other waste streams (construction, demolition gricultural, hazardous, waste water). The London get for these. It is concluded in the Technical ing from low level radioactive and agricultural ditional management capacity for these waste uired in the borough for waste water treatment ddressed by Thames Water through the upgrade Treatment Works. nd excavation waste, the Waste Technical Paper borough and a total of 507,646tpa in the WRWA city within the borough to address construction, cy) and 5.17 (Waste Capacity). The apportionment aste.

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

How it lands
98% in approvals · 2% in refusals
100 citations in the selected period
The approval/refusal split is subscriber intelligenceUnlock →
Where it bites
Norland10
Stanley10
Campden9
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 CE2 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

CE2 appears most often in Norland, Stanley, Campden. It appears across 29 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
98%
in approvals
98 citations
2%
in refusals
2 citations

This shows the decision reports in which CE2 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 CE2 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
17% survival
1 dismissed · 5 allowed · 2 split8 PINS appeal decisions cite CE2

From Planning Inspectorate decision letters that cite CE2. Dismissed = the council's refusal stood, the policy held; allowed = overturned. The tighter join — this borough's own refusals citing CE2 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.