Development Intent
Planning AtlasKensington And ChelseaCE5
PolicyPoliticalCommitteeOfficersAgents & developersViabilityMapAppeals
Kensington And Chelsea · Local Plan · Policy

CE5 — Air Quality.

How Kensington And Chelsea actually applies CE5: who leans on it, where it bites hardest, and how often it's invoked. The policy text is the rule; this is the behaviour.

CE5 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 · CE5
Where CE5 is quoted — by ward
Fewer ~0
More citations ~21
Showing
re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
164
times cited
in parsed decision notices
2 appeals
appeal survival
1 dismissed · 0 allowed at appeal — too few to rate
36 of 76
officer reach
47% of officers recorded in this period
Brompton and Hans Town
top hotspot ward
21 citations
What this policy is about

Policy CE5: The Council will control the impact of developments on air quality and noise pollution. It will require air quality assessments for major developments, ensure they are 'air quality neutral', and resist biomass combustion. For noise, it will consider each site's context and require measures to mitigate exceedances of air pollutants.

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

The policy — as adopted

Air Quality

The Council will carefully control the impact of deve consideration of pollution from vehicles, constructio Council will support measures to improve air qualit in a way that minimises the impact on air quality an To deliver this the Council will: a. require an air quality assessment for all major de b. require developments to be ‘air quality neutral’ a materially increase exceedance levels of local a amenity or health, unless the development mitig financial contributions to implement proposals in Change Action Plan; c. resist biomass combustion and combined heat a an increase in emissions, and seek to use great renewable technologies to make carbon savings impact on air quality; d. require that emissions of particles and NOx are and risk assessments are carried out to identify measures, including on site monitoring, if requir Noise and Vibration 24.3.58 The dominant sources of noise in the bo building and construction activity (includi pavement cafés/ outdoor seating and bu helicopter noise is also a concern in part 24.3.59 Vibration in the borough, apart from tem as a result of surface trains, including nig 24.3.60 Noise sensitive development includes re 24.3.61 The Environmental Noise (England) Reg Planning Policy Framework requires the At present, there are no such areas iden work with the Department for Environme course. 24.3.62 Issues of noise and nuisance are consid proposal, site context and surrounding u noise standards, the advice of the Counc sought on all applications where noise a 24.3.63 The evidence on noise and vibration sho development takes account of existing s and vibration generating development do elopment on air quality, including the on and the heating and cooling of buildings. The ty and will require development to be carried out nd mitigates exceedances of air pollutants. evelopments; and resist development proposals, which would air pollutants and have an unacceptable impact on gates this impact through physical measures, or n the Council’s Local Air Quality and Climate and power technologies/CCHP, which may lead to ter energy efficiency and non combustion s, unless its use will not have a detrimental controlled during demolition and construction, y potential impacts and corresponding mitigation red by the Council. orough are generated by road and rail traffic, ing DIY), noisy neighbours, pubs and clubs, uilding services plant and equipment. Aircraft and ts of the borough. mporary construction activity, is usually generated ght freight trains, and underground trains. esidential dwellings, schools and hospital uses. gulations 2006, the London Plan and the National e consideration of protecting tranquil/quiet areas. ntified in the borough, however the Council will ent, Food and Rural Affairs to identify these in due dered on a site by site basis having regard to the uses. Owing to the specialist nature of enforcing cil’s Environmental Health Department will be and vibration is likely to be an issue. ows that we need a policy to ensure that new sources of noise and vibration and proposed noise oes not impact on existing amenity.

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

How it lands
100% in approvals · 0% in refusals
164 citations in the selected period
The approval/refusal split is subscriber intelligenceUnlock →
Where it bites
Brompton and Hans Town21
Royal Hospital15
Abingdon14
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 CE5 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

CE5 appears most often in Brompton and Hans Town, Royal Hospital, Abingdon. It appears across 36 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
100%
in approvals
164 citations
0%
in refusals
0 citations

This shows the decision reports in which CE5 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 CE5 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 · 0 allowed · 1 split2 PINS appeal decisions cite CE5

From Planning Inspectorate decision letters that cite CE5. 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 CE5 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.