Development Intent
Planning AtlasKensington And ChelseaCL1
PolicyPoliticalCommitteeOfficersAgents & developersViabilityMapAppeals
Kensington And Chelsea · Local Plan · Policy

CL1 — Context and Character.

How Kensington And Chelsea actually applies CL1: who leans on it, where it bites hardest, and how often it's invoked. The policy text is the rule; this is the behaviour.

CL1 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 · CL1
Where CL1 is quoted — by ward
Fewer ~0
More citations ~38
Showing
re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
372
times cited
in parsed decision notices
61%
appeal survival
58 dismissed · 37 allowed at appeal
46 of 76
officer reach
61% of officers recorded in this period
Brompton and Hans Town
top hotspot ward
38 citations
What this policy is about

Policy CL1 requires all development to respect the area's character and function, including being inclusive for all. The Council will require development to contribute positively to the area's form, respond to local conditions, and respect the density and layout of the area. The Council will resist the demolition of and inappropriate alterations to historic buildings and artists' studios, and ensure that new development enhances the area's character and setting.

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

The policy — as adopted

Context and Character

The Council will require all development to respect taking opportunities available to improve the qualit way it functions, including being inclusive for all. To deliver this the Council will: a. require development to contribute positively to th form, addressing matters such as scale, height, street form, rhythm, roofscape, materials and hi open space; b. require development to respond to the local con c. require the density of development to be optimis d. require riverside and canalside development to e including opening up views and securing access e. require development within the Thames Policy A importance and iconic role that the Thames play f. require a comprehensive approach to site layout are suitable for redevelopment, resisting schem and/or quality; g. require the development of backland sites to ens is properly integrated into the surrounding street the hierarchy of the existing urban block so as t h. ensure that, in carrying out alterations and exten such as mews, terrace or mansion block, is pres i. resist the demolition of, and inappropriate alterati Design Quality 22.3.13 The Royal Borough has a distinctive tow wide variety of architectural styles within sensitive approach to the architectural d modifications to existing buildings will be very high quality expected within conser 22.3.14 Definitions of good design are many and appearance. But good design must also behind. They exist in many forms from grand s artists of the day, to more modest and utilitarian nificant numbers in the borough, which make an nd appearance. There is considerable pressure d the carrying out of alterations. This pressure is of these studios and consequently, undermining t the existing context, character and appearance, y and character of buildings and the area and the he townscape through the architecture and urban , bulk, mass, proportion, plot width, building lines, istoric fabric as well as vistas, views, gaps, and ntext; sed, sensitive to context; enhance the waterside character and setting, s to the waterway; Area to protect and improve the strategic ys in London; and design including adjacent sites where these mes which prejudice future development potential sure vehicular and pedestrian access t network and that the scale and massing respect to enhance the character of the area; nsions, the characteristics of the type of building, served and enhanced; ions and extensions to, artists’ studios. wnscape of high quality, often characterised by a n relatively small areas. To renew the legacy, a design of new buildings, and to extensions and e required. This should be to a high quality, with rvation areas. d varied. Design is often interpreted to be about take account of functionality. The most commonly used set of objectives for goo continuity and enclosure, quality of the p adaptability and diversity88. But the Coun functional, robust and attractive, provide be applied at any scale, from the design 22.3.15 Architecture is about more than just aest prevention, accessibility and inclusivity m order for development to be fit for purpos architectural quality is not compromised. 22.3.16 Sustainability is also essential in good de must be integrated into the whole design whole is concerned with social, environm architectural design the focus is on the u are set out in Chapter 24 ‘Respecting En 22.3.17 The distinctive townscapes of the Royal museums and mansion blocks through t modesty of the mews. These, together w to the borough. In some places there are scales.

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

How it lands
90% in approvals · 10% in refusals
372 citations in the selected period
The approval/refusal split is subscriber intelligenceUnlock →
Where it bites
Brompton and Hans Town38
Campden35
Redcliffe30
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 CL1 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

CL1 appears most often in Brompton and Hans Town, Campden, Redcliffe. It appears across 46 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
90%
in approvals
336 citations
10%
in refusals
36 citations

This shows the decision reports in which CL1 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 CL1 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
61% survival
58 dismissed · 37 allowed · 4 split99 PINS appeal decisions cite CL1

From Planning Inspectorate decision letters that cite CL1. Dismissed = the council's refusal stood, the policy held; allowed = overturned. The tighter join — this borough's own refusals citing CL1 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.