Development Intent
Planning AtlasKensington And ChelseaCL2
PolicyPoliticalCommitteeOfficersAgents & developersViabilityMapAppeals
Kensington And Chelsea · Local Plan · Policy

CL2 — Design Quality.

How Kensington And Chelsea actually applies CL2: who leans on it, where it bites hardest, and how often it's invoked. The policy text is the rule; this is the behaviour.

CL2 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 · CL2
Where CL2 is quoted — by ward
Fewer ~0
More citations ~39
Showing
re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
377
times cited
in parsed decision notices
62%
appeal survival
53 dismissed · 32 allowed at appeal
47 of 76
officer reach
62% of officers recorded in this period
Brompton and Hans Town
top hotspot ward
39 citations
What this policy is about

Policy CL2 requires all new development in Kensington and Chelsea to be of high quality, with a focus on architectural and urban design. This applies to all new developments, and the council will resist developments that do not meet these standards. The council will support developments that achieve high design quality, as evidenced by design awards or Building for Life Assessments.

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

The policy — as adopted

Design Quality

The Council will require all development to be of th taking opportunities to improve the quality and cha functions. To deliver this the Council will: a. require development to be: i. Functional - fit for purpose and legible; ii. Robust - well built, remain in good condition demography and climate; iii. Attractive - pleasing in its composition, mate iv. Locally distinctive - responding well to its co v. Sustainable - in the use of resources, includi vi. Inclusive - accessible to all; vii. Secure - designs out crime. 88 ‘By Design: urban design in the planning system towa 89 Vitruvius proposed that the creations of architecture s venustas. These were rendered into English in 1624 by delight’. It is difficult to better this description, but we ha century. od design in the built environment are character, public realm, ease of movement, legibility, ncil believes the three criteria set by Vitruvius: e a timeless assessment of good design, and can n of a chair, to a building, or part of a city89. thetics. Functional issues such as crime must be integrated into the design at the outset in se. This approach will ensure that final esign and applies to all levels of development. It n process from the beginning. The Local Plan as a mental and economic sustainability. In terms of use of resources. Detailed policies in this regard nvironmental Limits’. Borough vary from large buildings such as the to the terraces, squares, crescents to the relative with the garden squares, give a unique character e striking juxtapositions of buildings of different ew buildings and extensions would therefore not g the design of adjacent buildings will be more rary approach will work, depending on the variety ing context. he highest architectural and urban design quality, aracter of buildings and the area and the way it and adaptable to changes of use, lifestyle, erials and craftsmanship; ontext; ing energy, in construction and operation; ards better practice, CABE, 1 May 2000 should display three qualities: utilitas, firmitas and Sir Henry Wotton as ‘commodity, firmness and ave used more conventional language for the 21st b. require an appropriate architectural style on a si i. the context of the site; ii. the building’s proposed design, form and use iii. whether the townscape is of uniform or varie Heritage Assets - Conservation Areas 22.3.18 The historic environment is central to the duty90 to pay special attention to the des or appearance of conservation areas. 22.3.19 The character and appearance of a cons quality and appearance of individual buil between them but it is also gained from into and out of the area. Therefore devel on views, gaps and vistas and other cha conservation area appraisal documents, character and appearance of the area is 22.3.20 Where the quality of an area has been e Council will take steps to ensure that new streetscape works improve the environm 22.3.21 In addition, a building’s use can contribu a sense of place. The borough contains residential neighbourhoods, which offer street scene and add to the vitality and c diminishes the character of the townscap diversity of the area. The Council will tak when assessing character. 22.3.22 The partial or full demolition of a heritage building or unlisted structure of historic o damage to the character and appearanc caused will therefore be carefully weighe However, as heritage assets are irreplac convincing justification. Substantial harm would be exceptional while that to the hi exceptional. 22.3.23 As the majority of the borough is covered opportunities for new development beca fabric, whether it faces the street or not, the conservation area. New buildings sh of the conservation area. There have be premature demolition in conservation are being allowed to deteriorate, followed by measures available to it to ensure that th 22.3.24 As the character and appearance of a co of developments, outline planning applic full detailed applications are needed. 90 s.72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservati ite by-site basis, in response to: e; ed character. s And Historic Places e character of the borough and the Council has a sirability of preserving or enhancing the character servation area is not only provided by the high ldings within the area and the interrelationship whole and partial street views as well as views lopment that impacts setting, including the effect aracter and appearance issues identified in , needs to be assessed to ensure that the s conserved. eroded, whether or not in a conservation area, the w development and other schemes such as ment. ute to the character of a conservation area and to a scatter of incidental mixed uses within its variety, surprise and delight. These punctuate the character of a conservation area. Their loss pe, the cherished local scene and the vitality and ke account of the nature of the current or last use e asset, or its alteration, whether it be a listed or architectural merit, can cause irreversible ce of our high quality townscape. The harm ed up against any public benefit that might result. ceable, any harm or loss requires clear and m to or the loss of a listed building, park or garden ighest designated heritage assets would be wholly d by conservation areas, there are limited ause the presumption is to retain the original built where it contributes positively to the character of hould contribute to the character and appearance een a number of instances of inappropriate or eas. There have also been examples of buildings y demolition. The Council will take all appropriate here is no incentive for such action. onservation area can be dependent on the detail cations are insufficient within a conservation area; ion Areas Act) 1990.

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

How it lands
92% in approvals · 8% in refusals
377 citations in the selected period
The approval/refusal split is subscriber intelligenceUnlock →
Where it bites
Brompton and Hans Town39
Campden36
Royal Hospital33
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 CL2 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

CL2 appears most often in Brompton and Hans Town, Campden, Royal Hospital. It appears across 47 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
92%
in approvals
345 citations
8%
in refusals
32 citations

This shows the decision reports in which CL2 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 CL2 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
62% survival
53 dismissed · 32 allowed · 4 split89 PINS appeal decisions cite CL2

From Planning Inspectorate decision letters that cite CL2. Dismissed = the council's refusal stood, the policy held; allowed = overturned. The tighter join — this borough's own refusals citing CL2 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.