Development Intent
Planning AtlasKensington And ChelseaCL5
PolicyPoliticalCommitteeOfficersAgents & developersViabilityMapAppeals
Kensington And Chelsea · Local Plan · Policy

CL5 — Living Conditions.

How Kensington And Chelsea actually applies CL5: who leans on it, where it bites hardest, and how often it's invoked. The policy text is the rule; this is the behaviour.

CL5 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 · CL5
Where CL5 is quoted — by ward
Fewer ~0
More citations ~35
Showing
re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
245
times cited
in parsed decision notices
63%
appeal survival
29 dismissed · 17 allowed at appeal
42 of 76
officer reach
55% of officers recorded in this period
Brompton and Hans Town
top hotspot ward
35 citations
What this policy is about

Policy CL5 requires all development to ensure good living conditions by considering existing and neighbouring buildings. The Council will resist development that harms daylight, sunlight, visual privacy, and sense of enclosure, and support development that maintains or improves these conditions. This policy applies to all development in the borough, including small-scale alterations and additions, and will have regard to the Building Regulations for new development.

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

The policy — as adopted

Living Conditions

The Council will require all development ensures g existing and neighbouring buildings. To deliver this the Council will: a. require applicants to take into account the preva b. ensure that good standards of daylight and sun and in existing properties affected by new deve substandard, that there should be no material w c. require that there is reasonable visual privacy fo occupants of existing properties affected by new d. require that there is no harmful increase in the s spaces, neighbouring gardens, balconies and te of conservation areas. It is the overall design, the area’s character, that will be the determinant able living conditions. ght conditions are good, both inside buildings and cil will have regard to the most recent Building h for new development, and for properties affected likely to occur where the amount of adjoining situated within the lower floors of buildings with calculation to assess daylighting and sunlighting ese situations; on-site judgment will often be f about 18 metres between opposite habitable e acceptable to most people, but there are many ough of distances less than this. Privacy of nt. xtensions can be visually intrusive and result in iet enjoyment of neighbouring residential a valuable small area of open space for residents. of enclosure can significantly reduce the quality de. The impact on the sense of enclosure, is by the development in its final form, as well as itions of building users, through increased traffic, addition to impacts created by the development’s oclimatic effects. The anticipated level of activity as mate should be taken into consideration. good living conditions for occupants of new, ailing characteristics of the area; nlight are achieved in new development elopment; and where they are already worsening of the conditions; or occupants of new development and for w development; sense of enclosure to existing buildings and erraces; e. require that the reasonable enjoyment of the us is not harmed due to increases in traffic, servici vibration or local microclimatic effects. Small Scale Alterations And Additions 22.3.42 There is great pressure for the adaptatio 22.3.43 Small-scale alterations and additions com of a building or its curtilage, including ba shutters (and other security equipment), railings, walls, piers, gates, forecourt par which that are not advertisements, servic barriers to access. 22.3.44 Although small alterations and additions unsympathetically designed and sited, th building or its setting. It is the individual a alterations and additions which can nega quality townscape. Their control is, there 22.3.45 A high proportion of the borough’s dwelli permitted development rights, buildings ownership, do not have such rights. The applications affecting these types of prop additions across the building can ensure maintained.

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
245 citations in the selected period
The approval/refusal split is subscriber intelligenceUnlock →
Where it bites
Brompton and Hans Town35
Royal Hospital22
Redcliffe20
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 CL5 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

CL5 appears most often in Brompton and Hans Town, Royal Hospital, Redcliffe. It appears across 42 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
225 citations
8%
in refusals
20 citations

This shows the decision reports in which CL5 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 CL5 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
63% survival
29 dismissed · 17 allowed · 2 split48 PINS appeal decisions cite CL5

From Planning Inspectorate decision letters that cite CL5. Dismissed = the council's refusal stood, the policy held; allowed = overturned. The tighter join — this borough's own refusals citing CL5 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.