Development Intent
Planning AtlasKensington And ChelseaCL8
PolicyPoliticalCommitteeOfficersAgents & developersViabilityMapAppeals
Kensington And Chelsea · Local Plan · Policy

CL8 — Existing Buildings – Roof Alterations/Additional Sto.

How Kensington And Chelsea actually applies CL8: who leans on it, where it bites hardest, and how often it's invoked. The policy text is the rule; this is the behaviour.

CL8 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 · CL8
Where CL8 is quoted — by ward
Fewer ~0
More citations ~2
Showing
re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
13
times cited
in parsed decision notices
66%
appeal survival
25 dismissed · 13 allowed at appeal
12 of 76
officer reach
16% of officers recorded in this period
Norland
top hotspot ward
2 citations
What this policy is about

Policy CL8: The Council will resist additional storeys and roof level alterations in certain situations, including complete terraces, buildings with significant skylines, and those where the roof line would impede views. The Council will permit additional storeys and roof level alterations where they would help to reunite a group of buildings and are architecturally sympathetic. This policy aims to protect the character and integrity of buildings and groups of buildings.

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

The policy — as adopted

Existing Buildings – Roof Alterations/Additional Sto

The Council will require roof alterations and additio the age and character of the building and group of To deliver this the Council will: a. permit additional storeys and roof level alteration properties has been severely compromised by a va between them would help to reunite the group; b. resist additional storeys, and roof level alteration i. complete terraces or groups of buildings w extensions, even when a proposal involve ordinated design; ii. buildings or terraces that already have an iii. buildings that have a roof structure or form iv. buildings that are higher than surrounding significant skylines or profiles; v. buildings or terraces where the roof line or public spaces, and where they would have impede the view of an important building o vi. buildings that, by the nature of the roof co for additional storeys, e.g. pitched roofs w vii. mansion blocks of flats where an additiona unbalance the architectural composition; viii. terraces that are already broken only by is Existing Buildings - Extensions and M 22.3.76 The combination of the borough’s high la building heights and the expanse of the a wide variety of residential extensions a 22.3.77 It is important that extensions and modif aspects of character and integrity of the contribute to local distinctiveness such a Additional Storeys ons may change the character of the street, the es and streets, and daylighting and sunlighting to and ensure they do not individually or cumulatively nding townscape, or detract from architecturally at change their architectural style, character or separate terraces. Roof extensions on one are r terraces within the street. ns/ Additional Storeys onal storeys to be architecturally sympathetic to buildings. ns where the character of a terrace or group of ariety of roof extensions and where infilling ns on: where the existing roof line is unimpaired by es adding to the whole terrace or group as a co- additional storey or mansard; m of historic or architectural interest; g neighbours, or where they would detract from r party walls are exposed to long views from e an intrusive impact on that view or would or open space beyond; onstruction and architectural style, are unsuitable with eaves; al storey would add significantly to the bulk or solated roof additions. Modifications and values, high residential densities, modest conservation areas, has resulted in pressures for and modifications. ications, including conservatories, respect those original building and group of buildings that as height, width, depth, building line, footprint, position, symmetry, rhythm, materials, fin dimensions of fenestration, important ga 22.3.78 The rear and sides of some buildings ma for example, they overlook communal ga importance as the front. While these elev the front, they often have a simple dignit 22.3.79 Extensions and infill development may h townscape gap, or in unbalancing an oth detached or semi-detached property. 22.3.80 Conservatories are a popular form of res principally garden features and should b that they fit in with the historic character relation to the building and garden, their detailed design will be carefully consider 22.3.81 Some modifications to buildings have the not sensitive to the original character of from the external appearance of the buil sympathetic manner they have the poten character of the building. Such details m patterns; projecting mouldings; chimneys railings; the replacement of panelled ent the permanent removal of projected mou faced building.

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

How it lands
23% in approvals · 77% in refusals
13 citations in the selected period
The approval/refusal split is subscriber intelligenceUnlock →
Where it bites
Norland2
Campden2
Brompton and Hans Town2
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 CL8 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

CL8 appears most often in Norland, Campden, Brompton and Hans Town. It appears across 12 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
23%
in approvals
3 citations
77%
in refusals
10 citations

This shows the decision reports in which CL8 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 CL8 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
66% survival
25 dismissed · 13 allowed · 3 split41 PINS appeal decisions cite CL8

From Planning Inspectorate decision letters that cite CL8. Dismissed = the council's refusal stood, the policy held; allowed = overturned. The tighter join — this borough's own refusals citing CL8 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.