Development Intent
Planning AtlasKensington And ChelseaCT1
PolicyPoliticalCommitteeOfficersAgents & developersViabilityMapAppeals
Kensington And Chelsea · Local Plan · Policy

CT1 — Improving alternatives to car use.

How Kensington And Chelsea actually applies CT1: who leans on it, where it bites hardest, and how often it's invoked. The policy text is the rule; this is the behaviour.

CT1 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 · CT1
Where CT1 is quoted — by ward
Fewer ~0
More citations ~26
Showing
re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
185
times cited
in parsed decision notices
65%
appeal survival
13 dismissed · 7 allowed at appeal
37 of 76
officer reach
49% of officers recorded in this period
Brompton and Hans Town
top hotspot ward
26 citations
What this policy is about

Policy CT1 requires high trip generating development to improve transport accessibility, reduce car parking and congestion, and provide alternative transport options. This applies to all new development in the borough, and the council will resist new public car parks and developments that compromise road safety or reduce access to public transport. The council will support developments that provide step-free access to transport, improve public transport links, and enhance walking and cycling infrastructure.

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

The policy — as adopted

Improving alternatives to car use

The Council will ensure that there are better alterna attractive to walk, cycle and use public transport an of car parking. To deliver this the Council will: a. require high trip generating development to be lo transport accessibility has a PTAL score of 4 or ab capacity, or that will achieve PTAL 4 and provide s improvements to public transport; b. require it to be demonstrated that development w congestion or on-street parking pressure; c. require that all new additional residential develop d. require car parking provided in new residential d parking standards; e. require that parking in non-residential developm f. require cycle parking, showering and changing fa g. require improvements to the walking and cycling cycle links through new developments; h. require new development to incorporate measur safety of pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists, an safety; i. require Transport Assessments and Travel Plans j. ensure that new developments provide or contrib services, access to them and interchange between areas that currently have lower levels of accessibil k. work with partners to ensure that step-free acces by 2028, require new developments to contribute t at Underground and rail stations in the borough wh l. resist new public car parks and the loss of off-str m. require that where a development creates new demand is controlled and the need for off-street pa s is an ongoing challenge. Although progress has asualties recorded on roads in the borough every eriously negative impacts on the ease and t movement, residential amenity, access to public f the areas through which it runs atives to car use by making it easier and more nd by managing traffic congestion and the supply ocated in areas of the borough where public bove and where there is sufficient public transport sufficient capacity as a result of committed will not result in any material increase in traffic pment be permit-free; development to be at or below the adopted car ment is for essential need only; acilities in new development; g environment, including securing pedestrian and res to improve road safety, and in particular the nd resist development that compromises road s for larger scale development; bute toward improvements to public transport n them, giving priority to north-south bus links and lity; ess is delivered at all Underground and rail stations toward step-free access and ensure it is delivered here there is a redevelopment opportunity; reet coach parking; on-street parking it is managed so that parking arking is minimised; n. require that new development adjacent to the Ri advantage of, and improves the opportunities for, p to the water for recreation and walking and cycling o. work with TfL to improve the streets within the E i. investigating the return of the streets to tworecommended improvements, should TfL and ii. by securing improvements to the pedestrian iii. requiring developments to contribute to obje p. ensure that development does not reduce acces and footpaths used by the public, or land over whic New and enhanced rail infrastructure 20.3.15 New rail infrastructure would greatly imp and extreme south of the borough where as elsewhere. 20.3.16 A new station on the West London line a access for local residents to public trans interchanges, the wider London Overgro provide access to the Underground netw currently poor. If implemented, a new Cr more homes in Chelsea within walking d easier for patients, staff and visitors to re maintain the vitality and viability of the ar customers and staff.

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

How it lands
98% in approvals · 2% in refusals
185 citations in the selected period
The approval/refusal split is subscriber intelligenceUnlock →
Where it bites
Brompton and Hans Town26
Royal Hospital16
Abingdon15
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 CT1 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

CT1 appears most often in Brompton and Hans Town, Royal Hospital, Abingdon. It appears across 37 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
98%
in approvals
181 citations
2%
in refusals
4 citations

This shows the decision reports in which CT1 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 CT1 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
65% survival
13 dismissed · 7 allowed · 1 split21 PINS appeal decisions cite CT1

From Planning Inspectorate decision letters that cite CT1. Dismissed = the council's refusal stood, the policy held; allowed = overturned. The tighter join — this borough's own refusals citing CT1 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.