Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation

List Comments

Search for Comments

Order By
in order

13 comments.

List of comments
RespondentResponse DateDetails
The Markham Square Association… 31 Jan 2013

Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation 2- Review of the Core Strategy box1 34.3.63 - 34.3.65

  • Comment ID: 430
Paragraph 2.7 Box 1 Para 34.3.63 and 34.3.64 We suggest that a Conservation Assessment should be provided for any application relating to a designated heritage asset in the form of a listed building or where demolition is proposed in a Conservation Area. Many of the same considerations apply to unlisted buildings of similar age, style and construction which are surely also worthy of protection on the same grounds. We support the continuation of restrictions on building under listed buildings.
The Markham Square Association… 31 Jan 2013

Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation 5- Permitted Development 5.1 - 5.5 (section 5)

  • Comment ID: 437
Paragraph 5.0 Please note that, for reasons we have provided elsewhere, we believe that paragraph 5.1 is incomplete and therefore misleading. We support the making of a direction under Article 4 of the GPDO for the reasons stated. It is vital that these developments are brought within planning control. We support its introduction across the Borough, rather than just specific areas. We consider the estimated cost of £65,000 per annum to be a very reasonable price to pay.
The Markham Square Association… 31 Jan 2013

Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation 2- Review of the Core Strategy box1 34.3.73

  • Comment ID: 431
Paragraph 2.7 Box 1 Para 34.3.73 We are concerned that the BREEAM standards are meaningless and would like to see an assessment of all aspects of the whole project, including excavation, construction and operation. We should also like to see the inclusion of an assessment of the desirability of the living conditions in the proposed new basement, which often appear to be very poor.
The Markham Square Association… 31 Jan 2013

Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation Appendix C: Requirements of the Basement Impact Assessment C18 - C21

  • Comment ID: 438
Appendix C Para C.18 We consider from our own experience that greater scrutiny of CTMPs is required. They must be genuinely analysed against guidelines and must not be the subject simply of a "box ticking" exercise. All works and associated storage must be limited to the curtilage of the property being developed, or, at most, to one space immediately outside the property being developed. They must ensure that traffic delivering and removing materials to and from the site is restricted to space
The Markham Square Association… 31 Jan 2013

Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation 2- Review of the Core Strategy box1 34.3.74

  • Comment ID: 432
Paragraph 2.7 Box 1 Paras 34.3.74, 34.3.75 and 34.3.76 We agree with these paragraphs. Although outside the scope of this policy document, the Council should be aware of the inadequacies of the party walls legislation in its application to basements.
The Markham Square Association… 31 Jan 2013

Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation 2- Review of the Core Strategy Proposed policy - Policy CL7

  • Comment ID: 426
This is the submission on behalf of The Markham Square Association to the RBKC Basements Draft Policy for Public Consultation dated December 2012. We have recent experience in the Square of planning applications for the development of sub-basements and of the Council's approach to the enforcement of a planning condition requiring a CTMP. There are some aspects of the Draft Policy which we welcome (such as the reduction in the extent of development under gardens, the depth restriction and the mak
The Markham Square Association… 31 Jan 2013

Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation 2- Review of the Core Strategy 34.3.75

  • Comment ID: 433
Paragraph 2.7 Box 1 Paras 34.3.74, 34.3.75 and 34.3.76 We agree with these paragraphs. Although outside the scope of this policy document, the Council should be aware of the inadequacies of the party walls legislation in its application to basements.
The Markham Square Association… 31 Jan 2013

Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation 2- Review of the Core Strategy 2.3 - 2.7

  • Comment ID: 427
Paragraph 2.3 As a general point, we consider it important that the safeguards contained in the policies specific to new basement development in the Core Strategy are not lost or diminished in strength.
The Markham Square Association… 31 Jan 2013

Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation 2- Review of the Core Strategy 34.3.76

  • Comment ID: 434
Paragraph 2.7 Box 1 Paras 34.3.74, 34.3.75 and 34.3.76 We agree with these paragraphs. Although outside the scope of this policy document, the Council should be aware of the inadequacies of the party walls legislation in its application to basements.
The Markham Square Association… 31 Jan 2013

Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation 2- Review of the Core Strategy CL7 a

  • Comment ID: 428
Paragraph 2.7 Box 1 Para 34.3.59 and Box 2 a We are strongly in favour of a reduction in the percentage of garden under which the construction of a basement is permitted, but suggest a new formula: the smaller of (i) 3 metres beyond the rear wall into the rear garden (similar to a permitted development) and (ii) 50% (not 75%) of each garden of the property. We favour this reduction in the maximum percentage in order to reduce the amount of spoil which has to be removed from the site, and the nu
Next pageLast page