Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation

List Comments

Search for Comments

Order By
in order

19 comments.

List of comments
RespondentResponse DateDetails
Princess di Sirignano 01 Feb 2013

Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation 2- Review of the Core Strategy box1 34.3.61

  • Comment ID: 511
The developments adjacent to us at Sloane Lodge and Sloane House are of such magnitude that if you have not personally witnessed the scale and proportionality, comparable only to a major civil engineering commercial development with multi-level deep basement and several floors, you could not imagine the degree of aggressive and intrusive works with all its attending disamenity set in the context of a Conservation residential area. Since demolition and excavations began in the early summer of 20
Cranbrook Basements (Aidan O'C… 31 Jan 2013

Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation 2- Review of the Core Strategy box1 34.3.61

  • Comment ID: 492
Existing legislation protects the planning authority and if the appropriate departments managed within their remit nuisance to residents would be dramatically reduced. The complaints raised are not planning related. The planning department has conducted a basement survey response which having read the comment returned by a minority of the borough was framed in a completely biased fashion and this will require further attention. The same applies to comments recorded and published at the recent d
King Knight Build Ltd (King Kn… 31 Jan 2013

Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation 2- Review of the Core Strategy box1 34.3.61

  • Comment ID: 402
The proposed text in this paragraph refers to the adverse impact on neighbouring residents which can result from the construction phase of basement development and indicates the intention of the Council to limit most basement development beneath existing buildings or the gardens, or in small scale developments to no more than a single-storey in depth. The reasoning of the Council in this regard is more succinctly explained in the executive summary of the draft policy consultation which states t
The Kensington Society (Anthon… 31 Jan 2013

Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation 2- Review of the Core Strategy box1 34.3.61

  • Comment ID: 451
34.3.61 The Society does not consider that the acceptability of deeper basements can be related to the plot size. The impact in terms of disruption and disturbance is dependent on the amount of excavation not the size of the plot in which it is situated. Issues related to water flow etc are related to the ground conditions and not the size of the site. We only consider deeper basements might be considered for uses other than residential and then only in locations which are not predominately resi
Cranbrook Basements (Ciaran O'… 31 Jan 2013

Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation 2- Review of the Core Strategy box1 34.3.61

  • Comment ID: 490
I understand there is a general opinion out there that basement developments cause more disturbance to neighbours than other developments. I do not believe this to be true. "Above Ground" developments command the same amount of deliveries if not more than basement developments. They require the same amount if not more rubbish clearances. The Traffic Management Plan is an ideal mechanism to reduce such disturbance. I have personally worked on basement developments where the developer has made con
Bell Cornwell (Tracey Rust) 31 Jan 2013

Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation 2- Review of the Core Strategy box1 34.3.61

  • Comment ID: 303
Paragraph 34.3.61 &. Policy CL7b The duration of building works per se is not a material planning consideration. It is not a sound basis therefore for justifying a planning policy constraint to permit only a single storey on small scale developments.
ARK (Rupert Carruthers) 31 Jan 2013

Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation 2- Review of the Core Strategy box1 34.3.61

  • Comment ID: 311
The supporting text under paragraph 34.3.61 makes reference to restricting basement development to a depth not suitable for further horizontal subdivision. Our comments are as follows: - The Alan Baxter report makes very little mention of deep basement construction. In the few instances where it does, much emphasis is put on methodology and in no circumstance does it expressly advise against it. The question is raised in the Q&A section (question 4) of the Baxter report and the consultants argu
The Chelsea Society (Terence B… 31 Jan 2013

Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation 2- Review of the Core Strategy box1 34.3.61

  • Comment ID: 332
We support: · The confinement of work on basements to weekdays only, etc. etc.
Ladbroke Association (Sophia L… 31 Jan 2013

Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation 2- Review of the Core Strategy box1 34.3.61

  • Comment ID: 355
12. We note that the statement in the proposed paragraph 34.3.61 of the Core Strategy that the Council will normally limit construction to weekdays is no more than a restatement of existing policy – although we welcome the proposal that the DCMP (including abiding by the Council's working hours) will be enforced through a planning condition. We are disappointed, however, that no reference is made to the restriction of particularly noisy works to only a few hours a day. The City of London,
The Royal Brompton and Harefie… 31 Jan 2013

Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation 2- Review of the Core Strategy box1 34.3.61

  • Comment ID: 249
2) Revision: Policy CL7 part b. and supporting text Para 34.3.61 • Further detail and clarification to explain whether the installation of mezzanines as opposed to entire floor levels is considered as a 'horizontal subdivision' would be welcomed. We suggest that this limitation is decided on a case by case basis and secured via condition. We suggest that the proposed restriction to weekday working needs to take account of site specific circumstances and the impact of restricting working t
Next pageLast page