Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation

List Comments

Search for Comments

Order By
in order

12 comments.

List of comments
RespondentResponse DateDetails
Shrimplin Brown (Robert Shrimplin) 31 Jan 2013

Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation 2- Review of the Core Strategy box1 34.3.71 - 34.3.72

  • Comment ID: 271
1. The introduction of SUDS is not a policy requirement on other forms of development. Similarly, there is no requirement to replace existing hard paving with permeable paving as suggested in the proposed text (proposed text, paragraph 34.3.71).
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 34.3.71 - 34.3.72

  • Comment ID: 337
· The destructive long term effects of cumulative rear-garden excavation on natural drainage, natural back gardens and large trees and the need, on drainage, ecological and landscape grounds, to limit such digging severely.
Thames Water Property Services… 31 Jan 2013

Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation 2- Review of the Core Strategy box1 34.3.71 - 34.3.72

  • Comment ID: 281
Box 1 Paragraph 34.3.72 – Thames Water understand that some developers have interpreted the 1m cover of soil or permeable material to mean increasing the level of the back garden and providing raised flower beds, which would not allow natural drainage of surface water. Notwithstanding the depth of permeable cover that is provided, Thames Waters key concern is that the surface remains permeable to reduce surface water run-off.
The Environment Agency (Andy G… 31 Jan 2013

Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation 2- Review of the Core Strategy box1 34.3.71 - 34.3.72

  • Comment ID: 532
The following comments are in relation to the submitted document which is relevant to our remit. Where we have not highlighted specific issues it may be assumed that we have no comments at this stage. The proposed changes to the Basement Policy are adequate in terms of protecting the development, and any residents from the risks of flooding from rivers and surface water flooding events. We welcome the focus on drainage and the requirements of a permeable surfaces to be included where a proposed
Studio Indigo Ltd (Doug Indigo) 30 Jan 2013

Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation 2- Review of the Core Strategy box1 34.3.71 - 34.3.72

  • Comment ID: 198
· 34.3.71 - ridiculous to have to provide 1m soil above a basement in front yard where it is already hard paved and used as off street parking. This will never be returned to garden (more valuable as off street parking, simply increases depth unnecessarily, often will be staff accommodation which becomes even more subterranean. Where a % of amenity space is allowable for subterranean development, the proposals need to be assessed against the whole area. A terraced townhouse with front and
Tessuto (Gemma Gordon-Duff) 30 Jan 2013

Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation 2- Review of the Core Strategy box1 34.3.71 - 34.3.72

  • Comment ID: 176
Garden planting (34.3.71) In some areas of the borough, notable those where the ground is London Clay, the soil layer is less than one metre deep. It would seem fair and reasonable that the planting level allowed on top of a basement should match the existing soil depth. Requiring greater soil depth than exists does not seem fair and reasonable.
Studio Indigo Ltd (Doug Indigo) 30 Jan 2013

Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation 2- Review of the Core Strategy box1 34.3.71 - 34.3.72

  • Comment ID: 193
· Issues of drainage impact of basements has already proved to be a misnomer based upon Councils own studies and is often an issued raised by residents to block or oppose planning applications for basements when there are no other reasons to do so.
London Basement (Stephen Merritt) 29 Jan 2013

Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation 2- Review of the Core Strategy box1 34.3.71 - 34.3.72

  • Comment ID: 136
Garden planting (34.3.71) In some areas of the borough, notable those where the ground is London Clay, the soil layer is less than one metre deep. It would seem fair and reasonable that the planting level allowed on top of a basement should match the existing soil depth. Requiring greater soil depth than exists does not seem fair and reasonable.
Basement Force (Simon Haslam) 29 Jan 2013

Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation 2- Review of the Core Strategy box1 34.3.71 - 34.3.72

  • Comment ID: 152
Garden planting (34.3.71) In some areas of the borough, notable those where the ground is London Clay, the soil layer is less than one metre deep. It would seem fair and reasonable that the planting level allowed on top of a basement should match the existing soil depth. Requiring greater soil depth than exists does not seem fair and reasonable.
James Copinger-Symes 29 Jan 2013

Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation 2- Review of the Core Strategy box1 34.3.71 - 34.3.72

  • Comment ID: 59
Garden basements – soil depth (34.3.71) In some areas of the borough, notable those where the ground is London Clay, the soil layer is usually less than one metre. It would seem right that the planting level required on top of a garden basement should match the vertical thickness of the existing drained permeable soil up to the current rule's one metre depth. This would protect and maintain the existing garden level. A rule requiring a greater depth of soil than exists at that particula
Next pageLast page