Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation

List Comments

Search for Comments

Order By
in order

20 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 CL 7 i

  • Comment ID: 260
1. The lack of clarity in the proposed policy, referring for example to not placing "unreasonable inconvenience" upon those living and working nearby, also risks creating argument and uncertainty for both applicants and neighbours. 2. Moreover, the Council's survey of local opinion which has informed the need for a new Basements SPD found that of all the questionnaires sent out to neighbours affected by basement development only 8.5%-12.75% raised any concern about noise, traffic, dust, or vibr
Miss Arbuthnot 31 Jan 2013

Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation 2- Review of the Core Strategy CL 7 i

  • Comment ID: 418
Page 16 Proposed policy CL7(i) I would like you to insert 'with particular reference to cyclists' after 'road safety,' because lorries are notorious in their disregard for cyclists, and that applies particularly to building sites in my experience. (I have procured a toy hooter which I use on approaching basement sites, to the amusement of the workmen. It works better than a bicycle bell, being louder, and is perceived as a joke, so not aggressive.) I witnessed a near miss of an accident outside
Albyns Limited (Albyns Limited) 31 Jan 2013

Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation 2- Review of the Core Strategy CL 7 i

  • Comment ID: 246
5. We request the following is amended: "i. The submitted application must demonstrate how traffic and construction activity will be organised so as not to harm road safety, significantly increase traffic congestion, nor place unreasonable inconvenience on the day to day life of those living and working nearby." We proposed the following wording: "The proposals should seek to minimise potential noise or disturbance to those living or working nearby" The proposed wording adequately ensures th
The Kensington Society (Anthon… 31 Jan 2013

Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation 2- Review of the Core Strategy CL 7 i

  • Comment ID: 443
The construction impact of the proposals which can have a devastating impact on the local community with no benefit to that community. I add ' and shall take account of any other similar activities in the surrounding area and be so organised to ensure that the cumulative effect is not detrimental to the activities in the area nor to the access of residents and emergency vehicles including keeping pavements clear of all storage of hoarded areas and vehicles'.
Cranbrook Basements (Kevin O'C… 31 Jan 2013

Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation 2- Review of the Core Strategy CL 7 i

  • Comment ID: 298
CL7.i This policy is unreasonable. The Local Planning Authority does not have the statutory power to require planning applicants to demonstrate compliance with matters that are controlled by alternative primary legislation. Parliament has provided primary legislation which controls Construction Operations, Road Safety, Environmental Health and related issues. None of these matters fall under planning legislation and an attempt to interfere with alternative legislation is entirely unreasonable.
Shrimplin Brown (Robert Shrimplin) 31 Jan 2013

Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation 2- Review of the Core Strategy CL 7 i

  • Comment ID: 275
1. There is no definition of what might constitute "unreasonable inconvenience". Any building project will inevitably cause some disruption but this risks imposing an unreasonable burden on development.
Earl's Court Society (Hilary T… 30 Jan 2013

Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation 2- Review of the Core Strategy CL 7 i

  • Comment ID: 222
In CL7 section I there is no definition of "unreasonable inconvenience" It rests in the eye and ears of the speaker.. A developer, who was at the first workshop, clearly considered that subjecting neighbours to three years of disruption was not unreasonable
Christopher Hunt 30 Jan 2013

Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation 2- Review of the Core Strategy CL 7 i

  • Comment ID: 530
9 - Require that emergency vehicle access be considered in TMPs. In our case, emergency vehicle access was not adequately considered, placing residents at considerable risk. Sections CL7i and C20 of the proposed policy should reference emergency vehicle access.
Kings Road Association of Chel… 30 Jan 2013

Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation 2- Review of the Core Strategy CL 7 i

  • Comment ID: 470
Giving more weight to construction impact issues is welcome.
Tessuto (Gemma Gordon-Duff) 30 Jan 2013

Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation 2- Review of the Core Strategy CL 7 i

  • Comment ID: 171
Construction impact – inclusion in policy (34.3.61; 34.3.75) [Policy CL7 i.] Construction impact lies outside the remit of planning regulation and therefore should not be included in planning policy. Control over construction impact should be exercised under environmental protection, control of pollution and highways legislation. Inappropriate and unreasonable planning rules should not be introduced as a replacement for other existing control measures already set out in legislation.
Next pageLast page