Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation

List Comments

Search for Comments

Response Type
Order By
in order

11 comments.

List of comments
RespondentResponse DateDetails
Pole Structural Enginners (Sim… 06 Feb 2013

Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation Appendix C: Requirements of the Basement Impact Assessment C3 -C10

  • Comment ID: 520
Many homeowners do not appoint party wall surveyors and many surveyors lack sufficient construction knowledge to deal with these matters. Unless more robust measures are put in place by the party wall profession, and more neighbours appoint appropriately experienced surveyors, it may be necessary for RBKC to demand particular foundation solutions such as the examples in the appendices, avoiding Special Foundations. Some engineers have commented that they do not like prescriptive designs being pr
Ladbroke Association (Sophia L… 31 Jan 2013

Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation Appendix C: Requirements of the Basement Impact Assessment C3 -C10

  • Comment ID: 359
17. It will be important that the EDCS include a clear statement of the amount of damage expected in terms of a recognised scale and that the Council should be prepared to refuse applications that go above a level of damage that experts consider unreasonable. The Baxter Report suggests, reasonably, that when basements are procured they should be designed and constructed to limit the damage to Category 1 and certainly no more than Category 2. See also Paragraph 14.4.1h.
Thames Water Property Services… 31 Jan 2013

Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation Appendix C: Requirements of the Basement Impact Assessment C3 -C10

  • Comment ID: 286
Appendix C Section C.9 - It would be useful to set out how an individual Basement Impact Assessment should assess the cumulative affect of a new basement on groundwater.
Miss Arbuthnot 31 Jan 2013

Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation Appendix C: Requirements of the Basement Impact Assessment C3 -C10

  • Comment ID: 413
You say things about Construction Engineers' reports, but in principle I would have thought that in order to keep the water table as it is, and to make sure that the surrounding land and property remains stable, it would be no bad thing to insist that in all cases of subterranean development columns be sunk at least ½ yard in from the Party Wall, a yard apart, surrounded and filled with concrete ½ yard deep/thick (a suggestion put forward by my brother). One of your appendices says
Sinclair Johnston & Partners (… 31 Jan 2013

Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation Appendix C: Requirements of the Basement Impact Assessment C3 -C10

  • Comment ID: 234
As rightly identified the projects which receive most adverse attention, and are indeed in the minority are those which are "poorly designed, poorly planned, poorly managed or poorly constructed". We, therefore, support the most important aspect to address this which is that a Chartered Structural Engineer or Chartered Civil Engineer with experience in subterranean developments in London should be engaged to undertake the design and monitor the works during construction. However, one aspect is
Card Geotechnics Limited (Nick… 31 Jan 2013

Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation Appendix C: Requirements of the Basement Impact Assessment C3 -C10

  • Comment ID: 478
We would also ask for the Council to give careful consideration to those undertaking the EDCS. Particularly, who signs these off and indeed the enforcement of the policy. We would welcome this process overall and hope that it will be enforced to ensure betterment of the process. We note that it is proposed the EDCS should be signed off by a Chartered or Civil Engineer. We would wish to suggest that this is not a question of "or" and that the appropriate professional is a Chartered Civil Engineer
Christopher Hunt 30 Jan 2013

Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation Appendix C: Requirements of the Basement Impact Assessment C3 -C10

  • Comment ID: 524
2 - Strengthen the CMS policy language to prevent abuse and to make the CMS more rigorous. The CMS approach has the potential to be a very effective policy tool. But as it is currently being implemented, the CMS has become a less meaningful "check the box" exercise that is providing false comfort. In our view, there are four primary reasons for this. First, in our case there was no condition requiring that the applicant follow the CMS when building the project, thereby giving the applicant wid
Tony Holt 30 Jan 2013

Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation Appendix C: Requirements of the Basement Impact Assessment C3 -C10

  • Comment ID: 510
C.3. page 26. This EDCS is excellent and needs to be done carefully before the application is submitted.
Edward Manisty 23 Jan 2013

Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation Appendix C: Requirements of the Basement Impact Assessment C3 -C10

  • Comment ID: 127
3.3 The suggested EDCS ,which, entirely constructively, it is proposed shall contain a considerably expanded range of technical information that will need to be absorbedand checked by the Planning Dept at the registration/validation stage , will make no real impact , unless something radical is done to strengthen the registration/validation process at the Town Hall. In this respect I suggest Councillors shouldinsistthat if the new regime is adopted the registration/validation procedures are mean
Edward Manisty 23 Jan 2013

Basement Review Draft policy and other measures for public consultation Appendix C: Requirements of the Basement Impact Assessment C3 -C10

  • Comment ID: 126
C , December Note paras 4.4 , 4.9 and Appendix C 8 -the proposed EDCS procedure and related matters. 3.1 The proposed new "up front" EDCS procedure is presented as providing an enhanced level of comfort to owners on the structural stability front , primarily because the EDCS would have to be signed off by two structural engineers . 3.2 This is a false prospectus, in the light of the proposed removal (see part B above) of RBKC's existing unlimited responsibility, as outlined in part A above, t
Next pageLast page