CATHERINE MANNING
10 DURHAM PLACE
LONDON SW3 4ET
17 August 2015
Mr Graham Stallwood
Executive Director
Planning and Borough Development
Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
Town Hall
Hornton Street
London W8 7NX
Dear Mr Stallwood,
Your reference: PP/15/04516 Proposed Basement at 5/6 Durham Place
I write to object to the above Planning Application and to endorse the detailed
letter of objection of Mr and Mrs Boynton of 42 St Leonard’s Terrace.
This is the third planning application for a basement at 5/6 Durham Place. I
have objected to the two previous applications and there is nothing in this
third application to remove my objections, which concern the dangers to a
beautiful, historic but unlisted property, the water table, nearby trees and
finally the evident breaches to the Council’s basement policy.
The terrace of Durham Place is dated 1790 and usually structures of this age
and architectural interest are listed, therefore experience of building a
basement (of such a depth) under such a property is very limited. The other
owners of properties in Durham Place will confirm the structural fragility of
the houses and the effects of building works on neighbours. The risks to the
integrity of the whole terrace seem to me to be too great to permit this
application to go ahead.
Durham Place is close to the Thames and is in Flood Zone 3, where the
Council’s flood policies recommend that no basements should be constructed.
The basement is planned to descend 7m below ground level, in an area where
the water table is at 4.7m. The pumping that will be required during the
building works will be have to be continuous and even when the basement is
1
built, the displacement of the water, the run off and risks of flooding make a
basement in this area inadvisable.
The excavation work involved in the basement will affect a number of large
and important trees, both the London plane tree at the north entrance to the
terrace and the plane and sycamore in the gardens behind.
The noise, the dust, the vibration of the excavation works, the constant flow
of lorries removing debris and delivering supplies are very well known and it
is not surprising that neighbours who thought they were in a conservation
zone surrounded by historic buildings and so immune from basement mania
should object to them.
Finally, the planning application appears to contravene the Council’s own
planning policy for basements (Basements Planning Policy: Partial Review of
the Core Strategy. Policy CL7) on a number of points:
A building which already has a basement in place before 1948 is permitted
an additional single storey basement, ‘single storey’ being defined as one that
cannot be subdivided to create additional floors in the future. This planning
application clearly contravenes this requirement. A single storey of 7m
suggests a room of Pharaonic proportions. (Para 34.3.52)
Para 34.3.61 points out that basements can ‘harm the historic integrity and
pose risks of structural damage to the building.’ This is a risk in the case of
an eighteenth century terrace of which 5/6 Durham Place is a part.
Para 34.3.63 states that ‘archaeological remains are a finite and fragile
resource’ yet nothing in the planning application addresses the question of
the Roman well in the garden, in which the water rises and falls with the tides.
Para 34.3.70 recommends consultation with neighbours. A very slapdash
construction traffic management plan (a cut and paste job with streets
nowhere near Durham Place named in it) was sent to nearby Residents’
Associations, but nothing to the neighbours, even in Durham Place itself
which consists of 10 houses and one apartment house: hardly too great a task
to undertake.
For all of the above reasons I call upon the Planning Committee to reject the
planning application for a basement for 5/6 Durham Place.
Yours sincerely,
Catherine Manning
2