I don't think there are any conclusions Ivanhoe, just speculation fueled by a lot of worry. It's human nature to speculate, and I find that looking at the worst case scenario helps me plan my actions. Sometimes it means I have put in a lot of work for nothing, but other times I have been proved right to be 'negative' and have been better prepared. I envy those people who are eternally optimistic and can just shrug things off when it doesn't work to plan.
I appreciate your honesty, and patience, and now appreciate your point of view a lot better thanks to your last post.
I possibly share some of your concerns, but am more exercised about what (I consider - quite possibly unfairly) to be criticism of anything unusual almost as a reflex action.
I love what I consider to be "my" SE1, but have to keep reconsidering what right I have to hold that opinion...
Let us look at the letter posted through our doors on Wednesday and correct the "mistakes "
Applicant states Flood risk analyst (low risk ") whi is right a private company or Environment Agency who state very clearly Site lies in FLOOD ZONE 3 which is defined as having a high probability of river and sea flooding
another quote Many Roupell and Whittlesey Street houses have had basements dug out. This is completely wrong I am sure this should have read "Basements extended " as they already had basements.
Lastly one storey basement, contained within the existing floor plan. Obviously this is a mistake as the proposal is for the proposed basement to go under the proposed extension ie outside of the original property footprint.
on the Lambeth Council website for this planning application most of those supporting only come up with " I know her " or she wants to live in Waterloo.
Not one solid planning reason why this horrid application should be approved.
All seem to quote the example of Roupell Street and they are entirely wrong. Roupell Street had basements already , which were just extended. These basements were built at the same time as the houses and are under the original footprint of the property. This site is in Flood Zone with high risk of river or sea flooding.
The specific property sits over a secondary aquifer which if breached could cause contamination
Mmm I wonder, overstatement does not help the case;
" as there will be dust, dirt, noise and danger (as well as the potential risk of 'flooding' there will be a need for heavy vehicle to remove debris and risks to children using the playgound across the road). "
As has been said on this link, Roupell St is different, there are already basements, about 4'6" high. But the digging out causes little disruption. This is not JCB territory.You would hardly notice it is happening.
As a pastor I think Rev Pape would be better employed supporting his parishioners by telling them it will not be as bad as their worst fears, whilst also resisting the plan if he thinks that is right.
Scaremongering and frightening people is not particularly Christian.
So Rev Pape has to be positive because he is a man of God? I don't get that. I agree with Bunhouse, it would be dishonest to mislead people. I assume he is allowed to speak for himself as well as for God and I don't suppose God has a view on basements! Rev Pape is helping people fight against something that may have a detrimental effect on their well-being; this is what I would expect of a Christian. Let's not take the emphasis away from this campaign to stop someone digging into the foundations of a terrace house please.
Thank you Karen I and Bunhouse for your support and defence of me on this matter. I'm not trying to use my position in the Church and I am concerned about the community that my friends, neighbours and I have to live in.
First, I cannot say, for sure, what the disruption will be if the application is allowed. If you look at documentation supporting this planning application you will not find a single statement from the builders offering a Construction Method Statement (CMS)detailing any information whatsoever about timetables, disruption, on-site safety or contact points. With regard to basement building, many other London Borough's require this as a matter of course - but not Lambeth!
Maybe I am a 'prophet of doom' but, lacking any single document from the builders, I'm compelled to look at a 'worst case scenario'!
Secondly, although Lambeth does have regulations that indicate that basements should not be contructed in a Flood Zone 3a area (which this is), they seem to be underplaying this point.
If Lambeth allows this application, it will cause me and others to seriously question and challenge the Council's willingness to apply it's own rules and for us to ask the reasons why.
let's hope the owner sees reason. No one wants a vile nieghbour.
There might be a good reason why the properties were built without basements. Ie burials.
Meanwhile in another part of London. Someone whole house has collapsed due to 'extending a basement'