Downshire Hill ‘Super-basement’ cracks verdict awaited - Reclusive home of murdered writer Alan Chappelow set for redevelopment

Published: 16 December 2010
by DAN CARRIER

A DEVELOPER is arguing that a plan to build a double basement in Hampstead should be allowed even though the work is likely to damage the homes of neighbours.

In a test case with potential ramifications for Hampstead and other areas where there has been a rush of applications for “super-basements”, planning inspector John Papworth must decide whether the luxury home planned for 9 Downshire Hill can go ahead.

The application has already been rejected by Camden Council’s planning department and is the focus of fierce opposition from neighbours, ward councillors and amenity group the Heath and Hampstead Society. 

Closing submissions at a nine-day planning inquiry staged at the Wellcome Institute in Euston were heard on Friday.

Ringline Properties wants to knock down the former home of reclusive writer Alan Chappelow and replace it with a new house, complete with a double basement. The existing house was sold after Mr Chappelow was murdered in 2006. 

Ringline believes the site is perfect for a house with a two-and-a-half storey basement. The underground complex, with its swimming pool, will make it one of the deepest home developments in Hampstead.

Planners and developers across London are understood to be watching to see whether the case will set a precedent governing the powers the council has when applications for basements are submitted for planning permission. 

Objectors describe as bizarre the situation where the developer knows beforehand its work risks causing cracks to neighbours’ homes, in­cluding a listed property owned by Stephen Ainger and his family, who attended Friday’s hearing. 

They say the risk of damage has been underplayed, while the developer insists it will be minimal and easy to repair. Neighbours on either side have warned that the proposed house is so big that damage to their properties is inevitable.

The developer agrees there is a risk of cracks but argues that the damage would not be sufficient or dangerous enough to stop the project going ahead.

The inquiry has cost an estimated six-figure sum as Ringline’s appeal has been contested by the council, defending its decision to reject the plans, a group of neighbours and members of the Heath and Hampstead Society. 

David Altaras QC, for the objectors, said: “One must inevitably feel sympathy for Mr Ainger and his family for the certainty of knowing that the enormous excavation would inevitably cause damage to their property. It does not need a structural engineer to confirm what common sense dictates: a single-storey basement would cause substantially less, if any, damage to neighbouring properties.”

Neil King QC, appearing for Ringline, said that any harm to neighbouring buildings ­– most Grade II-listed – would be limited, short-term and capable of repair. 

“It is to be borne in mind that the appearance of cracks in old buildings is not at all unusual,” he said, adding that there was no evidence the cracks would be structural. Mr Papworth is due to reveal his verdict next month.