1

Basement Development Policy and Interim guidance Consultation October-November 2013, Responses

Respondent Comments on Topic Paper

1. Hugh Cortazzi Welcomes proposals, the minimum needed. 1. Account should be taken of the existence of underground streams and subsidence dangers. 2. Construction management plans in principle welcomed, but. Strict enforcement is essential. 3. The council can surely at least insist that hoarding and suspension of parking in the vicinity is strictly time limited. . 4. Greater control of skips and of heavy trucks disrupting traffic and damaging the roadway 5. renewal of planning permission should in our view only be granted in exceptional circumstances if there are cogent reason why the

permitted development could not take place within the licence period. 6. Consultation with neighbours and consideration for them should if possible be made a requirement

7. The planners before recommending a development plan for approval should be required to discuss objections received from neighbours

2. PAUL and JEANNE STRANG

First letter in support of the proposals and Hugh Cortazzi’s comment. Second letter: confused by overlap between documents. 1) No basements should be permitted under listed buildings, 2) council should be joint commissioners of technical reports, application for basement development should e allocated to a single officer

who responsible for all matters, including non-planning matters, 3) applications from non-UK residents should have dedicated UK resident body able to accept complaints, 4) a bond should be established by developers, 5) the extent of basement development beyond footprint of existing buildings should be limited to an area equal to that of the footprint of

the total garden, 6) development below existing basement levels should not be permitted, 7) depth of at least 1.5m below garden level should be left for the planting and management of trees and gardens.

3. Mr A. Gamage

Pleased that there is a consultation on basements. 1. should not be allowed in a mews in such close proximity to other homes. 2. lightwells will have open onto a communal area or road should not be allowed. 3. the impact of all adjoining properties potentially having basements should be considered. e.g. how will it impact the foundations of buildings nearby, flood areas etc

4. William Brookfield, Chepstow Road

Requests an end to the digging of basements more than one level below ground. This is deeply destructive, especially beneath Victorian (and older) terraces. the months and years of construction involved is a huge burden on neighbours. And down the road they will all leak. Absolutely 100 percent of these deep basements will, eventually, fill with water.

5. George Fryd Local Authority guidelines are required for condition surveys or schedules of condition for the adjoining properties to the basement development.

6. Liz friend Reviewing your policy on basements is highly appreciated as, the constant drilling and noise is very hard

7. Cllr Gwyneth Hampson

Pointed out a number of typos and considers it is vital that neighbours are warned when noisy works are about to take place. Piling can be a particular problem.

2

8. Mr Chris Sheppherd Westminster City Council should consider prohibiting further basement development.

9. Alistair Mellon Considers the required depth for trees to grow too prescriptive, it should be assessed on a case by case basis. Creating enough soil depth for a large mature tree to grow in a confined or small garden should not be a planning objective. Considers Construction Management Plan at the planning stage are inappropriate and they are verbatim the conditions currently imposed once planning is secure will simply add cost and risk to the planning process basements offer families the chance to increase their living area increase the sustainability, cohesion and stability of communities. This work also attracts foreign capital to London. We should be encouraging the employment and the enhancement of skills that basement industry brings to London's workforce. Need to consider economic benefits.The 50% rule appears arbitrary and as such a poor basis to establish policy. Each situation should be judged on its merits. Failure to do so would put the council and council taxpayers at risk of challenge in the courts and at the planning inspectorate. The One Storey Rule appears arbitrary and as such a poor basis to establish policy.

10. Canals and Rivers Trust

Support reference to flooding of basements from watercourses in both the policy and interim guidance, make reference to works adjacent to the Grand Union Canal, and the need for these to be in accordance with their Code of Practice for Works Affecting the Canal & River Trust

11. David Bennett Concerns relate to Noise, Filth and traffic congestion generated by these developments there is continual arrivals of heavy lorries , adds up to a very stressful life for residents Also the risk that property will be adversely affected in future by subsidence and a recent study has revealed that one in six basement developments receive future insurance claims against leakage that requires remedial work. work seems to be carried out purely for financial gain without consideration for misery and disruption caused to neighbours. stop this by banning all garden excavations. there should be some relief in the form of reduced Council Tax or other financial compensation from the Council who have allowed granted planning permission for this.

12. Ian Stewart If these are granted Planning permission then greater control is needed over builders hours noise levels and safety together payment on Escrow to cover for damage

13. Jeffry Ng 1. restrict excavations to only one per street to minimise disruption to the neighbourhood; 2. insist on a bond to protect the immediate neighbours in the event of financial difficulties; 3. apply an additional charge on the Council Tax based on the increased size.

14. Jeremy Leigh Pemberton

Requests comprehensive restrictions to basement development particularly in built up areas. this type of development is extremely unneighbourly and potentially destructive and clearly constitutes nuisance. amending planning law would greatly assist in protecting neighbours’ interests.

15. Katharine Lubar Agrees with most of what is proposed but requests an additional safeguard for how it might affect neighbouring buildings as they can move when there are vibrations caused by nearby building works. Suggests an independent surveyor or assessor (or team of specialists), who can determine how a proposed basement excavation might affect neighbouring buildings. Should be someone unconnected to the construction company –Safeguards would need to be followed, and penalties should be given for not following them.

16. Kris Musikant Consideration needs to be given to the effect on the highway between the site and the roadway. Pavements are badly damaged, paving stones cracked/ tilted and worse resulting in a danger to pedestrians. Authorities should hold a deposit for costs of repairs.

17. Mike Hales 1. Where the ground conditions are difficult it should simply be necessary for the engineer to demonstrate technical challenges can be overcome, which may require the input of a Geotechnical Consultant and carrying out permeability tests. Development should be made very clear that it is not specifically precluded.

3

2. Concerns over technical detail of Alan Baxters report and that this may be misconstrued and suggests this should be subject to judicial review. If Alan Baxter's recommendations are to be followed, in the event that the submitted documents are challenged by another Chartered Engineer objecting to a scheme, how would a planning officer a planning officer be able to determine whether a challenge to a planning application, in technical terms is valid or not?

3. Concerned re requirement for assessment of the construction, including Construction Method Statement and assessment of the expected movement at the planning stage, this is asking clients to "risk" a substantial amount of money in making the application. The issues need to be addressed by a Chartered Civil or Structural Engineer but this need only form part of a planning condition on any planning permission granted.

4. Considers it is important that both contractor and engineer have a mutual understanding of these issues and ideally are able to demonstrate this through the successful completion of past projects. Agrees that planning condition should be that the same engineer that prepared the detailed designs for the basement be required to oversee the construction on site. If an applicant is willing to accept a condition that a particular specialist contractor and engineering consultant are employed to construct the basement works, this too should be taken into account in your Planning Policy.

5. Easier to build a double or triple basement as part of a single operation now rather than as a staged construction in the future. With a "one level" basement policy you are imposing a restriction on amount of (relatively economic) space that you are able to create in the borough.

6. Central Government considers that there is sufficient legislation already in place to deal with these sorts of development.

18. Resident 1. Construction works have a material negative impact on neighbours, especially neighbours adjoined by a party wall. The Party Wall Act is inadequate to prevent or even address this significant nuisance. Developers should be obligated to pay compensation to adjoining landowners.

2. The Council should act to protect heritage assets by prohibiting subterranean developments under listed buildings. 3. Reject the Baxter report that says that there is no greater structural risk to listed buildings as a result of subterranean developments.

Older buildings were designed to move with ground movements. When several listed houses are connected by party walls, and when one of those houses installs a basement, the resulting massive concrete and steel bunker affects the ability of the entire terrace to move with ground movements.

4. Policy should prevent basement developments by offshore companies.

19. Stephen Waterhouse

Consider the question of paying for damage to neighboring properties. WCC should maintain special fund to cover these costs. To offset possible costs, the Council should charge stiff fees in exchange for planning approval. Need to consider potential water run-off problems. Has this been thought about?

20. Rosa & Robert Morris

Interim Planning Guidance very helpful. In addition should consider: (i) problems which can occur for properties not immediately adjacent to development; these should be covered by some form of agreement similar to a party wall notice. (ii) A single, well defined point of contact for residents to access to enable problems to be resolved. CMP Policy CM28.7 is supported. Support the proposal to limit extension to not more than 50% of the garden (now with the additional limit of 4 metres) and requirement for satisfactory landscaping, retention of trees, gardens etc.. Suggested requirement for an Environmental Management Plan could help mitigate the cumulative impact of more than one development taking place in a street. Object to the wording “not involve the excavation of more than one storey below the original floor level, unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated” which could allow sub-basements to be created. Strongly against the creation of sub-basements, particularly with the housing stock that exists within our conservation area with many listed buildings. Basement development must be proportionate.

4

21. Morris Zelkha

1. Curb developers who seek to maximise additional square footage. Should impose a substantial Section 106 contribution if the applicant does not reside in the completed property for a minimum period, say two years.

2. Address the suitability of basement development to different areas. Consider the difference between a development in a wide street and that in a narrow cul de sac in terms of impact on residents.

3. Construction management noise assessment reports and also light impact reports report are ‘desk top’ jobs with standard paragraphs. The council should be submitting such reports for independent assessment, and charge the applicant for doing this.

4. The size criteria for basements set out in the draft Basements Policy Booklet should be more restrictive. 5. The Council should give guidance on what they do and do not do and how neighbours will be impacted. Once planning consent has been

given by the Council, it is only at the party wall stage that neighbours sometimes appreciate the full impact on them. 6. The Council should make adequate insurance a condition of basement approval. 7. Follow up inspection should be a mandatory condition of approval 8. Halt consideration of applications whilst new policy is in active contemplation or advance the date for introduction of new policy. 9. The impact of flash flooding is a major concern made greater by significant subterranean development. 10. Gives insufficient weight to the urban grain and character. A small street of houses becomes very different when most of the houses

double in size with the consequent increase in traffic and infrastructure associated with the resultant houses.

22. Khaled El Bishlawi

Basements which are well planned, constructed by professional contractors contribute to the overall well-being of the houses and the market as a whole. The impact is often positive, increases value of property on of the street and neighbouring ones too and contributes to Westminster’s economy. Although projects take time, the noisy bit doesn't last the whole time. Not many projects get it wrong, and, the council should provide figures on numbers of projects that have gone wrong. Restrictive building conditions enforced by the council would help reduce or eliminate mistakes. These efforts could be supported by use of independent surveyors necessary for party wall agreements and awards. Perhaps the council can consider tighter controls, bans are not the right way forward and would suggest amongst other things that perhaps a Performance Bond Scheme or greater supervisory involvement by council officials (paid for by the applicants) would work much better to ensure things went well. Fees should go up in line with demands upon the council services and manpower.

23. Dr Judith Harvey

1. Regulations which keep the size of basements in keeping with the house and local environment welcome. Current developments much more about investment and destroy the social fabric of the areas affected. Conversion of increasing areas of central London to sterile investment opportunities for the international super-rich is destroying the social as well as the material fabric of the city.

2. Seek reassurance that the regulations about soil volumes for trees are sufficiently generous that big trees. 3. The imposition of limitations on the days and hours that the work can be carried out is welcome. The document gives sensible advice to

neighbours. However, regulations and advice on paper may not be realised in practice. 4. Short term adverse effects can be managed through party wall agreements and money held in escrow. Possible long term effects on

adjacent properties need to be recognised and managed in a way that protects neighbours and provision made for those who discover after the development has been completed that their property has been adversely affected to claim proper damages. Should be straightforward and not involve the neighbour in the huge expense and stress.

5. Given the number of permissions being given, it is inevitable that in some roads there will be either several simultaneous developments within a small area, or a succession of developments.

24. Joe Haim Welcome proposed consultation. Particular concerns relate to ACCESS and use of UNSUITABLE HEAVY MACHINERY. Unlike other development, basement excavations appear to require heavy equipment which has caused severe traffic access issues, especially in mews.

5

25. Jeremy C Bishop support efforts to introduce better control over basement development, proposals made in Policy Booklet and Interim Guidance Note a strong step in the right direction.

26. Thames Water Strongly welcome draft policy booklet and interim guidance note. Our view that these policies would help prevent increased flows of surface water into the sewerage network and could help in achieving a reduction in flows to the network. Particularly welcome that CM28.7 aims to prevent any increase in surface water runoff into the sewerage network and to protect new basements from the risk of sewer flooding as well as requirement as set out in the first bullet point for basement development to incorporate permeable surfacing and a minimum soil depth. As well as being required to demonstrate that basements will safeguard structural stability and will not increase flood risk on the site or beyond, consider that basement development should achieve a reduction in the volume and speed of run-off. This is in accordance with Core Strategy Policy CS29 (Flood Risk) which requires development proposals to reduce the risk of flooding. Risk that the permeable surfaces provided in connection with basement developments could subsequently be covered with impermeable surfaces installed utilising permitted development rights and recommend that planning conditions are used on any relevant planning approvals to ensure the permanent retention of approved permeable surfaces and SUDs. In interim guidance particularly support inclusion of Application Checklist, the requirement for a Structural Methodology the advice within section ‘Trees, Gardens and Landscaping’ and the inclusion of section 6.3 ‘Flood Risk’ . In addressing the impacts of sewer and groundwater flooding for new basements suggest that the guidance could go further and should recommend a pumped sewage system in basements where there is a record of sewer flooding in the local area. In relation to groundwater, whilst the impact on groundwater is not a direct Thames Water issue, if the cumulative impact of subterranean development were to increase groundwater levels there would be increased risks of groundwater infiltration into the sewerage network. Could reduce the capacity of the network to accommodate surface water and foul water flows. Recommended that groundwater levels are monitored and appraised against the impacts of subterranean development.

27. Carol Gould Due to the noise, fumes and dust considers these projects should not be allowed at all, especially a problem in narrow mews

28. A Jones Laudable that efforts being made. However, nee different slant and should consider where the applicant is absent, has no consideration to loss of amenity, is immune from tax and makes no social contribution. Suggest a professional evaluation of the following:- 1. Close integration between the activities of Local Authority, the Land Registry, and HMRC. There are huge tax gains to be made (which

are currently being avoided) and the greater tax gain the greater the deterrent. 2. A protocol which covers an up-front, insurance band/indemnity for structural damage. 3. A limit on the time between formal approval and the commencement of work. (6 months?) 4. A limit on the time between start and completion (6 months, to limit the extent of work) 5. Substantial penalties for default, severe enough to make breach unthinkable. 6. Relocation expenses are compensation far loss of amenity to immediate neighbours.

29. Angela Hodkinson Concerns relate to: 1. Damage to the structure of existing properties. 2. Collapse of roads and pavements. 3. Serious noise, pollution and disruption during the course of works, particularly in residential areas. 4. Negative impact on the character of an area. 5. Damage to the water table and trees, affects the water uptake of trees causing changes in soil structure and can effect the foundations

of adjoining buildings.

30. Anthony Lorenz Fully support the submission made by Grosvenor, in connection with basement and subterranean development.

6

extensive developments will create larger homes, with more occupants and more need for car parking. (this is personal Response, and not the

views of Mayfair and St James Society)

31. Anthony Williams Bayswater

Good that the information available, much of it useful, but many points which give serious cause for concern. This document, whose provisions will not come into effect for some considerable time suggests little intention either to mitigate the disruption and loss of amenity to them, whether adjacent and otherwise, both during and after these works, or - even more seriously - to compensate them financially for the damage to their properties and their well-being which they will inevitably suffer. Neighbours only have any rights to object if their house is next door to the one where development is proposed; those not adjacent currently have no rights whatsoever. More specific issues: 1. Threat to the stability of neighbouring buildings plus effect on groundwater, and the impact on "adjoining" are inadequately

addressed. 2. Basement extensions do not always require planning permission, they certainly should, and the Council ought to be pressing for this.

Restricting "the depth of basement extensions to one additional storey", as proposed under 'Control', is insufficient - one storey should be the absolute limit.

3. The introduction of an "updated Code of Construction Practice", under 'Impact of Construction', is welcome, it should include provisions for substantial compensation to all those affected.

4. It must be the responsibility of the Council to enforce, by punitive sanctions if necessary, the conditions laid down and agreed. 5. No indication that such applicants are obliged to consult with neighbours or will pay much attention to the views expressed. 6. Concern re statement "the proportion of subterranean living accommodation [should] not exceed the above-ground living space":

implies below this limit, even if a very large proportion, could be considered acceptable - a horrendous possibility.

32. Barbara Brown There must be a much stricter control to take in account of water tables, underground streams, likely subsidence, etc.

33. Basement Force View parts of the proposed policy as sensible but other parts of the policy are: arbitrary, unsupported by evidence, in defiance of logic and impose greater burdens on developers of basements than would be imposed on developers above ground without good reason. It is the quality of the workmanship and professionalism of the organisation implementing the permission which is the only sure safeguard against harm, not planning policy. However, planning policy can reduce the risk by encouraging the sector to innovate and develop. Basement Force recommends the adoption of a simpler criteria based policy. Points where we view the policy as unsound: 1. The 1.2m soil depth is too great. A depth of 0.8m would be adequate. 2. 50% or 4m limitation is arbitrary. Basements in gardens should be designed to meet the criteria (drainage, planting, protection of

existing trees etc.) without an arbitrary percentage limitation. Basements of larger percentages than 50% can be designed which meet all of the listed criteria.

3. One storey limitation is arbitrary. No reasoned justification or evidence has been given for the restriction. Specifically no data demonstrating that multiple storey basements have had greater structural or other problems than single storey basements. The Alan Baxter report does not suggest limiting basements to a single level.

4. Requirement to be naturally ventilated and lit wherever practicable should be no more stringent than they are for standard above ground accommodation, which can be built that does not have natural ventilation or light.

5. Requirement to have no adverse visual impact is more restrictive than should be allowed for remembering the presumption for policy to be in favour of sustainable development. The proposed policy limits any form of lightwell opening in the bottom of an existing lower ground lightwell. This is arbitrary.

6. Construction management plan should be required as a condition rather than being part of the application as work may not take place for three years after planning approval by which time the situation around the site may have changed materially. Suggest orks cannot be

7

started until an acceptable construction management plan has been submitted. 7. Construction management plans do not lead to minimal construction impact. They are often ignored by poor contractors and are not

policed effectively. The policy does not include a mechanism for requiring the contractors to demonstrate competence. Possible options for consideration are a)Qualification of contractors to work in the borough or black listing of contractors who offend. B) Introduction of enforcement officers or others to police basement construction sites. Membership of ASUC or another suitable body could be considered as a requirement for contractors undertaking basement construction work ASUC has published Guidelines on safe and efficient basement construction directly below or near to existing structures. The publication of these guidelines has been supported by the Health and Safety who have referenced them in a recent letter to basement contractors on safe construction of domestic basements.

34. Card Geotechnics Ltd

Broadly welcome the document. 1. welcome the avoidance of an absolute requirement to limit basements to single storeys. However, leaves a significant and potentially

costly and protracted assessment as to what might represent exceptional circumstances. As we have observed to other authorities, poorly controlled single storey basements are potentially as disruptive, even more disruptive, than well controlled and engineered multiple storey basements with experienced contractors and design team. There are examples of multiple storey basements in the borough which have been successfully constructed without issue and the typical questions that must be asked are; is provision of off street parking an exception that justifies a two or three storey basement, is the use of basement floors for storage grounds for exceptional circumstances that warrants approval? Such clarity on the guidance is imperative.

2. The issue of sign off is critical to the process and we broadly support signatures of appropriately experienced MICE or MI Struct E, but it is unfortunate that a link to the appropriate professional trade body is also not included. The Association of Geotechnical and Geo-environmental Specialists (AGS) contains a data base of member specialist in the very areas of expertise these basement projects often require. These include Chartered Engineers and Chartered Geologists with geotechnical specialisms.

3. The area of 50% for limiting garden development appears to replicate other authorities criteria. We have responded in detail to this with co-consultants in SUDS and flooding matters showing that it represents a highly onerous and technically unjustifiable limit for many London sites and suggest that the council look at alternative measures where specifically flood risk is an issue.

4. We understand the need to recommend a depth of soil over any basement but note the suggested depth over the basement varies from the neighbouring authorities criteria. would be helpful if consensus across neighbouring boroughs could be achieved to avoid transference of standard details and expectations causing needless issues of non-compliance.

35. Caroline Burke Support proposals to restrict the extent and depth of basement excavation and to protect the local heritage. The person carrying out the development should be obliged to take out a meaningful bond to cover the inevitable damage to neighbouring properties.

36. Cllr Roberts Endorse the findings of the Grosvenor Estate in relation to Flooding, Land Stability and Ground Conditions … also believe trees and should not be prejudiced by excavations below the roots that are essential to drainage and to environmental health. it should be a condition of planning permission that a party wall agreement or similar and schedule of condition funded by the developer is in place and a bond drawn up

37. Cranbrook basements

Will not address in detail all of the issues that have been raised as we understand that at present these are not yet formal proposals. There is no reasoned justification for any of the proposed changes and at the appropriate time we will make formal representation as to any potential policy changes based upon your proposed policy modification and the reasoned justification offered for the change. The vast majority of the issues raised within your consultation booklet are already dealt with by alternative legislation and interference in those

8

statutory processes by the Planning Department should be avoided. We can see no reason why current policy should be modified and the Local Authority have brought forward no evidence that such changes are required or that they can be justified. In the event of City of Westminster Council intending to bring forward modified draft proposals we reserve the right to make further representation.

38. Environment Agency

Section 6.3 - Tidal Flood Risk Where a site is shown as being within Flood Zone 3 from the River Thames but outside the area impacted by a breach/failure of the flood defences, we would not normally object to a self contained basement dwelling. It is your decision as to whether you alter Figure 4 to be in line with our standard approach or whether you decide to implement a higher level of risk bar. The requirements that are currently set out in Figure 4 in relation to self contained basement dwellings in Flood Zone 3 could restrict redevelopment for large areas of the Borough. The final policy must be supported by a strong evidence base with appropriate and reasonable evidence of flood risk. If a new basement dwelling is proposed but will not be a self contained and will have appropriate internal access to first or second floor we will consider the proposal as ‘more vulnerable’ in line with the NPPF. More vulnerable development can be considered appropriate within flood Zone 2 and 3 providing the Sequential Test and Exception Test (where either are appropriate) are passed and a Flood Risk Assessment is submitted which demonstrates that the occupants will have appropriate access and egress or safe internal refuge. We encourage you to consider including additional text in the draft policy which will require applicants to consider opportunities to improve the safety of existing basements to be extended. Section 6.3 - Surface Water Flooding The terms ‘Critical Flood Locations’, ‘Critical Drainage Areas’ and ‘Flood Risk Areas’ are all mentioned. It would be beneficial to refer to areas at risk of surface water consistently rather than use various names, We also recommend for those applying the policy that it is made very clear in this section which areas/streets are designated as being at risk of surface water and needing to apply special mitigation measures as part of their application for a self-contained or extension basement. Section 6.8 – Managing the impacts of construction Soil excavated from basement developments may be contaminated. Depending on the nature of the excavated soil (ie. if it is classified as waste), it would need to be removed from site by a licensed waste carrier to an appropriately licensed waste facility. consider offering further guidance on this matter within the policy to ensure developers are fully aware of their responsibilities under relevant legislation.

39. Esther Tan 1. Basement excavation and extension should be limited to only one storey deep (approx.. 2.7m) 2. Basement excavation and extension should safeguard structural stability and will not increase flood risk on site and beyond 3. The Council should restrict excavations to only one per street at a time to minimise disruption to the neighbourhood and prevent

traffic/parking disruptions 4. The Council should apply an additional charge on the Council Tax based on the increased size. 5. The Council should insist on a bond to protect the immediate neighbours in the event of financial difficulties of the building parties

preventing them to complete or delay the project or to compensate immediate neighbours in case of damage caused or negligence, etc.

40. Grosvenor Sets out their approach. Since 2010 have not approved any applications for subterranean development below the historic fabric of listed buildings if the existing lowest floor is below the level of the adjacent street, but we do approve applications for single basement storey applications where no basement or lower ground floor currently exists as well as deeper excavations where we can be satisfied that the excavations will not damage either the subject or neighbouring buildings. This has resulted in a number of schemes being approved by Westminster not then receiving our consent. To avoid this suggest WCC in future to remind the owners at pre-application stage that notwithstanding the granting of planning, they will still need their landlord's consent before the works can be legally implemented.

9

Consider that the draft basement policies should go further in addressing the problems caused by subterranean development both to the buildings themselves but as importantly, to the residents. Our key requests include: 1. Confirmation that the policies have been drafted in accordance with European Law 2. That the role of Grosvenor and other landlords is referred to and recognised in the policies 3. A recognition that greater controls need to be exercised over listed buildings, especially when they form a part of a residential terrace 4. A presumption against subterranean development when the existing lowest ground floor is already below street level 5. A review of the need for 1.2-1 .Sm soil coverage above all garden basement extensions 6. An accreditation system for contractors and greater enforcement once the works commence 7. Recognition that for full redevelopments away from listed, terraced and residential streets and buildings, there is more scope for deeper

excavations.

41. Jaqueline Ashmore Welcome this document and support CM28.7 as far as it goes. However I strongly feel that the policy should include a restriction on light wells to the effect that there should be no introduction of light wells and railings to the front or side of the property unless they are already an established and positive feature of the local streetscape. Some may be unobtrusive in the daytime but once internal lights are on they disrupt the appearance of the streetscape. Specific comments on guidance note: Submitting a Planning Application I support the requirement for evidence of engagement with adjoining occupiers and a schedule and timetable of works with the planning application. How will the schedule and timetable be “enforced”? Sustainable DesignI am disappointed by the vagueness and lack of detail and the use of words like “choice of materials”, “negative environmental impacts” and “mitigated”. How does the Council “police” this? Land Stability and Structural Design I note that applicants are strongly advised to use a Chartered Structural or Civil Engineer who can demonstrate relevant skills and a track record of successful basement projects in central London. Can’t this be enforced? 6.6 Visual Impact Regarding lightwells This is too vague. Use of Basements for Living Accommodation implies that there may be exceptions where it may be acceptable if the basement is not used as part of a single dwelling. What are these exceptions? Managing the Construction Parking and Use of the Highway is too vague. Arrangements for parking should be “considered” is very weak! Handling Waste Again the statement is vague with words like “considered” and “minimised”. This will be open to interpretation.

42. Jean Jaffa Apart from the gross intrusions and the lengthy processes involved, the rivers and water tables can be severely compromised. I very much hope basements will be greatly restricted in the future.

43. Jeremy Bishop Support your efforts to introduce better control over basement development and consider the proposals made in your Draft Basements Policy Booklet and your Interim Guidance Note on Basements to be a strong step in the right direction.

44. K Pilton I object to basement extensions of more than one storey on the grounds of structural risk and flooding. In mews the increased intensity of basement use has unpleasant repercussions. Need to be mindful of situations where the construction work and enormous lorries, cranes, skips etc. it entails are a danger to neighbouring property owners. Need to consider access for emergency vehicles.

45. Karen Buck I welcome the consultation. My specific comments are as follows: 1. Draft policy proposals represent a reasonable framework against which to determine applications in so far as they offer the opportunity

to restrict the construction of mega-basements, which threaten trees and the water-table, as well as represent a nuisance to neighbours, they are a positive step.

2. Issue of cumulative impact arising from so many excavations happening in a concentrated area. Unlike above-ground building,

10

excavations involve the removal of huge quantities of earth and frequently cause noise and disruption well in excess of that associated with, for example, an attic conversion, there can be little doubt that this is a major reason why some of our neighbourhoods are in revolt over basement construction.

3. Developers are well aware of the limitations in the exercise of these regulations and use the disjointed nature of planning, building control and enforcement to their advantage.

4. Because the new Local Plan is not expected to be adopted before 2015, residents are going to be left for at least two years without an effective planning policy for basement developments. There is genuine concern that this leaves residents relatively unprotected during this time, and that, in any event, the policy may end up being challenged on appeal.

46. Karolina Gantchar

Concerned about 1. Long term affects by damage to the structure of existing properties, particularly terraces. 2. More damage that causes pavements and roads to collapse. 3. Years of an ugly building site 4. Potential flooding from lowering of the water table and damage to water pipes and sewers. 5. Major disruption and noise and pollution during the course of the works.

47. Katharine Hoskyns Against the excavation of large basements due to impact on foundations of neighbouring houses, drainage and floods and it is changing the character of Westminster – houses developed for profit and being bought by foreign capital and rarely lived in.

48. Knightsbridge Association

Welcome attempt to mitigate harmful impact of basement - particularly disproportionate excavation. 1. Concerned about the cumulative impact of several excavations in one street on the stability of adjacent buildings and buildings one or

two away. Also the cumulative impact on the lives and amenity of residents from several excavations at the same time. 2. controls are too diffuse and need to be brought under one umbrella, as at present the problems fall between Planning, Building Control,

Environmental Health and Party Wall awards. There is some indication that this might be achieved if contractors had to prepare an Environmental Management plan to comply with the emerging revised Code of Construction Practice

3. We do not feel that second or sub-basements should be allowed at all, but if the Council is unable to refuse them under current legislation, we agree that they should not be deeper than 2.7m. We do not believe development under pavement vaults should be allowed, as this may affect the stability of the public highway (pavement and road).

4. We welcome the helpful Interim Guidance 5. Suggest there should be a single well defined point of contact at the Council for residents when problems arise.

49. Laurence Parmenter

More excavation to Victorian terraced house will only increase the frequency and risk of flooding to existing basements.

50. Mrs Marcelle Billingham

My comments are as follows 1. Basement excavation and extension should be limited to only one storey deep (approx.. 2.7m) 2. Basement excavation and extension should safeguard structural stability and will not increase flood risk on site and beyond 3. The Council should restrict excavations to only one per street at a time to minimise disruption to the neighbourhood and prevent

traffic/parking disruptions 4. The Council should apply an additional charge on the Council Tax based on the increased size. 5. Council should insist on a bond to protect immediate neighbours in event of financial difficulties of the building parties preventing them

to complete or delay the project or to compensate immediate neighbours in case of damage caused, negligence, etc.

51. Mark and Harriot Support for the intention of Westminster City Council to reform the planning framework for basements.

11

Tennant

52. Marylebone Association

1. We do not believe that the policy should be use specific, nor that it should differentiate between existing and new buildings. The more critical aspect is the impact of basements and their construction, irrespective of use or age of the building, on their immediate neighbourhood. We suggest that the text "Basement development to residential building or buildings originally built for residential purposes" is deleted.

2. We agree that this is important and appropriate to avoid loss of soft landscaping where it already exists. However, many existing courtyard gardens do not have soft landscaping and to lower a basement to allow for it where it does not already exist seems onerous and inappropriate. It is also inappropriate where rooflights are formed to allow much needed natural light into the basement.

3. We do not believe there is any evidence to suggest that 50% is reasonable or otherwise. This is an arbitrary and overly prescriptive assessment without any clear evidence base. We believe the important element is the need to protect existing trees and other soft landscape of townscape ecological or amenity value.

4. We do not believe there is any evidence to suggest that more than one storey of basement causes significant harm as development once completed. The design, construction method and soil removal etc need to be conditioned as part of the construction management plan and adhered to (and enforced if not).

5. We believe the issue is one of appropriateness and proportion to the site and its context: It may be inappropriate to have several storey basements in a small mews building, where as it may not be within a large detached terraced house which has better access. Basement development should be proportionate to its site and its context; excavation will be limited to a level that is appropriate to the site constraints Guidance on what is deemed proportionate could be produced for typical conditions.

6. We agree that the Construction Management plan is critical and mandatory. It needs to be monitored and adhered to, and enforcement action taken if it is not followed strictly.

7. Do not believe that there is any evidence to suggest that a limit of 1.8m is appropriate. This requirement should be deleted.

53. Mike Dunn Give my full support to the plans outlined in the consultation document. Would support more prescriptive too.

54. Natural England Do not consider that this Basements Policy and Basements Interim Planning Guidance poses any likely or significant risk to those features of the natural environment for which we would otherwise provide a more detailed consultation response.

55. Patrick Copeland and JoAnn Brislan

Welcome the Westminster initiative to establish more comprehensive planning guidelines. Concerns over basement construction are largely to do with collateral damage to existing property, especially sensitive heritage assets. Many of these cannot structurally withstand construction impacts without incurring damage. Where services, easements, foundations etc are shared, many basement projects will have the potential to encroach on adjacent properties and such issues should be resolved in advance. Plan guidelines should require the applicant to commit to "make good" repairs to adjacent properties. An independent assessment of potential structural disruption should also be provided by the applicant, with funding in place in advance, to meet any liabilities to the satisfaction of the damaged party. Should be a minimum requirement for construction that is known to be more disruptive structurally. Needs to be more than a "box tick". Council expertise needs to be adequate and fit for purpose in assessing such proposals. Planning applicants should be responsible for initial consultation with adjacent property owners on these types of applications. Evidence of such consultation should form part of the planning submission. Absentee/antisocial owners whose only role/objective in such a project is that of developer should not be granted approval Projects where shared services, easements etc exist, should be submitted for approval with adjacent owner agreement as to management, continuity etc. Absence of agreement suggests that 3rd party rights are being compromised and planning should not be considered, Eg

12

easements should not be expanded from parking/pedestrian access to becoming light wells or other excavation usage without agreement from all parties in advance. Water table and flood risk issues in cases where damming of existing flood plains are long term issues. Planning guidelines need to address the potential for subsidence damage to adjacent properties.

56. Roger Walters Solution to the problem is not the refusal to grant permission but to “License” the contractors who undertake the work and request a bond (from the owner) , in much the same way a scaffold or skip permit, but much larger to allow for remedial action if necessary. The owner can afford it as the value of his property is increasing by about £2000ft2 against a cost of £500 ft2. A substantial fee should also be charged for monitoring the construction, the proceeds of which can be used either for the Council to employ a civil engineer (my preference) or to Contract out.

57. Mayfair Residents Group (Ron Whelan)

Support the comments recently submitted by the Grosvenor Estate on the subject of Basement Planning Policy and believe that if the conditions specified by Grosvenor were to be fully incorporated into the Council’s planning policy then much of the social damage that has been caused to local residents in Mayfair, as a direct consequence of these basement developments, will not be repeated in the future.

58. St Marylebone Society C.Poole for St M Soc Planning subcommittee

Welcome this study, think the guidance and policy documents produced so far are very comprehensive and helpful. The worries from neighbours (page 8) are best addressed in the law of tort, not in planning. All this sensibly observed on page 9. The commentary on page 12 (depth) does not answer the question in the heading. T rather answers the question: what rule might we create that is a proxy for everybody's concerns and is easy to enforce? Suggestion in the last para. on this page is good: enforcement via CoCP/ legal agreement. support this. Annotated draft policy statement in pp 16-17 is well presented. We like most of this. The guidance note is rather good. Section 5 will be useful for bodies such as ourselves, as we are often the recipient of queries from neighbours. In larger projects we have had experience of “Community Liaison Committees” meeting to discuss issues with residents and neighbours, which work reasonably well. But small projects are more problematic, and not only do some residents have to endure very stressful levels of disturbance for months at a time, they also have waste a large amount of additional time trying to sort out problems. There should needs to be some sort of integrated monitoring service, paid for by the applicants, which makes it easier and quicker to deal with any issues that arise.

59. Virginia Ashton 1. Character of Neighbourhood. modest sized family houses made considerably larger and more expensive, thus making them less affordable will have a big impact on the current friendly, neighbourly character with families and retired people living here. I suggest that this is not “sensitive to the surrounding area”.

2. Environmental concerns There is a considerable amount of water also underground streams and aquifers in this area. Trees can suffer badly from root disturbance. Recommendation: Environmental bodies eg Thames Water and WCC Tree Dept must be consulted and report on the possible long term effects.

3. Compensation Recommendation: A considerably larger sum (say £200K) should be placed in an account with WCC to cover all possibilities. The Council should require developers to submit schedules of work stating length of time for the construction process. If the time taken is in excess of that stated then compensation should be paid to immediate neighbours and those within 100m.

4. A fund be established by WCC and developers required to put in a considerable sum as a deposit against future problems. They should also be required to take out an insurance policy to cover potential damage over the next 10 years.

5. Construction Traffic preventing residents from driving in and out as well as obstructing council and emergency service vehicles. 6. Recommendation: That no more than one sub-basement project can take place at any none time in the same block or section of street. 7. Nuisance The dust, dirt, noise, traffic and general inconvenience caused to neighbours is often unacceptable and individuals should not

have to confront the perpetrators. Recommendation: That a Hotline be established by the Council for complaints eg to have a vehicle

13

moved which is blocking the road

60. Mrs Ann Frith

My comments are as follows 1. Basement excavation and extension should be limited to only one storey deep (approx.. 2.7m) 2. Basement excavation and extension should safeguard structural stability and will not increase flood risk on site and beyond 3. The Council should restrict excavations to only one per street at a time to minimise disruption to the neighbourhood and prevent

traffic/parking disruptions 4. The Council should apply an additional charge on the Council Tax based on the increased size. 5. Council should insist on a bond to protect the immediate neighbours in the event of financial difficulties of the building parties

preventing them to complete or delay the project or to compensate immediate neighbours in case of damage caused or negligence, etc.

61. Chris Sheppard Westminster City Council should consider prohibiting further basement development. These and other noisy works, often lasting for months, are a nuisance to anyone living nearby, while of course the people causing the work to be carried out are not living with the consequences.

62. Savills, Sarah Round Write on behalf of our numerous clients who carry out safe and considerate developments across the City which include subterranean development. The reasons given for proposed limits are to protect visual amenity by retaining planting and mature trees, as a precautionary approach to avoid potential structural difficulties with deeper basements, to allow a better quality of accommodation and to minimise disruption. We do not consider these reasons are sound. It is entirely possible to provide mature planting schemes and provide significant planting above basement level accommodation, the Council could mitigate against any adverse affects they consider may be caused by a lack of planting by attaching a landscaping condition. It is unnecessary and unjustified to propose a ‘blanket ban’ on all domestic basement proposals which are deeper than one storey due to potential structural risks. We have dealt with many complex and large schemes involving more than one subterranean level and such development is entirely possible if the correct expertise is used. The Council seek, as part of their new policy that applications for subterranean development include a construction method statement. This is considered to be entirely reasonable and sufficient to ensure such developments are carried out professionally. There is no need for a restrictive ‘one storey only’ policy and any structural issues can be addressed within a comprehensive structural methodology to be submitted for the Council’s review. It is also considered unjustified to develop the restrictive one storey policy on the grounds that this could help minimise disruption during build works. We do not consider that it is the role of the planning system to restrict development based solely on construction impact. The impact of such development can be mitigated by the submission of a construction traffic management plan as part of a condition.

14

63. Robert Ward-Booth (Knight Build) on behalf of my client, Knight Build Ltd

Acknowledge that poorly designed and managed basement development gives rise to risk of damage to adjoining property and will result in substantial and unnecessary disruption for local residents. In this regard, strongly support the proposals for the introduction of a revised and updated Code of Construction Practice. However, in drafting proposed new policy the Council has sought to achieve its objectives by introduction of arbitrary limitations on the amount of new basement development. Limitations of this type will result in situations where sustainable development is prevented unnecessarily resulting in unnecessary and unjustified economic and social harm. Draft policy is not justified, is not in conformity with the NPPF and is unsound. Query how much thought given to the social and economic cost of the proposed policy. Basement construction is a worthwhile built investment which will benefit successive generations of residents. The NPPF recognises the need to provide the supply of housing that meet the needs of present and future generations. Development of this type supports jobs and substantial economic activity and generates substantial tax revenue which helps to support the public services. Deep basement development has an important role to play in the provision of world-class accommodation within central London. The Government is committed to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity (NPPF paragraph 18) and that the economic role played by the planning system is one of the three key dimensions of sustainable development (NPPF paragraph 7). Disagree with the approach set out within the draft policy and do not accept that there is any sustainable justification for a generalised limitation, which seeks to prevent most development which would exceed one story in depth. Reasons for restrictions appear unsound:. 1. Increased risk should not be partial justification. Where a scheme can be shown to be safe and will not cause any flood risk it is

inconsistent with national policy for the council to refuse permission because of generalised or hypothetical statements about “increased risk”. The council’s requirement for detailed site investigation and an evidence based analysis of the impact of each individual basement proposal will provide good quality evidence about the impact of each individual scheme and on this basis the Council will be able to weigh up each individual proposal to determine whether they are, or are not, sustainable.

2. Amount of waste is not justification for restriction. Need to consider that a single-storey basement development below a large detached house may result in more waste than a two-storey basement development below a smaller terraced property , a single-storey basement scheme which extends across the full footprint of the property and a large portion of the property's garden may well result in the generation of more waste than a two-storey basement which extends below only part of the footprint of the building etc. If concerned about waste policy should refer to the volume of construction rather than the depth of development. Any larger construction project will tend to generate more waste than a smaller construction project.

3. Disruption to adjoining occupiers cited as partial justification. There is relationship between the size of development and factors such as the length of the project and traffic generation but no direct relationship between the depth of basement construction and the actual amount of disruption experienced. The Council would be far better served by developing an evidence based policy approach which includes an assessment of traffic/ parking capacity, methodology of construction and the impact this will have in terms of programme of works, aggregate construction impact within individual localities and impact of construction phase works within the street scene. Statements made by the council amount to the introduction of a planning policy which restricts a sustainable form of development simply on the basis that this will reduce the amount of construction work within the locality. this is inconsistent with the National Planning Policy Framework.

4. Justification refers to energy intensive uses such as swimming pools and media rooms in basements, which is illogical and unsound. If concerned about the level of energy associated with accommodation such as swimming pools and media rooms, should instead introduce a policy which prohibits the construction of swimming pools and media rooms. Basement construction does use of substantial amounts of concrete and the manufacture concrete does result in a high level of embodied carbon. However, the level of embodied

15

energy within the building fabric of the property represents only a very small percentage of the overall lifetime carbon use of the building. Many large-scale basement developments are also associated with comprehensive refurbishment and upgrading of the existing property as a whole and that this may easily result in an overall improvement in energy efficiency and a substantial reduction in the level of carbon use over the building life cycle. If the Council is genuinely concerned about the level of carbon use within the built environment it should not seek to introduce an arbitrary limit on the depth of basement construction but should instead seek to ensure that any development proposal of this type results in a net reduction in the long-term carbon use associated with the individual property concerned.

5. Simplistic comments made in relation to “better accommodation". Ventilation requirements of different types of accommodation vary and there are some types of accommodation (e.g. bathrooms, swimming pools, spas etc.) which will always require mechanical ventilation. Similarly there are some types of accommodation which will always require artificial lighting (cinema rooms, internal bathrooms etc.) For accommodation of this type, difficult to understand why there should be any prescriptive restriction about the level within a building at which it can be constructed. To achieve high levels of sustainability and low carbon use, common for above ground accommodation to be constructed with high levels of air tightness and mechanical heat recovery ventilation systems rather than natural ventilation.

6. Assertions made regarding intensity of use and effective basement construction on character of the locality are sweeping statements. The Council may be able to point to individual cases where large-scale deep basement construction has resulted in an intensification of use and a perceived change in character within the locality. However, there will be many other cases where deep basement construction simply results in the provision of more spacious and more luxurious accommodation rather than any particular increase in the intensification of use. Similarly, there will be many cases where such development makes no material difference to the character of the locality whatsoever.

Wording of section 3 of the draft policy should be amended to indicate that excavation of more than one story below the lowest original floor level will not be permitted unless the applicant is able to demonstrate that such development can be accepted without unreasonable harm. Reasonable for Council to seek to control the extent of basement development in order to achieve objectives of protecting landscape planting, maintaining surface water drainage and maintaining and enhancing garden settings and biodiversity but there will be some cases where the extent of basement construction will need to be limited to less than the suggested figure in order to secure these objectives. There will also be other situations basement construction which extends beyond the suggested figure can be designed to avoid any material harm to the Council objectives. Whilst it may be sensible for the council "rule of thumb" figure of 50% (or 4 m) to be used as a starting point for discussion it is recommended that section 2 of the new draft policy should be amended to make it clear that the extent of basement development will be assessed on an individual basis, having had regard to the detailed technical design of each application and the individual circumstances of each case. No need for the draft policy to make any reference to the protection of Heritage Assets. The NPPF provides a sophisticated, proportionate and evidence-based approach which seeks to balance harm caused by any individual design proposal against the wider benefits of the intended development.

64. Anne Boradhurst My comments are as follows 1. Basement excavation and extension should be limited to only one storey deep (approx.. 2.7m) 2. Basement excavation and extension should safeguard structural stability and will not increase flood risk on site and beyond

16

3. The Council should restrict excavations to only one per street at a time to minimise disruption to the neighbourhood and prevent traffic/parking disruptions

4. The Council should apply an additional charge on the Council Tax based on the increased size. 5. Council should insist on a bond to protect immediate neighbours in the event of financial difficulties of the building parties preventing

them to complete or delay the project or to compensate immediate neighbours in case of damage caused or negligence, etc.

65. W M Van der Lee For underground structures the depth of excavation required should depend on what is required to be planted over it. Basements can be planned around existing trees or around sites for new trees without the need for undesirable extra excavation. Less soil cover would also of course enable lighter roof structures with better natural lighting.

66. Andre Pauwells

The following risk items invariably come up: structural damage both during the excavation and afterwards, impact on water flows, noise and nuisance, impact on traffic and parking. The rules as described in the Interim Guidance Note should be a powerful tool to assess planning applications involving basements, but they are poorly applied . Structural issues are not adequately considered as the planning department is not sufficiently knowledgeable on basement construction matters. No basement excavation should be allowed underneath a listed building. A listed residential building was never conceived to accommodate gyms, spas, treatment rooms and swimming pools - which seems to be what most excavations are for. Indeed these additions are out of character with listed residential buildings. Only one level of basement should be allowed The Draft Basement Policy Booklet rightly views the depth of excavation as an item that should be controlled. The rule should be one storey - and no exit clause for "exceptional circumstances". The one storey limit should also be applied to garden excavations. Careful consideration has to be given to the construction methodology - with a focus on both short term and long term structural risk. WCC should consider exercising an Article 4 Direction.

67. Cluttons on behalf of John Lyons Charity

Welcome the proposed controls over basement development set out in the two documents. Approach is similar to the Charity's own guidelines. Proposed policy CM28.7 is closely aligned with the requirements of the Charity's own guidelines and therefore is to be welcomed. CM28. 7: Criteria 1 , 2 and 4 and requirement for sturctual statement are consistent with the Charity's own guidelines and therefore is supported; Criteria 3 - This is in part consistent with the Charity's own guidelines but the City Council must ensure that the bar of the 'exceptional circumstances' test is set high and rigorously followed when proposals for more than one storey are considered. The main additional concern of the Charity is to exercise some control over the number of a particular projects taking place at anyone time in a particular locality. The Charity would therefore suggest that the City Council lobbies Government to make changes to the relevant parts of the law to enable such controls to be introduced

68. James HEWITT

Strongly against the construction or deepening of basements for existing properties. Considers the council should insist that such basements have a zero greenhouse gas footprint during their lifecycle. Also, the designated fee payable by applicants for planning permission for basements should be greatly increased - to a level which all but eliminates the commercial value of the property once the basement is complete.

69. GLAAS The excavation of a basement normally necessarily involves destruction of archaeological remains within its footprint whereas other types of development may be designed to permit remains to be preserved in-situ. The circumstances of excavation too may make archaeological investigation and recording more logistically difficult. It is therefore especially necessary that the archaeological implications of basement construction are fully understood. I would therefore register support for the adoption of this policy and guidance.

17

70. Marie Burrows Concerned that there is an amplification of train noise due to piles used in basement s. Concerned about noise, vibration dirt distress and fears that the residential element of Mayfair is suffering

71. Nick Perren

1. Very little use is being made of Section 106 contributions to bring in income. 2. Council does not understand the differences in impact between basement development in small residential areas and in large

residential areas unrealistic to assume that there will not be very different impacts on quality of life, the use of services, traffic, and the local environment when basements are constructed in small streets as opposed to large streets. Every case should be considered individually and independently of existing schemes.

3. the introduction of individualised as opposed to ‘generic’ construction managements plans should be mandatory. WCC should provide evidence that they validate construction management plans individually as a matter of course, and charge applicants for this. In all cases, independent assessments should be required and the appropriate charges made.

4. The average useful life of newly-constructed basements must be assessed. 5. Planning issues in relation to basements should be subject to external assessment in all cases, independently vetted before planning

permission is granted, and after construction, in order to make certain that what is built is exactly what was planned and approved, and draconian fines should be imposed for any deviation which has not been externally approved.

72. Jill Salmon The new guidelines may help, but they need to come in more quickly. St John's Wood traditionally is a wooded area therefore developments should only be under the footprint of the house’.

73. Ms P Varrakalion Basement extensions – particular care should be taken with plumbing and foundations.

74. Henry Proctor Quite apart from the appalling nuisance that this is likely to cause such a excavation in the midst of historic buildings whose foundations are shallow (they were only intended to have a lifetime of some 90 years originally) seems to be folly. Works of this kind in the heart of historic Soho are entirely inappropriate, as well as structurally undesirable and potentially destructive.

75. Talya Davies glad that the Council is creating a Basements Planning Policy and pleased that excavation of more than one storey below the lowest original floor level will only be permitted if exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated, but would prefer it if this were to be changed to 'more than one storey below original ground floor level'.

76. DP9 on behalf of Motcomb Estates

1. Minimum soil depth of l.2m, together with an adequate soil volume, is a particularly prescriptive requirement and the need for such depth should be considered on a site-by-site basis. This is recognised in the supporting text within the booklet. On behalf of our client we propose that the policy is re-drafted to note that an adequate soil depth should be provided, on a case-by-case basis, as evidenced by a suitably qualified arboricuIturalist.

2. The second part of this section seeks to prevent the loss of trees of townscape, ecological or amenity value, essentially replicating existing policy requirements relating to these assets. When demonstrated by a suitably qualified arboriculturalist that a tree does not benefit from ecological or amenity value, or when a townscape professional considers that the tree is not of any townscape benefit, such specimens should be exempt from this requirement.

3. Raise an objection to this one storey depth requirement, as the case for the construction a basement of more than one storey will depend on the particular site in question. We suggest that the policy directs one storey basements where no basement exists and one storey sub-basements where a basement or lower ground floor already exists are considered to be the most appropriate form of basement development, but further excavation may be permitted when evidence is provided to demonstrate that there will not be an unacceptable impact on the structural integrity of neighbouring properties.

4. Need to protect heritage assets is noted, including the need to balance the original hierarchy of spaces, where this contributes to significance. The judgment on balance is subjective and any supporting text to the policy should provide further details as to how this

18

matter should be considered. 5. The impacts of construction when basements are proposed are not a material consideration. The remit of the new policy therefore

needs to ensure that it does not introduce onerous requirements at the planning decisions stage.The requirement to submit a Construction Management Plan at the application stage goes beyond what is considered to be reasonable. The Council is able to control the management of construction through the requirement to submit a Construction Management Plan as part of a planning condition and / or a Section 106 obligation, which must be based on the Council's Code of Construction Practice. On behalf of our client, we therefore suggest that in instances where a basement proposal is particularly complex, a draft Construction Method Statement should be submitted for consideration. The policy should be redrafted on this basis.

77. Martin Pollecoff

Main concerns relate to noise and dirt. Basement constructions are more disruptive than ordinary buildings, require a lot of drilling, and the pumping of water as a result they always have a generator which is on all day. I now work from home, my quality of life is affected here. Council Tax should be lowered if there is disruptive building going on in the proximity off the house. Perhaps this could be offset by a local tax on licences to build basements.

78. GM Torok

Against any kind of basement development anywhere in London. In SJW particular concerns re high water table, river running under Hamilton Terrace and recurring problems with damp. All this subterranean work has to be detrimental to the foundations of old Victorian properties not to mention the tree roots and this area is known for its tree lined avenues and preponderance of trees. Concern re large HGVs, large cement mixer lorries and lorries carrying skips tend to start very early in the morning when the traffic is lighter so we are all woken up early. If you look at the state of the pavements where this work is being done you will see that it is cracking up.

79. DP9 on behalf of St John’s Wood Square

Consultation documents provide comprehensive and detailed information about basement development, recognising that basements offer a discreet way of providing additional accommodation, the context of the policy is not one to prevent basements where they are appropriate and sensitively managed. However, the documents do include a number of elements which we object to: If the technical information submitted in support of an application demonstrates that the basement can be constructed without impacting on the surrounding buildings or causing other material harm, then planning permission should be granted. The size of a basement should not be restricted on a nominal basis. The impacts of construction are not a material consideration in the determination of a planning application. The draft documents appear to be introducing construction impacts into the decision making process which would set a dangerous precedent for development generally. These elements of the draft documents should be removed. The Council is already able to control the management of construction sites through the requirement to submit a Construction Management Plan as part of a planning condition. The excavation of material and any disruption this causes are not planning matters. Including construction impacts within the planning decision making process would set a dangerous precedent for new development. Placing a restriction on the number of basements to one level could have a significant impact on large scale developments which use basement levels to accommodate the car parking required by the Council, and to accommodate plant and wider building services and servicing areas. The draft policy highlights that excavation beyond one storey will only be allowed in 'exceptional circumstances'. This is overly restrictive and does not take into account the individual circumstances of a site, or the need within large scale redevelopments to provide areas such as car parking and plant within basement areas.

80. DP9 on behalf of Caudwell Properties Ltd.

Consultation documents provide comprehensive and detailed information about basement development and associated key issues which are typically unique to the circumstances of individual site and recognise that this form of development can provide valuable improved and additional living accommodation with minimum external impact for residents in constrained sites (such as conservation areas). It is also acknowledged that this form of development can be successfully achieved everywhere in the borough subject to appropriate design and

19

safeguards. Object to the following: 1. A minimum soil depth of l.2m, is too prescriptive requirement and the need for such depth should be considered on a site-by-site basis. 2. Limit the extent of any basement to 50% or 4m (whichever is the larger) of garden land is too prescriptive and threatens to restrict

development. We propose that this element of the policy be omitted. 3. The policy should not seek to protect trees on an arbitrary basis but be subject to justification in accordance with relevant British

Standard guidance. 4. Excavation of more than one storey below the lowest original floor level, unless exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated, 5. Raise an objection to this blanket limit of one storey as this will depend on the particular site in question. The supporting text notes that

"in certain circumstances" extensions of more than one storey carry greater risk. It is therefore not appropriate to prevent deeper basements in all instances. Suggest that the policy directs that one storey basements where no basement exists and one storey sub-basements where a basement or lower ground floor already exists are considered to be the most appropriate form of basement development, but further excavation may be permitted when evidence is provided to demonstrate that there will not be an unacceptable impact on the structural integrity of neighbouring properties.

6. Policy to restrict visual effects of is unduly restrictive. The appearance of a basement level is not necessarily harmful. We propose that this element of the policy be omitted. Instead it should be sufficient to rely on the City Council's existing Urban Design policies.

7. The need to protect heritage assets is subjective and any supporting text to the policy should provide further details as to how this matter should be considered.

8. The requirement to submit a Construction Management Plan at the application stage goes beyond what is considered reasonable. The Council is able to control the management of construction through the requirement to submit a Construction Management Plan as part of a planning condition and I or a Section 106 obligation, which must be based on the Council's Code of Construction Practice.

81. Michael Jones, Portman Estate

Basement excavations are quite rare in this part of Westminster. However, very useful from our perspective that you reference estate approval. I thought more could have been made of the sustainability impact of basements (particularly high concrete requirements) or energy use as basement spaces are often used for high energy consumption uses, such as media rooms, gyms, pools, etc. This may give an opportunity for greater control through the planning process, or at least mitigate the impact of their formation.

82. Mary Dejevsky, Amazed that Westminster council is spending so much time and money trying to split hairs on what is acceptable. it would be simpler, cheaper and generally preferable, for Westminster to make the default position no new basement developments. huge basement developments distort everything, risk subsidence, cause the noise nuisance of the works, etc.

83. Melville & Tamara Haggard

More attention should be paid to measures to mitigate damage incurred, particularly for terraced properties that cannot benefit from a Party Wall Agreement because they do not border the development site. a property owner instigating a property subject to basement redevelopment (“the Works”) would be required to purchase a "risk-attaching" insurance policy to cover damage to properties in the terrace from the Works during a specified construction period. Evidence of the risk-attaching insurance policy would be a condition of planning consent 1. The property owner would be responsible for procuring the policy, not the contractor 2. The policy would name a specific contractor(s) 3. The number of properties covered under the policy would need to be determined according to the scale of development proposed 4. The duration of the Tail Risk would need to be determined according to the scale of development proposed 5. The policy premium would be paid in full prior to commencement of Works 6. The insurer would be responsible for assessing claims

20

7. Much thought needs to go into the definitions of the italicised words in the paragraph above Propose that WCC assembles a small external working group, chaired by WCC, to include a surveyor; a property lawyer; an insurance broker; and a residents' association to confirm the practicality and make recommendations for inclusion in WCC’s basements’ policy response.

84. Marie Varinek Concerns relate to: 1. Damage to property subsidence, cracks etc. 2. Nuisance, noise, vibration, pavements muddy and damaged, obstruction by skips and heavy vehicles and foul odours inside our house. 3. Basements are· not intended to satisfy the legitimate needs of a growing family but are merely intended as a luxury for wealthy owners. 4. No provision to compensate neighbours for nuisance, disturbance or cost of temporary alternative accommodation. 5. Once planning is granted, who is responsible for enforcing legislation? 6. Concerned about gradual disappearance of back gardens.

85. St John’s Wood Society

Welcomes Westminster City Council’s proposed Interim Planning Guidance notes (October 2013) which serve to clarify the council’s current policy on basement development. St John’s Wood accounts for 25% of all approved basement development in Westminster. Committed in assisting Westminster City Council to achieve a robust policy to control basement developments In interim Guidance Ask that reference to the need for St John’s Wood, applicants to comply with the detailed basement guidelines issued by the John Lyon’s Charity and the Eyre Estate is added to guidance It would reduce confusion and add weight to the council’s guidelines if a link was provided to the John Lyon’s Charity and Eyre Estate basement guidelines within section 4 above. Welcome the approach to basement development contained in CM28.7.This policy is in line with the basement guidelines issued by the John Lyon’s Charity (2011) and Eyre Estate (2012), supported by the St John’s Wood Society. However we recommend the following amendments to New Policy CM28.7

1. In addition to a minimum soil depth of 1.2m we also request that an active or 'working' margin is left for drainage and planting between the basement structure and the site boundary. Any margin should be included as basement construction unless it is demonstrated that it has been designed as an active margin for drainage and planting.

2. “not extend under more than 50% or 4m from (whichever is the larger) of garden line when measured from the historic building line and, and not result in the loss of trees or hedges of townscape, ecological or amenity value. “

3. The St John’s Wood Society does not accept that there are any exceptional circumstances which would allow a basement to be excavated more than one storey below the lowest original floor. If the council includes point 3 in basement policy as it stands, we expect the bar for exceptional circumstances to be set very high.

4. They should “be naturally ventilated and lit wherever practicable, especially where habitable accommodation is being provided. If plant is required, full details should be submitted including air intake and extract provisions. In line with other boroughs we ask that applicants are required to submit a basement impact assessment in addition to a structural methodology statement and construction management plan.