1

Cabinet Member Report Decision Maker: Cabinet Member Built Environment

Date: 20 October 2014

Classification: For General Release

Title: Basement Development in Westminster: Adoption as a Supplementary Planning Document

Wards Affected: All

Better City, Better Lives Summary

The City Council’s Built Environment Business Plan includes the following: A Connected City: Finalise Westminster’s City Plan. The basement policy is being developed as part of that Plan. The Basements SPD will provide advice until this is adopted.

Key Decision: Executive decision notified 20 February 2014

Financial Summary: There are no direct financial implications as a result of the recommendations of this report as any costs associated with public consultation will be met from existing budgets

Report of: Director of Strategy and Communications

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 This report sets out the details of consultation responses received on the guidance note on basement development in Westminster and seeks agreement for its formal adoption as a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).

2. RECOMMENDATION 2.1 That the Cabinet Member for Built Environment

(i) Considers the representations received to public consultation and endorses officers’ comments in response to these (Appendix B);

2

(ii) Notes the determination that the draft SPD does not produce significant environmental effects and the reasons for that determination set out in Appendix F and approves publication of the determination as required by Regulation 9 of the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004;

(iii) Agrees the amendments to the Basement Development in Westminster Guidance Note (attached at Appendix C) and resolves to adopt this as a Supplementary Planning Document; and

(iv) Authorises officers to publish a Statement of Adoption along with a table detailing modifications made to the SPD following public participation and undertake publicity to notify all consultees of the adoption of the document.

3. REASONS FOR DECISION 3.1 The adoption of the Guidance Note on Basements as a Supplementary Planning

Document will ensure it has a clear status in decision making. The document will assist with the consideration of future planning applications for basement development, providing advice for applicants, members of the public, planning officers and members on our adopted policies and the issues we will consider in reaching decisions. All advice in the document is based on adopted policy and practice.

4. BACKGROUND, INCLUDING POLICY CONTEXT 4.1 The guidance note on basements has been prepared to provide advice on

basement development for applicants and residents affected by such development. It does not contain new policy but sets out how we currently determine applications for basement development and explains and expands upon how we will apply relevant adopted national, regional and local policy and guidance. Each section is linked to and does not conflict with adopted policy in our development plan and national policy and guidance.

4.2 A new policy on basement development is being developed separately and will

form part of the emerging City Plan. The proposed policy was consulted on informally from October to December 2013. The timescales in adopting the plan means it is unlikely to be adopted until 2016. The SPD will provide guidance to assist with determining planning applications until such time as the City Plan is adopted. It is intended this SPD will be updated to reflect the new policy following adoption of the plan.

4.3 Consultation has been undertaken in several phases. A first phase of consultation

was undertaken from 10 October and 29 November 2013 (on both the City Plan basement policy and the guidance note, initially called an interim guidance note). A letter was emailed to 550 consultees inviting comments on the documents. Officers also attended the surgeries of all the area forums in October and

3

November 2013 with copies of the consultation documents and specific workshops were held at South and St John’s Wood Area Forums. Details on the initial phases of consultation were published in the consultation statement which was prepared to accompany the SPD and is included at Appendix D.

4.4 Following the initial consultation, the interim guidance was amended and a revised

version agreed by the Cabinet Member for a further period of public participation seeking views on our intention to adopt this formally as a Supplementary Planning Document. It was then published along with its consultation statement, as required by the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, regulation 12 (b) and consultation took place for four weeks between 21.02.2014 and 24.03.2014. An email dated 21.02.2014 also invited all interested parties to comment on our intention to adopt the document as SPD. All Councillors were also notified. During this time, the documents were made available on the Westminster website and placed for public inspection in Westminster City Hall and libraries. A number of other meetings were also held with specific stakeholders including the St John’s Wood Society and Grosvenor Estates. A list of consultees for both phases of consultation can be found at Appendix E.

4.5 Main Comments Received and Amendments. A total of 115 responses were received to the two stages of consultation: 86 to the first stage and 29 to the second stage. In general, consultees supported production of the guidance note.

4.6 Issues raised most frequently in consultation can be summarised as follows:

• Concerns in relation to construction impacts and highways issues, including noise, disruption and damage to the highway. Some consultees (largely developers/ consultants) felt these should not be considered at planning stage, while the majority of local residents who responded felt that construction management is a significant issues which is not adequately managed at the moment and needs better enforcement;

• Structural issues, especially concerns about the potential for damage to adjoining properties and the inadequacy of the Party Wall Act;

• Concerns in relation to impact of basement development on flood risk, groundwater and hidden rivers; and

• Concerns in relation to how the guidance in the SPD will be enforced and the role of different council departments with regards to basement works and what planning can do.

4.7 As a significant number of the comments related to construction management

issues, further information has been added to the Section 6.8 of the SPD explaining that we currently ask for construction management information at planning application stage and making clear we only expect a reasonable level of consideration to be given to this at this stage. However, to respond to many of the issues raised by residents, a list of questions to encourage developers to consider the issues frequently raised by residents and promote best practice in construction management has also been included as a new appendix to the SPD. This is to

4

encourage applicants/developers to take a proactive approach by considering some of the issues most frequently raised by resident with a view to preventing from problems arising in the first place, where possible. However, the SPD makes clear this is for guidance purposes only and not all of these issues can be enforced through planning. Further information has also been added to deal with other frequently raised issues, including more specific information on flooding, identifying particular streets at risk of surface water flooding and including a map of hidden rivers. To make clear where we can ensure compliance with the guidance, we have included references to use of planning conditions, where it is appropriate to do so, and Section 7 of the SPD provides advice on where other regimes and legislation can be used to enforce in relation to issues not covered by planning legislation.

4.8 A number of consultation comments were not specific to contents of the document or were related to the emerging City Plan policy rather than the guidance note. The guidance has been amended to take these more general issues into account where appropriate. However, some comments suggested that there should be a greater level of control over basement development and many related to the proposals in the draft City Plan basements policy, not this SPD. As any comments relating to introducing greater controls on extent and depth of basements cannot be introduced through the SPD, these comments will be carried forward and considered as part of City Plan policy development.

4.9 A full list of consultation comments and the Council’s response to these can be found in the table of representations at Appendix B. This table details where issues have been addressed in the SPD and amendments made and where they will be considered at a later stage as part of the emerging City Plan. All proposed amendments are also underlined within the revised SPD for adoption at Appendix C. The consultation statement which was published with the SPD included at Appendix D, and a list of consultees at Appendix E.

5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 5.1 There are no specific financial implications as a result of the recommendations in

this report. Notifications of adoption of the document will be was undertaken electronically. The SPD will be available online and only a small print run will be undertaken at a cost of around £100. For hard copies, it is proposed that there will be a charge to cover print costs (although local residents will not be charged for hard copies).

6. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS 6.1 The procedure for preparing Supplementary Planning Documents is set out in the

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. The council was required by Regulation 12 and 35 (public participation) to publish the draft SPD and supporting

5

consultation statement on its website and make it available at its principal office for a period of at least four weeks. Any person could make representations during this period, which lasted between 21.02.2014 and 24.03.2014. A screening report has also been prepared which explains the process the City Council has used to determine whether or not the contents of the Basement Development SPD require a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and sets out the council’s determination, in accordance with the European Directive 2001/42/EC and the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004, and taking into account advice in the government’s Planning Practice Guidance (2014) on SPD and SEA. This is attached at Appendix F.

6.2 Once adopted, the Supplementary Planning Document will form part of the

Council’s planning policy framework. It will not have the same status as the Unitary Development Plan or the City Plan: Strategic Policies, it will be a material consideration that can be taken into account in determining planning applications. Regulation 14 requires an adoption statement to be published, setting out the date of adoption and any modifications made to the SPD following consultation. This will be published on the website following adoption and all consultees notified. Regulation 8(2) also requires all SPD or local plans to have a reasoned justification of the policies they contain. The justification for production of the SPD itself is within Sections 1 and 2 of the document and reasoned justifications for adopted policies referred to within the SPD are set out in the relevant Development Plan Documents.

6.3 At the recent examination in public of Kensington and Chelsea’s emerging

basements policy, the Inspector drew attention to a 2013 case in which Npower Renewables successfully sought judicial review of Milton Keynes Council’s adoption of a supplementary planning document dealing with wind turbines (RWE Npower Renewables Ltd. v Milton Keynes Borough Council [2013] EWHC 751 (Admin)) as a potential basis for challenge of documents of this type. There were four grounds of challenge in this case, relating to the appropriateness of supplementary guidance as against more formal local development documents, the need to have regard to national policy and the need to ensure any supplementary document does not conflict with the adopted development plan. Only the last of these was successful – by seeking to impose more rigorous standards regarding the minimum distance between wind turbines and residential property, their supplementary document conflicted with a development plan policy that was generally encouraging of new turbines. We have carefully examined the draft supplementary planning document in the light of this case, in particular reviewing it against the relevant adopted policies in the Westminster City Plan: Strategic Policies, the Unitary Development Plan and the London Plan. On the basis of this review we do not consider that the document could be challenged successfully on any of the four grounds raised in the Milton Keynes case.

6.4 In drafting the basements SPD we have been mindful of regulations and Government policy on the role of Supplementary Planning Documents set out in the NPPF (2012) which states that SPDs should only be used where clearly

6

justified�. Where they can help applicants make successful applications or aid infrastructure delivery, and should not be used to add unnecessarily to the financial burdens on development. The SPD has been prepared to provide more detailed advice and guidance on adopted policies in Westminster’s Development Plan and in national policy and how we will apply these to help applicants make successful applications for basement development which will contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. It does not create new policy but will provide guidance and add clarity to the existing policies of the relevant adopted development plan as well as advice on best practice.

7. BUSINESS PLAN IMPLICATIONS 7.1 The SPD, and the detailed advice it contains, will deliver against all four Better

City, Better Lives objectives, and a significant number of Cabinet priorities. Those specific to this SPD are: A Safer Healthier City, A Connected City.

8. HEALTH AND WELLBEING IMPACT ASSESSMENT INCLUDING HEALTH

AND SAFETY IMPLICATIONS 8.1 The SPD is linked to the policies set out in the Westminster City Plan; Strategic

Policies. A health and well-being assessment was undertaken as part of an Integrated Impact Assessment for the NPPF revision to the Core Strategy (now renamed Westminster’s City Plan), which included consideration of equalities and sustainability. The initial versions of these policies set out in the Core Strategy were subject to Sustainability Appraisal Report which included a Strategic Environmental Assessment (2009) and a Health Impact Assessment. The only specific issue raised in these appraisals in relation to basements was the need to direct highly vulnerable uses (such as residential basements) away from Flood risk areas. Detailed advice on this issue is included in the SPD. It also includes advice on a range of other issues which may have positive impact on health and wellbeing, especially advice on mitigating construction impacts and ensuring work is undertaken to minimise impact on amenity, reducing impacts of noise, vibration and dust.

9. IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT 9.1 The advice in the guidance note should help to avoid/minimise the negative

environmental impacts of development and maximise positive environmental outcomes, providing guidance on the application of adopted to protect trees, maximise green landscaping and reduce flood risk. The advice should also help to ensure basement development is better designed and managed to mitigate any negative environmental and amenity impacts, including construction impacts, mentioned in paragraph 7, above. This will help ensure that development fulfils the economic, social and environmental dimensions set out in higher level policy.

7

9.2 A separate Sustainability Appraisal is not required for Supplementary Planning Documents (this requirement was removed by the Planning Act 2008). However, the SPD is linked to the policies set out in the Westminster City Plan; Strategic Policies. An assessment including environmental considerations was undertaken as part of an Integrated Impact Assessment for the NPPF revision to the Core strategy (now renamed Westminster’s City Plan). The initial versions of these policies set out in the Core Strategy were also subject to Sustainability Appraisal Report which included a Strategic Environmental Assessment (2009). The National Planning Practice Guidance states that in some limited circumstances Strategic Environmental Assessment alone can be required where sustainability appraisal is not needed. However, this is usually only where plans could have significant environmental effects. The adopted policies which the SPD explain and expand upon were subject to assessment and we do not consider it will have significant environmental effects. To confirm our approach an SEA screening report was prepared and the three environmental consultation bodies (English Heritage, Natural England and Environment Agency) consulted and this Screening Determination published on the website confirming the Council has determined that the SPD does not require an SEA for the reasons set out in the Screening Assessment.

10. EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS 10.1 An equalities assessment was undertaken as part of an Integrated Impact

Assessment on the City Plan: Strategic Policies, which are referred to in this SPD. This did not raise any specific issues in relation to basements. The SPD includes translation information and the option to obtain the document in Braille and large print, which will ensure the advice can be communicated to a wide audience. Officers have considered whether there are any equalities implications in terms of the public sector duty in the Equalities Act 2010 arising from the draft SPD, and have concluded that there are none.

11. ENERGY MEASURE IMPLICATIONS 11.1 There are no significant energy measure implications. When constructed

basements tend to perform better in environmental terms than above ground construction which can result in lower heating or cooling loads. Lighting requirements will be higher, although low energy lighting can reduce the impact of this.

12. COMMUNICATIONS IMPLICATIONS

12.1 The fullest opportunity to communicate proposals has been taken through workshops at the area forums, and the two stages of consultation, which has provided extensive opportunity for public comment.

13. CONSULTATION

8

13.1 A programme of consultation has been undertaken as detailed above and in

accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. A consultation statement was published with the draft SPD and this is attached at Appendix D. Details of representations received during the initial public consultation and subsequent public participation are attached at Appendix B. This details how the council has responded to comments and amendments made to the SPD are highlighted within the document. Once agreed, details of modifications made to the SPD will be published with the Statement of Adoption.

If you have any queries about this Report or wish to inspect any of the Background Papers please contact: Jane Hamilton, Principal Design and Conservation Officer, City Planning, Built Environment, 020 7641 8019,

jhamilton@westminster.gov.uk. 1 Reports to the Cabinet Member dated 4 October 2013 and 17 February 2014

9

Appendix A

Other Implications

1 Resource Implications

1.1 None. The Document sets out current practice and process in relation to basement development and will not therefore require additional resources for implementation.

2 Staffing Implications 2.1 None 3 Risk Management Implications

3.1 None

4 Crime and Disorder Implications

4.1 None

5 Human Rights Implications

5.1 None

10

Appendix B: Representations received to Public Consultation and Council response

11

Representations received during Initial public consultation

Basement Development Policy and Interim guidance Consultation October-November 2013, Responses ( Local residents groups and Amenity Societies: Light Red, Statutory bodies, national advisory groups: light purple, Developers/ Private Sector Planning consultants: blue, Great estates: orange, Members and MPs: yellow, Individual Residents: green)

Respondent Comments on Topic Paper Council Response

1. Knightsbridge

Association

Welcome attempt to mitigate harmful impact of basement -

particularly disproportionate excavation. We welcome the helpful

Interim Guidance

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. Suggest there should be a single well defined point of contact at

the Council for residents when problems arise.

Support welcomed.

1. A structural statement is currently required with applications and guidance suggests this should consider

potential cumulative impact of basement development (see guidance on contents of structural

statement at appendix one), although structural stability is largely a private matter between neighbours

(see advice on Party Wall Act, Section 8). Cumulative impact of construction projects cannot, however,

be controlled through planning but explanation and guidance on this has been included in the section on

construction management (6.8), with further guidance on contents of the construction management

plan added into the appendices, encouraging applicants to consider this issue as far as possible. The

possibility of greater control of construction projects is being considered as part of the emerging Code of

Construction Practice, which will be linked to the City Plan Policy.

2. As indicated this will be further addressed through Code of Construction Practice which would seek to

bring controls related to the construction process under one umbrella and would be managed by a single

point of contact. In the interim, the guidance seeks to make clear who is responsible for different areas

of work at Figure 1 and in Section 7 and the guidance on construction management.

3. Limits on basement development will be considered in emerging City Plan policy (separate to the SPD

guidance note, which is the subject of this report) and these comments will be added to the database to

be considered in developing emerging policy. Guidance on pavement vaults has been included in

paragraph 6.5.4 (under heritage assets).

4. Agree. Enforcement officer is now in place in this role and as stated above, emerging Code of

Construction Practice will develop mechanism for managing construction through single contact further.

All these comments will also be added to the database to be considered in developing emerging policy

2. Marylebone

Association

1. Policy should not be use specific, nor should it differentiate

between existing and new buildings: critical aspect is the impact

of basements and their construction.

2. Important and appropriate to avoid loss of soft landscaping

where it already exists but 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. No evidence to suggest that 50% is reasonable or otherwise.

1-6 Comments largely relate to emerging City Plan policy (separate to the SPD guidance note, which is the

subject of this report) and these comments will therefore be added to the database to be considered in

developing emerging policy.

2. The SPD includes guidance on soft landscaping at section 6.2. Agree this may not be possible in every

location but SPD provides guidance only and does allow for flexibility in relation to appropriate soil depth

and provides recommendation for what is appropriate in the majority of cases. However, soil depth and

landscaping may be important for sustainable urban drainage reasons and in some circumstances this

may also apply to a courtyard garden. The London Plan also includes a target to enhance urban greening,

especially in the CAZ and reference to this has been added to the guidance in section 6.2 to explain why

this may be important. Guidance on rooflights is provided at section 6.6. It should be possible to design

the basement to have natural light and appropriate landscaping and SUDs.

12

4. No 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. 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.

6 Agree enforcement is important. To ensure residents have greater clarity on what we expect in a

construction management plan and what the council can and cannot enforce, the SPD provides advice

on construction management a, the different enforcement powers and the different units/ bodies

responsible has been included in the SPD, see especially Figure 1, Section 7. Further information has

been included in SPD to encourage developers to take a more proactive approach to engaging with

residents on this issue, even where the council cannot enforce this. References also added to use of

conditions to ensure compliance where appropriate and a template included to promote best practice.

However, emerging Code of Construction Practice will develop mechanism for managing and

enforcement of construction.

7 Development under the highway this is longstanding adopted council policy and this exact wording is in

the current UDP. This standard has been implemented without causing any difficulties for many years

and allows us to ensure services can be properly accessed and maintained.

3. 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.

The Grosvenor Estate have greater powers than the Council in this respect and are not bound by the limits of

planning legislation. They can therefore enforce all the elements in their estates, including in Mayfair. We

have added references in SPD to the role of freeholders and to following estate guidelines and obtaining

estate approval prior to obtaining planning permission.

4. St

Marylebone

Society

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

Noted and support welcomed. Comments which relate to text in policy in City Plan policy booklet (separate

to the SPD guidance note, which is the subject of this report) will be added to the database to be considered

in developing emerging policy.

Agree construction impacts from small basement projects is s concern and can have disproportionate impact.

Further advice on construction management added to SPD in interim. However, the emerging Code of

Construction Practice seeks to create the integrated monitoring service, paid for by the applicants which is

described and these comments will be included in the database of comments for consideration in developing

the Code, which is to be developed alongside emerging City Plan policy.

13

problems. There 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.

5. 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. recommend amendments to New Policy

CM28.7 (wording omitted here as this report relates to guidance

only, 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.

Noted and support welcomed.

Reference to the need for estate/ freeholder permission has been added throughout the document as well as

reference to Eyre Estate John Lyon’s charity guidelines as requested: see sources of further information,

Section 7 other controls and new appendix with list of estates in Westminster.

Comments relating to wording of emerging City Plan policy CM28.27 (separate to the SPD guidance note,

which is the subject of this report) will be added to the database to be considered in developing emerging

policy.

Reference to plant included as requested and is in guidance at Section 6.1.

The basement impact assessments required by LB Camden is not significantly different to the structural

statement we require or construction methodology statement required by Kensington and Chelsea.

However, going forward in emerging policy we will consider the need for a more risk-based approach

requiring a greater level of detail in certain circumstances. A reference has also been added at the end of

paragraph 6.4.4 of the guidance to make clear there are circumstances where risks are greater and applicants

should request a greater level of detail from their engineer.

6. Thames

Water

Strongly welcome draft policy booklet and interim guidance note.

The 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 Risk that the

permeable surfaces provided in connection with basement

developments could subsequently be covered with impermeable

surfaces installed utilising permitted development rights.

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

Comments noted and support welcome.

Comments relating to wording of emerging City Plan policy CM28.27 (separate to the SPD guidance note,

which is the subject of this report) will be added to the database to be considered in developing emerging

policy.

Have included reference to possibility of pumped sewerage system where there is a record of sewer flooding

at paragraph 6.3.7. Have also added reference to possibility of using conditions to ensure retention of

permeable surfacing and SUDs measures at 6.3.7 and this issue will be raised with our development

management teams.

Monitoring of groundwater: the guidance on the structural statement recommends that specialist engineer

monitors the potential impacts of groundwater as part of their structural statement. This has been passed to

14

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.

the officer preparing the strategic flood risk assessment and local flood management plan to consider

whether further monitoring of this issue can be undertaken.

7. 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

Comments relating to wording of emerging City Plan policy CM28.27 (separate to the SPD guidance note,

which is the subject of this report) will be added to the database to be considered in developing emerging

policy.

SPD amended to reflect the environment agency’s changing approach.

We are using the term ‘surface water flood risk hotspot’ and amended the guidance to make this consistent.

A list of streets has been included in the amended SPD as suggested.

Comments in relation to consultation have been passed to development planning.

Added sentence to section 6.8 stating that special consideration will need to be given to waste removal if the

site includes contaminated land (and included cross reference to environmental health).

15

‘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 (i.e. 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.

8. 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

Noted, reference to Code added to guidance (see sources of further information).

9. 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.

Noted

10. 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.

Comments and support noted.

16

11. Basement

Force

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.

• Construction Management Plan should be a condition rather

than 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 works cannot be

started until an acceptable construction management plan has

been submitted.

• 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. Consider a) Qualification of contractors to work in

the borough or black listing of contractors who offend. b)

enforcement officers or others to police basement construction

sites.

• Membership of ASUC or another suitable body could be

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.

Comments relating to emerging City Plan policy CM28.27 (separate to the SPD guidance note, which is the

subject of this report) will be added to the database to be considered in developing emerging policy. This

report relates to guidance note and considers only those issues

• The Council already requires construction management plans as part of the planning application process.

This is part of our validation requirements which have recently been reviewed, consulted on and agreed.

It is important and worthwhile for applicants and developers to take a proactive approach and

demonstrate to residents at this stage that works will be undertaken responsibly and construction issues

have been considered at design stage, to try and protect amenity and eliminate problems at a later

stage. Further advice on why we require construction management plan and the suggested level of

information (to ensure this is reasonable and proportionate) has been added at section 6.8 and guidance

on best practice in appendices. However, have amended text to make clear we only expect the ‘broad

approach’ to be considered at planning application stage.

• Agree that quality of contractors is important. However, the council cannot recommend specific

contractors. We are however proposing to introduce a Code of Construction Practice, compliance with

which will be funded by the developer and monitored by a single point of contact at the council. This will

be separate to but linked into the planning policy. We have also added a reference to ASUC to guidance

document in the contacts and appendices and added a reference to importance of suitably qualified

contractors at Section 6.4.

12. Card

Geotechnics

Ltd

Broadly welcome the document.

1. Welcome the avoidance of an absolute requirement to limit

basements to single storeys. But need to explain what might

represent exceptional circumstances

2. 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.

Support welcomed

1. &3 Comments relating to emerging City Plan policy CM28.27 (separate to the SPD guidance note, which

is the subject of this report) will be added to the database to be considered in developing emerging

policy. This report relates to guidance note and considers only those issues

2. Added link to AGS in contacts section at the end of the document for specialist geological engineer but

in the first instance we require a qualified engineer. Also added reference to the need for the building

owner to consider appointing a specialist geotechnical engineer and/or a geo-hydrologist.

4 This is the standard we currently use and recommend to protect significant trees and support tree

growth and urban greening. It is therefore included in the guidance. We have consulted our tree

specialists and a number of recognised sources and are satisfied that the figure we recommend is

justifiable and evidence based. However, this is included for guidance purposes and we recognise that

requirements may vary from site to site and this document therefore states this is what is needed in the

17

3. The area of 50% for limiting garden development 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.

majority of cases. Specific policy requirements will be considered further and included in City Plan policy.

Have added sources for the figure to the SPD guidance.

13. Cranbrook

basements

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. 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.

Comments relating to emerging City Plan policy CM28.27 (separate to the SPD guidance note, which is the

subject of this report) will be added to the database to be considered in developing emerging policy. This

report relates to guidance note and considers only those issues. The SPD does not introduce changes but

sets out current policy and practice, the reasoned justification for having an SPD is set out within the

introduction and policy context, as well as the consultation statement and all adopted policies also have

reasoned justification.

14. Savills, Sarah

Round

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: 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

Comments noted.

Comments largely relate to emerging City Plan policy CM28.27 (separate to the SPD guidance note, which is

the subject of this report) and will be added to the database to be considered in developing emerging policy.

This report relates to guidance note and considers only those issues.

18

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.

15. Robert Ward-

Booth (Knight

Build) on

behalf of my

client, Knight

Build Ltd

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, proposed new

policy the Council has sought to achieve its objectives by

introduction of arbitrary limitations on the amount of new

basement development. 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.

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:(detailed comments on policy omitted from table,

as this report relates to SPD only) 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.

Comments largely relate to emerging City Plan policy CM28.27 (separate to the SPD guidance note, which is

the subject of this report) and will be added to the database to be considered in developing emerging policy.

This report relates to guidance note and considers only those issues. The guidance in the draft SPG is

considered appropriate having regards to the NPPF.

In relation to economic and social issues, in considering all development the Council has to balance differing

interests and weigh up the benefits of building basements and the impacts on amenity, environment,

drainage etc, having regard to all the policies in the plan and the NPPF.

16. DP9 on behalf Consultation documents provide comprehensive and detailed Noted. Comments largely relate to emerging City Plan policy CM28.27 (separate to the SPD guidance note,

19

of St John’s

Wood Square

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'.

which is the subject of this report) and will be added to the database to be considered in developing

emerging policy. This report relates to guidance note and considers only those issues).

Construction: The impacts of construction can be a material planning consideration, although there is a need

to avoid duplicating other enforcement regimes. The submission of construction management plan at

planning application stage (not by condition) is already a council requirement for all basement development.

This is set out in our agreed validation lists which have been through public consultation and formal

agreement and this is not something new introduced by the SPD. We have also included some text to explain

why we ask for construction management plans at planning application stage at section 6.8, and make clear

that the construction management plan at planning application stage will only set out the ‘broad approach’

and we require a proportionate level of detail to ensure amenity of adjoining occupiers is safeguarded.

Consider draft guidance strikes an appropriate balance. To assist with the level of detail we will expect in a

construction management plan and ensure that this is only requiring information which is proportionate and

reasonable at planning application stage, a list of issues for construction management plans to consider has

been included within the appendices.

17. 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 safeguards. Object to the

following:

1-6 are comments on proposed City Plan policy wording and will be added to the database and considered as

part of development of City Plan planning policy (separate to the SPD guidance). However, guidance on 6, 7

and 8 is included in the SPD. Part 8, the submission of construction management plan at planning application

stage (not by condition) is already a requirement for all basement development. This is set out in our agreed

validation lists which have been through public consultation and this is not something new introduced by the

SPD. However, to assist with the level of detail we will expect in a construction management plan and ensure

that this is only requiring information which is proportionate and reasonable at planning application stage, a

list of issues for construction management plans to consider has been included within the appendices. We

have also included some text to reiterate and explain the need for construction management plans at

planning application stage at section 6.8.Going forward, in developing emerging policy we are, however,

20

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.

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.

considering a different system which would not require a construction management plan but instead secure

adherence to a Code of Construction Practice through section 106 agreement, as suggested.

18. 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.

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

1. The 1m soil depth and 0.2 drainage depth, this is the standard we currently recommend is needed to

support tree growth ( as well as protecting important trees and promoting urban greening) and is

therefore included in the SPD guidance. We have consulted our tree specialists and a number of

recognised sources and are satisfied that the figure we recommend is justifiable and will support

implementation of adopted policy. However, we recognise that requirements may vary from site to site

and this document therefore states this is what is needed in the majority of case and wording has been

amended to stress that this is not currently an absolute requirement. Specific policy requirements will be

considered further and included in City Plan policy.

21

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 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.

2 and 3 Policy issues will be addressed at next stage of policy drafting.

4 Further guidance on hierarchy of spaces is contained within the guidance note at Section 6.5. This will also

be considered in emerging policy.

5 Re construction, the impacts of construction can be a material planning consideration, although there is a

need to avoid duplicating other enforcement regimes. The submission of construction management plan at

planning application stage (not by condition) is already a requirement for all basement development. This is

set out in our agreed validation lists which have been through public consultation and this is not something

new introduced by the SPD. However, to assist with the level of detail we will expect in a construction

management plan and ensure that this is only requiring information which is proportionate and reasonable

at planning application stage, a list of issues for construction management plans to consider has been

included within the appendices. We have also included some text to reiterate and explain the need for

construction management plans at planning application stage at section 6.8.Going forward, in developing

emerging policy we are, however, considering a different system which would not require a construction

management plan but instead secure adherence to a Code of Construction Practice through section 106.

However, consider the draft strikes an appropriate balance.

All comments on proposed City Plan policy wording will be added to the database and considered as part of

development of City Plan planning policy (separate to the SPD guidance).

19. Michael

Jones,

Portman

Estate

Basement excavations are quite rare in this part of Westminster.

Considered that more could have been made of sustainable design

implications. Very useful from our perspective that you reference

estate approval.

Ref to estate approval included. Additional information added to sustainable design section and further

sources of information in relation to sustainable design issues added.

20. Grosvenor Don’t approve 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 do approve

applications for single basement storey applications where no

Comments noted and meeting subsequently held to discuss. All comments on proposed City Plan policy

CM28.7 wording will be added to the database and considered as part of development of City Plan planning

policy (separate to the SPD guidance).

22

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. Comments on interim

guidance: Our key concern with this document is that it makes no

mention of the need to consult with and obtain consent either

under the terms of an existing lease from the landlord or in the case

of freeholders on the Grosvenor Estate, under the terms of the

applicable Estate Management Scheme. If there is one change to be

made to the document it is that these requirements should be

highlighted within Section 7, 'Other Regimes and Controls'.

There have been a number of consents granted in recent years by

Westminster City Council which we do not feel are in accordance

with 6.5, Heritage Assets, and we would urge the council to apply

these guidelines more robustly. Figure 8, should be omitted from

the guidance notes.

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

(detailed basements policy comments not reproduced here).

Based upon our experience, basement works can be well designed

by structural engineers but they need the input of hydrological and

geological engineers and crucially, an experienced contractor.

Grosvenor requires that all basement contractors are accredited to

the Association of Specialist Underpinning Contractors (ASUC)

http://www.asuc.org.uk/ and for works in Mayfair and Belgravia,

they have to be qualified to undertake contracts costing over

£300,000. We would recommend that the Council considers a

similar means of accreditation or contractors working elsewhere in

the City.

Finally, reference is made to the Considerate Builders' Scheme in

Appendix 3. Should be made to Considerate Contractors' Scheme

www.ccscheme.org.ukl .

References to estate requirements has been be added to the guidance in various sections, including Section 7

as requested and document now suggests that applicants should seek estate approval prior to submitting a

planning application. In this context, it is important to note that the estate has significantly more power to

impose restrictions on basement development and manage construction works than the planning authority.

Comments in approach to heritage assets noted. Figure 8 is not in the heritage section and is to show a

typical terraced house, not a listed building and sets out the issues we would currently consider in assessing

visual impacts. We have amended annotations to this figure to make this clearer, and that depth of extension

can only currently be a consideration.

Added reference to ASUC at section 6.4 and in contacts. However, the council cannot require particular

contractors to undertake works. We do not consider it would be appropriate to condition works are

undertaken by particular contractors as while we do ask for construction management plans as an umbrella

document covering construction management issues, much of the actual management of the construction

process is outside the remit of planning. However, we have included reference to the potential of applying

conditions to ensure works are monitored by a structural engineer. We have also added reference to the

need to consider using a specialist hydrological/geological engineer.

Amended reference to considerate builder’s scheme.

23

21. 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

structural 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 any

one 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

Comments and support noted.

Wording in relation to exceptional circumstances will be reviewed in developing emerging City Plan Policy. All

comments on proposed City Plan policy CM28.7 wording will be added to the database and considered as

part of development of City Plan planning policy (separate to the SPD guidance).

We note the issue in relation to number of developments at one time. The limitations on dealing with this

through planning are set out in section 6.8 of the guidance. However, we do consider this is something that

estates can exercise some control over and have included a reference to encouraging estates to do this in

the guidance. We have also added an appendix, which sets out issues to consider in relation to construction

management and included reference to considering the impact of multiple developments taking place at one

time in this, to encourage applicants to address this where possible. These issues will be considered further

in developing the Code of Construction Practice which is being prepared to accompany emerging City Plan

policy going forward.

22. Cllr 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.

Typos amended. The desirability of applicants consulting with adjoining occupiers is mentioned throughout

the guidance document (see especially paragraph 4.3), but this cannot be enforced through planning regime.

The planning department does, however, always consult on planning applications. Specific advice on noise

on p36 sets out measures to be put in place to mitigate or avoid noise. These issues will also be addressed in

the Code of Construction Practice.

23. 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

• Noted and see response to Grosvenor above. We have also commissioned specialist advice from Alan

Baxter’s on flooding, land stability and ground conditions, which is available on the Westminster

website.

• Agree. See Section 6.2 of SPD sets out how we will protect trees.

• Such a condition would not be lawful. Advice on Party Wall Act is included at Section 8 of the guidance. It

may also be possible to include an informative on planning applications to advise people of the need to

consider the provisions Party Wall Act, while making clear this is not something in which the council can

intervene.

24. Karen Buck Welcome the consultation, 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, 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

1. Comments noted and support welcomed.

2. Cumulative impact of construction cannot easily be addressed through planning regime. There is further

information on why this is at section 6.8 of the guidance. To try and address this issue additional

information has been included in the guidance on construction management plans in the appendices, to

try and promote best practice by encouraging applicants to work with other sites in the vicinity to

coordinate works and minimise disruption. In terms of structural and flooding impacts, the structural

statement should consider these issues.

3. Legislation for each of these regimes is set out by central government. The Code of Construction Practice is

24

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.

being drafted to try and ensure these different regimes work better together.

4. In terms of timescales, It will not be possible to adopt the policy more quickly and if we tried to speed up

the process it is more likely to be open to challenge. Central government sets out a defined statutory

process we must follow before we can use the draft policies. This process takes some months and involves

a number of stages of consultation and an independent examination in public by planning inspector and

means that the new policies will not be in place for some time. As this is a slow process the SPD guidance

document was produced and this will be adopted and used as soon as practicable. Adoption of this

document will give the content some status in taking planning decisions.

25. 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

1) Structural report required to demonstrate development is suitable for its site; including consideration of

ground conditions and existence of underground rivers. Map added at p24 showing the location of

underground rivers. Damage to adjoining property is also addressed by Party Wall Act. See in Section 8.

2) Document sets out who is responsible for enforcement of different issues. Advice in the guidance note at

in section 6.8 and 7 and in process diagram included to show who deals with what issue and provide

clarity on enforcement process. Additional information and checklist added to Appendix to provide

advice on construction issues in final version. The Code of Construction Practice is being developed to

bring together various enforcement powers the council has in relation to basement development and

ensure these work together and are as effective as possible. Emerging City Plan policy will be linked to

this code.

3) Licenses for hoarding and suspension of parking bays are controlled by Highways Teams. They do have a

duty to grant reasonable applications to facilitate works. However, they only issue licences for a

maximum period- meaning that they have to reapply when that is up and therefore we have the

opportunity to review conditions set on the licence. For basement works the maximum duration for a

hoarding is one month, which means applicants have to renew their licence every month and though we

can’t refuse their application we can take account of developments on street or local concerns at that

point to make reasonable adjustments. Suspension of parking bays is restricted (when possible) only to

the area immediately outside the development and construction management plan should identify and

mitigate any impacts on adjoining occupiers..

4) The council requires licenses for skips and the suspension of parking bays. The highways team always

take a deposit where there is an application for a structure on the highway associated with basement

works. Information on this included in the guidance at section 7 (other regimes and controls).

5) Decisions on the renewal of planning permission are based on whether a development is acceptable in

planning terms taking into account all material planning considerations. In general, there would need to

be a change in circumstances or planning policy if a decision was to be taken not to renew a planning

permission.

6) We do strongly encourage engagement prior to any development and have included this in the guidance

at Para 4.3 and throughout the document. However, we cannot require it and requirements for

25

consultation process is set out in legislation and will not form part of the planning policy. We do,

however, consult all neighbours when a planning application is received.

7) Planning officers do discuss objections with neighbours and the report prepared by planning officers

before an application is determined is publically accessible and sets out all objections which have been

received and explains how these have been addressed.

26. PAUL and

JEANNE

STRANG

First letter in support of the proposals and Hugh Cortazzi’s

comments (see above). Second letter received:

1) No basements should be permitted under listed buildings,

2) Council should be joint commissioners of technical reports,

application for basement development should be 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.

1) Listed buildings are much more sensitive and this means basement extensions beneath them will often

be unacceptable but this will depend on the individual building and its significance. Advice on listed

buildings and basements is provided in guidance at Section 6.5 (Heritage Assets). We cannot have a

blanket policy of refusal as we are legally required to consider each decision on its merits.

2) Onus is on applicants to obtain and fund technical reports. Planning applications are allocated to a single

officer. However, it is important to have officers with appropriate expertise at the appropriate stage in

the process and a planning officer could not determine a building control application. Most building

control applications are determined by approved inspectors who do not work for the council. See

process diagram in the guidance at Figure 1, p12.

3) We ask that the construction management plan include dedicated contact information. Included further

info to make this clearer see section 6.8 on construction and appendices. Emerging Code of Construction

Practice will provide a mechanism for having a dedicated contact and ensuring issues in relation to

construction are better enforced.

4) This cannot be required through planning. Party Wall Act does allow sum of money to be held in escrow

(see section 8) and our Highways team do take a deposit in case of damage to the highway (see Section

7).

5) Comments will be taken forward for consideration in drafting emerging City Plan planning policy

6) Will consider limiting depth of basement as part of City Plan Policy development, not the SPD guidance

(to which this report relates).

7) Our trees specialists indicate 1.2m (with adequate soil volume) will allow mature tree growth. This is

current practice and the guidance sets out the standards we use at the moment. However, the guidance

recognises that 1.5 may be needed in certain locations. See Section 6.2.

Please note issues raised will also be added to the database and taken into account in developing the City

Plan policy CM28.27 (separate to the SPD guidance note, which is the subject of this report)). In order to

avoid challenges, the planning policy must comply with planning legislation, consider planning issues and be

robust and evidence based.

27. 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 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

1. The character of the locality is a consideration in decision-making, mentioned in the guidance (see

introduction Section 6), particularly in relation to listed buildings (see Section 6.5). The emerging Code of

Construction Practice also requires the impact of basement development in narrow streets such as mews

to be considered as part of the construction management plan.

2. Open lightwells fronted by railings are a common feature of Westminster’s streets. New front lightwells

will generally only be allowed where they are characteristic feature of the locality. Guidance on lightwells

can be found at Section 6.6 of the guidance.

3. A structural statement is required to assess whether development is suitable for its site, taking into

account structural and flood risk issues. This should also take into account cumulative impacts. Advice in

26

the guidance at Section 6.4 and Appendix 1.

28. 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.

Comments noted. The need for stricter controls including a limit on depth of basement development is being

considered in developing City Plan planning policy Comments relating to emerging City Plan policy will be

added to the database to be considered in developing emerging policy. We have commissioned a report from

specialist engineering consultants Alan Baxters and Associate who have advised us if properly designed and

constructed there is no reason a basement cannot be built safely, including under Victorian (and older)

terraces. The guidance provides detail on the level of information a structural statement should provide to

ensure that the structural issues have been adequately assessed by a qualified structural engineer. Structural

statements include assessment of flood risk. We recognise the disruption the construction process can cause

and therefore require a construction management plan (see Section 6.8 and appendices).

29. George Fryd Local Authority guidelines are required for condition surveys or

schedules of condition for the adjoining properties to the basement

development.

Noted. Legislation does not allow planning to simply duplicate other regimes and legislation. The condition of

and damage to adjoining properties is covered by the Party Wall Act. We do, however require the structural

statement to demonstrate works can be undertaken safely. It would not be appropriate for us to specify

construction methodologies and this should always be undertaken by a qualified engineer based on an

understanding of the constraints of the particular site. See Sections 6.4 and 8 of the guidance.

30. Mr Chris

Sheppherd

Westminster City Council should consider prohibiting further

basement development.

The SPD cannot introduce new controls but is an explanation of current policy. Emerging City Plan policy

(separate to this SPD) will consider greater controls over extent and depth of basements but cannot simply

prohibit basement development for legal reasons. In some circumstances basement development can be

undertaken without the need for planning permission. Comments will be added to the database to be

considered in developing emerging policy.

31. Alistair

Mellon

• 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.

The One Storey Rule appears arbitrary and as such a poor basis

to establish policy.

• Recommended soil depth and volume has been arrived at in consultation with our tree specialists and this

is the standard we currently ask for. We agree that the same depth/volume of soil may not be appropriate

in all locations. However, guidance states that in the majority of cases 1.2m (1m soil plus 0.2m drainage

layer) is what is needed to support tree growth; in some circumstance more will be required and soil

volumes will need to be considered in all cases. See guidance at Section 6.2

• The requirement for construction management plans at planning application stage is not a new and is

current practice. Basement development tends to last longer and cause more significant disruption than

other residential extensions. Construction issues are one of the key reasons basement development is

contentious. It is therefore reasonable to ensure as much information is provided as early as possible early

in the process to allow public participation and give neighbours confidence that works will be

appropriately managed. Further detail added about the need for submitting construction information with

the planning application at section 6.8 and expanded explanation on information requirements with list of

questions added to appendices to make clear level of information required with application and that this is

not onerous .

• Policy needs to take account of economic, social and environmental considerations ( see national Planning

Policy Framework para. 7).

• Comments on policy requirements on extent and depth of basement development relate to emerging City

Plan policy CM28.27 (separate to the SPD guidance note, which is the subject of this report) and will be

added to the database to be considered in developing emerging policy. This report relates to guidance

note and considers only those issues).

27

32. 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.

• The council should ban 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.

• Agree construction can have a significant impact. Basement development is normally subject to a

condition limiting hours of work. Advice on construction noise and traffic is included in the guidance at

section 6.8 and a list of issues for consideration in the construction management plan has been added to

the appendices to ensure the applicant takes full account of these issues. Construction management will

be addressed further through the Code of Construction Practice which is linked to emerging City Plan

policy (separate to this guidance).

• The Party Wall Act provides protection for adjoining properties should any damage occur as a result of

works. Costs are always the responsibility of the party undertaking the development. See Section 8.

• Banning basement development is currently not possible legally and would require primary legislation

from central government and cannot be done by the guidance note. This would include excavation under

gardens. Added ‘and under the garden’ at paragraph 3.1 to make this clear. Any basement whether it is

under a garden or under a house will be considered in relation to its impacts on the environment and

visual and residential amenity.

• The SPD must be focused on planning issues and cannot influence rates of council tax.

33. 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.

Noted. All applications are currently subject to limits on hours of work from 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday.

This is stated in the guidance note at section 6.8. The Party Wall Act allows for money to be held in escrow

by the party wall surveyor to step in and make good damage to adjoining properties. This is covered in our

guidance at Section 8.

34. 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.

1. The council is not empowered to control the number of developments happening in one street at one

time, see section 6.8 of the guidance. Where this is not possible we will expect construction

management statements to identify the other development happening. This has been added to the list

of questions to consider in the construction management plan, see appendix 3. We will seek to address

this issue further in the Code of Construction Practice. In the interim this has been included within

guidance for construction management plans.

2. The Party Wall Act is in place to protect immediate neighbours in relation to structural damage and the

party wall engineer can require money to be held in escrow (effectively a bond) in case of any damage.

See section 8.

3. The SPD must be focused on planning issues and cannot influence rates of council tax.

35. Jeremy Leigh

Pemberton

Requests comprehensive restrictions to basement development

particularly in built up areas. this type of development is extremely

un-neighbourly and potentially destructive and clearly constitutes

nuisance. amending planning law would greatly assist in protecting

neighbours’ interests.

The amendment of planning law would need to be undertaken by central government. However, the

guidance seeks to explain current powers to manage development and emerging planning policy will seek to

mitigate negative and un-neighbourly impacts of development to the extent possible under planning law.

Note on common law added to the guidance note at Section 8.

36. 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

Noted. Damage to adjoining properties is covered by the Party Wall Act. See Section 8 of guidance.

Structural statement is required by the policy to ensure the development can be undertaken safely. The

possibility of an independent assessment of structural statement funded by the developer will also be

considered in the policy going forward but is not current practice and will require further consideration and is

not therefore considered in the guidance.

28

unconnected to the construction company –Safeguards would need

to be followed, and penalties should be given for not following

them.

37. 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.

Noted. The Highways team always take a deposit where there is an application for a structure on the

highway associated with basement works. They inspect the highway before and after all works and at every

licence renewal date. Should damage be identified that we can attribute to the development we will always

undertake to make full repairs and pass costs on to secure full recovery. However, we can only do this where

the basement development will involve a structure such as a skip or scaffold, on the public highway. Advice

on this in guidance note at Section 7 (other regimes and controls).

38. 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.

2. Concerns over technical detail of Alan Baxter’s report 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. this need only form part of a planning condition on

any planning permission granted.

4. important both contractor and engineer have mutual

understanding of issues and are able to demonstrate this

through the successful completion of past projects. Planning

condition should be that the same engineer that prepared the

detailed designs for the basement be required to oversee the

construction on site.

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. "one level" basement policy imposes restriction on

amount of 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.

1. This is current practice as set out in the guidance, see Section 6.4.

2. Baxter’s report is background technical information to help guide applicants and inform policy. It

provides advice for applicants on the sort of issues to be considered in the structural report. The

structural report is not assessed by planning officers but is self-certified by the engineer who prepares it

and is currently reviewed by our building control team to check that a reasonable level of detail has been

provided in the statement. However, we do not agree a specific engineering solution and the report is

provided to demonstrate that these issues have been considered and the development is suitable for its

site, in line with the advice in the NPPF. Sentence included at the start of Appendix 2 which states this

report has been prepared as part of Westminster’s evidence base for emerging policy but does not

contain council planning policy and has been produced for guidance only.

3. The council currently asks for structural statements signed of by a structural engineer and construction

management plans at planning application stage. These are not new requirements, nor are they

considered unduly onerous considered against the typical cost of a basement development.

4. Recommended in guidance at section 6.4 and will consider the possibility of conditioning engineer to

visit site in developing planning policy going forward.

5. Comments on restrictions on depth of basements relate to emerging City Plan policy CM28.27 (separate

to the SPD guidance note, which is the subject of this report) and will be added to the database to be

considered in developing emerging policy. This report relates to guidance note and considers only those

issues)

6. This guidance sets out detail of what that existing legislation and policy is and how it applies to

basements.

29

39. 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.

1 Party wall issues are always a private matter between neighbours and cannot be addressed through

planning policy. The Party Wall Act does allow a sum of money to be held in escrow to allow for any

damage to adjoining properties to be made good following works. See Section 8 of guidance for detail.

Possibility of addressing construction impacts through a revised Code of Construction Practice to be

funded by the developer will also be considered in City Plan policy development (separate to this

guidance).

2 Advice on protection of heritage is at Section 6.5 of the guidance. Listed buildings are assessed on a case

by case basis using current policy and need for any further restrictions will considered in policy.

3 We require a structural statement to consider these issues. See Section 6.4 of the guidance and

appendices. Any terrace may move as one structure and this needs to be considered in certain locations,

not only where the buildings are listed. It is important that this is considered by a structural engineer as

part of a structural statement taking into account the specific site conditions.

4 Ownership of the property is not a planning issue and cannot therefore be considered in the guidance or

emerging planning policy.

40. Stephen

Waterhouse

• Consider the question of paying for damage to neighbouring

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.

• The developer/owner is responsible. This is covered by the Party Wall Act. This is always a private matter

between neighbours and would not form part of the planning policy. See guidance Section 8.

• Fees in relation to planning applications are set by central government. The council has so far been

unsuccessful in lobbying central government to be able to set fees locally.

• Flooding issues are considered in the guidance and will be addressed further in emerging City Plan

policies. The Alan Baxter’s report was commissioned specifically to consider these issues in Westminster.

A surface water management plan is also currently being prepared for Westminster.

41. 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. (Suggestions in relation to policy

wording not included here but will be considered in developing

policy) Suggested requirement for an Environmental Management

Plan could help mitigate the cumulative impact of more than one

development taking place in a street.

Comments noted and support welcomed.

• Where excavation is taking place the Party Wall Act covers more than just the party wall and may extend

further (see guidance booklet at section 8). Common law can also be used to protect buildings further

away. Reference to common law also added to the guidance note at Section 8.

• Agreed that the range of contacts make it difficult. It is hoped that the guidance will go some way to

addressing this (see Figure 1, process diagram p12, Section 7 and contacts list in appendices). However,

it is proposed that the emerging Code of Construction Practice, which will be linked to the emerging City

Plan policy will be managed by a single point of contact.

• Comments on draft City Plan policy CM28.27 (separate to the SPD guidance note, which is the subject of

this report) and will be added to the database to be considered in developing emerging policy. This

report relates to guidance note and considers only those issues.

30

42. 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.

1. The circumstances and ownership of a property and financial gain as a result of developments are not

issues we can consider under the planning legislation. Detail of what constitutes a material planning

consideration has been included in the advice for neighbours section 5. A Section 106 agreement could

not be used in this way.

2. The impact on character of different parts of the City would be considered when determining a planning

application. See intro to Section 6. Construction impacts in different localities will be addressed by the

Code of Construction Practice. However reference also included in advice on construction management

plans at Section 6.8 and in appendices.

3. Structural statement is checked by our building control team and noise assessment by environmental

health. Possibility of further independent assessment of statement funded by the developer will be

considered in next stage of policy development (not through the guidance note).

4. Comments on emerging City Plan policy CM28.27 (separate to the SPD guidance note, which is the

subject of this report) will be added to the database to be considered in developing emerging policy. This

report relates to guidance note and considers only those issues)

5. Guidance endeavours to make clear to residents the matters which the council can assist with and the

rights and responsibilities of both those undertaking the development and adjoining occupiers. See the

‘advice for neighbours’ section 5. The flow chart at p 12 shows the responsibilities of different section of

the council and where the responsibility lies with the property owner.

6. Any damage to adjoining properties is covered by the Party Wall Act. This is always a private matter

between neighbours and cannot be covered by planning policy.

7. The developer/ applicant has no duty to notify a Local Planning Authority of their intention to commence

works to implement a planning permission and, under the current planning legislation, once a planning

permission has been implemented, there are no time limits for its completion. Although we do not

monitor every condition, the Planning Enforcement team will investigate all reports of a breach of

condition which are reported to the council.

8. The council is required to consider all applications that come before it and it would be illegal not to. If we

do not determine applications in a timely manner, applicants have the right of appeal against non-

determination and the application would be determined by an impendent planning inspector and we

could have costs awarded against us. These rules are set by central government.

9. Agreed that flooding issues should be addressed The structural statement shows how engineering design

has considered ground and surface water issues. A flood risk assessment is required in areas of known

flood risk and requirements for green landscaping and soil should assist with water attenuation and

reduce flood risk.

10. Any impact on urban grain and character are considered in deciding proposals and this is referred to in

the guidance at Section 6, see intro.

43. 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.

• Comments noted. All policy seeks to balance environmental, social and economic concerns to promote

sustainable economic growth.

• It is important that the Council considers the legitimate concerns of local residents in relation to this

issue, including concerns in relation to impact of construction works, while recognising that not all the

issues can be addressed through the planning regime.

31

• Noisy bit of works 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 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

• Suggest a Performance Bond Scheme or greater supervisory

involvement by council officials (paid for by the applicants).

• Fees should go up in line with demands upon the council services

and manpower.

• Planning conditions are applied to permissions where appropriate. Party wall awards are always a

private matter between neighbours in which the council cannot intervene, see guidance section 8.

• The Party Wall Act allows for a sum of money to be held in escrow and used so any damage may be

made good. This is always a private matter between neighbours and cannot be covered by planning

policy. See section 8 of the guidance.

• The council is not proposing to and cannot ban basement development. Tighter controls will be

considered in developing the emerging City Plan policy CM28.27 (separate to the SPD guidance note,

which is the subject of this report). Comments will be added to the database to be considered in

developing emerging policy. This report relates to guidance note and considers only those issues

• Fees in relation to planning applications are set by central government. Westminster has been lobbying

central government to be able to set fees locally.

44. Judith Harvey

1. Regulations which keep the size of basements in keeping with

the house and local environment welcome.

2. 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.

3. Seek reassurance that the regulations about soil volumes for

trees are sufficiently generous that big trees.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

1. Support welcomed.

2. Whether a property is being developed for investment purposes is not something we can consider under

planning legislation.

3. The suggested soil depth and volume recommendations have been arrived at with our tree specialists

and using a range of sources and are in place to allow for large mature trees even above a basement.

4. Noted. The council has various powers of enforcement, see process diagram on p12 and wider powers

explained at Section 7. Specific planning enforcement officers have been appointed to enforce on

basement issues in the areas most affected by this form of development

5. Damage to adjoining properties is always a private matter between neighbours and cannot be covered

by planning policy. See section 8 for detail. We require a structural statement to demonstrate structural

issues have been considered and risk of damage is minimised, see sections 6.4 and appendices.

6. The council is not empowered to control the number of developments happening in one street at one

time, see Section 6.8 of the guidance. However, where possible we will expect construction management

statements to identify the other development happening. We have added this to a series of guidance

questions for the construction management plan and this issue will be considered in more depth in the

emerging Code of Construction Practice.

45. Joe Haim Welcome proposed consultation. Particular concerns relate to

ACCESS and use of UNSUITABLE HEAVY MACHINERY. Unlike other

Comments noted and support welcomed. Added further reference to considering access and types of

machinery in the list of questions/issues to consider in preparing a construction management plan, added to

32

development, basement excavations appear to require heavy

equipment which has caused severe traffic access issues, especially

in mews.

appendix. Impacts of the construction process will be considered in more detail in the Code of Construction

Practice going forward, which is linked to policy.

46. 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.

Noted and support welcomed.

47. Carol Gould Due to the noise, fumes and dust considers these projects should

not be allowed at all, especially a problem in narrow mews

Planning policy and decision-making is focused on the design phase of development and has limited powers

to control the construction phases of development. We are required to determine applications submitted to

us on planning grounds and cannot simply ban particular forms of development. However, the council has

powers to closely monitor and control the processes and impacts associated with basement development

and construction using a large body of environmental and safety requirements. We also ask for a

construction management plan with planning applications. Further advice on this is provided in the

guidance booklet at section 6.8 and in appendix 2. These issues will also be addressed through the Code of

Construction Practice (CoCP).

48. A Jones Laudable that efforts being made.

Should consider where the applicant is absent, has no consideration

to loss of amenity, is immune from tax and makes no social

contribution. Suggest:-

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.

Comments and support noted.

Ownership and financial gain as a result of developments are not issues we can consider under the planning

legislation. Detail of what constitutes a material planning consideration has been included in the guidance at

section 5.

1 Tax regimes are set by central government.

2 Structural damage is covered by the Party Wall Act. This is always a private matter between neighbours.

See Section 8.

3-4 Although the development must start within this period we cannot control when it is completed.

Changes in legislation can only be undertaken by central government and the sort of changes to legislation

and taxation argued in points 5-6 could only be implemented by central government, not the local authority.

49. 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

1, 4 and 5 a structural statement is required with all applications to demonstrate that development is

suitable for its site taking into account issues such as subsidence, the water table and flooding. See guidance

Section 6.4.

2-3 details on these issues are considered in the guidance found Section 6.8. Emerging City Plan policy will

also be linked to a revised Code of Construction Practice which will seek to ensure the construction process is

better managed to mitigate negative impacts (this is separate to this guidance note).

Draft City Plan planning policy CM28.27 (separate to the SPD guidance note, which is the subject of this

report) seeks to address a number of these issues. Comments will be added to the database to be

33

foundations of adjoining buildings. considered in developing emerging policy. This report relates to guidance note and considers only those

issues)

50. Anthony

Lorenz

Fully support the submission made by Grosvenor, in connection with

basement and subterranean development.

extensive developments will create larger homes, with more

occupants and more need for car parking. (NB this is personal

Response, and not the views of Mayfair and St James Society)

The need for parking as a result of extensions is not confined to basement development. All development

including basement development is subject to planning policies in relation to parking standards.

51. Anthony

Williams

Bayswater

Good that the information available, much of it useful, but many

points which give serious cause for concern.

This documents 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

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.

National legislation sets out a defined statutory process before we can use the draft policies set out in the

booklets. This process takes some months and involves a number of stages of consultation and an

independent examination in public by planning inspector and means that the new policies will not be in place

for some time. As this is a slow process the guidance document was produced and this will be adopted and

used as soon as practicable. Giving the guidance SPD status will give it greater effect in planning decision-

making.

The Party Wall Act is in place to protect immediate neighbours in relation to structural damage and the party

wall engineer can require money to be held in escrow (effectively a bond) in case of any damage. This is

always a private matter between neighbours and cannot be controlled through the planning policy.

Any representations in relation to an application will be considered in determining an application, including

those not immediately adjacent to the site in question. Advice on commenting on planning applications can

be found at Section 5.

1. Addressed through structural statements; see Section 6.4 of guidance and appendices.

2. Central government sets what is and isn’t permitted development. Restrictions will be considered in

emerging planning policy and cannot be included in guidance.

3. Code of Construction Practice will be developed as part of emerging policy therefore not considered in

this report (which focuses on the guidance).

4. The council does enforce where expedient, conditions are breached.

5. This type of engagement is strongly encouraged but the planning department cannot require neighbours

to talk to each other. As part of the formal planning process, we will also consult neighbours.

6. In terms of habitable accommodation, the purpose of this is to ensure the majority of the habitable

accommodation in a single dwelling will have access to natural light and this is an environmental health

requirement.

34

52. Barbara

Brown

There must be a much stricter control to take in account of water

tables, underground streams, likely subsidence, etc.

Structural statement is required to consider issues such as impact on the water table, underground streams

and subsidence. See section 6.4 of the guidance and appendices with guidance on contents of structural

statement. Map of underground streams has also been added to section 6.3 on flooding. Damage to

adjoining properties is covered by the Party Wall Act. This is always a private matter between neighbours.

Emerging policy will consider these issues further.

53. 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.

Noted, support welcomed. See advice on the Party Wall Act and holding money in escrow set out within the

guidance note at Section 8.

54. 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.

Points 1-2 are covered in the draft City Plan planning policy CM28.27 (separate to the SPD guidance note,

which is the subject of this report). Comments will be added to the database to be considered in developing

emerging policy.

(3) The council is not empowered to control the number of developments happening in one street at one

time through the planning regime and would not in any case be able to predict when approved schemes are

started within the three years the permissions remains live. Where large estates have a controlling freehold

interest the council will encourage the coordination of these developments. Where this is not possible we

will expect construction management statements to identify the other. This is set out in the SPD at Section

6.8.

(4) The document can only consider planning issues and cannot influence rates of council tax.

(5) The Party Wall Act is in place to protect immediate neighbours in relation to structural damage and the

party wall engineer can require money to be held in escrow (effectively a bond) in case of any damage. This

is always a private matter between neighbours and cannot be controlled through the planning policy.

Further advice on the Party Wall Act is in Section 8 of the SPD.

55. Jaqueline

Ashmore

Welcome this document 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 Design I 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

This is an SPD guidance document and is not policy, therefore some of the elements are for guidance and

cannot be enforced but are there as encouragement/best practice rather than requirements. Requirements

will be considered in emerging City Plan policy (separate to this guidance). For construction issues many of

these are not enforced through the planning regimes and the council is developing a code of construction

practice which would bring together different council regimes. The council cannot enforce a schedule and

timetable of works but can only request it and encourage the developer to maintain a dialogue with

adjoining occupiers. However, have added reference in the construction section to applying conditions to

ensure compliance, where it is appropriate to do so.

A number of amendments have been made to the sustainable design section of the SPD to make it clearer

what is expected of the applicant and make the wording less vague.

Re Land stability we cannot require a particular person to undertake the works. The SPD does, however,

suggest we may condition a structural engineer visiting site and this will be discussed further with

development management colleagues.

Have reviewed wording to ensure guidance is a clear as possible. However, specific requirements will be

included within the Draft City Plan planning policy CM28.27 (separate to the SPD guidance note, which is the

subject of this report). Comments will be added to the database to be considered in developing emerging

35

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.

policy. This report relates to guidance note and considers only those issues)

56. 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.

Noted, restrictions will be considered in developing City Plan planning policy CM28.27 (separate to the SPD

guidance note, which is the subject of this report). Comments will be added to the database to be

considered in developing emerging policy.

57. 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.

Noted, support welcomed.

58. 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.

Noted, Document does provide guidance on this; see in particular sections 6.3 and 6.4. Need for restrictions

will be considered further in developing City Plan policy (separate to this guidance). Issues such as access for

emergency vehicles have been added to guidance on construction management at section 6.8. Emerging

policy is also linked to a revised Code of Construction Practice(CoCP) is being developed to bring together

the various enforcement powers the council has in relation to basement development and ensure these

work together and enforcement is as effective as possible. Comments in relation to construction will be

added to database to ensure these issues are addressed in drafting the new code.

59. 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.

1 and 4 a structural statement is required with all applications to demonstrate that development is suitable

for its site taking into account issues such as subsidence, the water table and flooding. See guidance section

6.3 and 6.4 and guidance on structural statement in the appendices.

2-3 and 5 see the guidance found at section 6.8. Emerging policy will also be linked to a revised Code of

Construction Practice which will seek to ensure the construction process is better managed to mitigate

negative impacts.

60. 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.

To address these issues, the draft structural report is required to demonstrate development is suitable for its

site, which includes consideration of the ground conditions, subsidence and flood risk, see section 6.4 of

guidance. The ownerships and personal circumstances of the owner/ developer cannot be taken into

account in determining planning applications.

61. Laurence

Parmenter

More excavation to Victorian terraced house will only increase the

frequency and risk of flooding to existing basements.

The structural statement is required in all cases to show how engineering design has considered ground and

surface water issues. A flood risk assessment is required in areas of known flood risk. Advice is set out in 6.3

and 6.4, as well as in the Alan Baxter’s Report.

62. Mrs Marcelle

Billingham

My comments are as follows:

1. Basement excavation and extension should be limited to only one

storey deep (approx. 2.7m)

Points 1-2 are covered in the draft City Plan planning policy, separate to the SPD (to which this report

relates). Comments will be added to the database to be considered in developing emerging policy.

(3) The council is not empowered to control the number of developments happening in one street at one

36

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.

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.

time through the planning regime and would not in any case be able to predict when approved schemes are

started within the three years the permissions remains live. where large estates have a controlling freehold

interest encourage the coordination of these developments Where this is not possible we will expect

construction management statements to identify the other. This is set out in the guidance note, see section

6.8.

(4) The planning policy can only consider planning issues and cannot influence rates of council tax.

(5) The Party Wall Act is in place to protect immediate neighbours in relation to structural damage and the

party wall engineer can require money to be held in escrow (effectively a bond) in case of any damage. This is

always a private matter between neighbours and cannot be controlled through the planning policy. Further

advice on the Party Wall Act is in the guidance at Section 8.

63. Mark and

Harriot

Tennant

Support for the intention of Westminster City Council to reform the

planning framework for basements.

Support welcomed.

64. Mike Dunn Give my full support to the plans outlined in the consultation

document. Would support more prescriptive too.

Noted and support welcomed.

65. Patrick

Copeland and

JoAnn Brislan

Welcome the Westminster initiative to establish more

comprehensive planning guidelines.

• Concerns are largely to do with collateral damage to existing

property, especially sensitive heritage assets which cannot

structurally withstand construction impacts without incurring

damage. 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.

• 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.

• Where services, easements, foundations etc are shared, many

basement projects will have potential to encroach on adjacent

properties and such issues should be resolved in

advance. Projects where shared services, easements etc exist,

should be submitted for approval with adjacent owner

agreement as to management, continuity etc. Absence of

Noted, support welcomed.

• See guidance on heritage assets at section 6.5. For properties which are not heritage assets, the Party

Wall Act already provides protection for adjoining properties should any damage occur as a result of

works. Common law protects buildings further away if they are damaged as a result of development.

Costs of making good damage are always the responsibility of the party undertaking the development.

These issues are always private matters between neighbours and could not lawfully be included in

planning policy. Further guidance and reference to common law added to the guidance note at Section

8. However, where works are taking place adjacent to a heritage asset, these issues will be considered as

part of the planning process.

• In relation to water table and flood risk issues, we have taken advice from consultant structural

engineers and commissioned a report to better understand risks in relation to these issues. This

identifies that if appropriately designed, basements development can usually be constructed in any part

of Westminster. With all applications we require a structural statement to be submitted as part of the

application to demonstrate these issues have been considered by an appropriately qualified engineer.

See guidance note Section 6.4.

• Planning policy cannot simply duplicate other regimes or legislation, and must be focused on material

planning considerations. Reference to maintaining rights of way added to the guidance on construction

at section 6.8 and into new tables of issues for applicant to consider in relation to construction included

in appendices. However, this is just for guidance purposes and would not be enforced through planning.

• Circumstances of the owner cannot be considered under the planning legislation. This has been added to

the section on material planning considerations under ‘advice for neighbours’.

37

agreement suggests that 3rd party rights are being

compromised and planning should not be considered, E.g.

easements should not be expanded from parking/pedestrian

access to becoming light wells or other excavation usage

without agreement from all parties in advance.

• 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

66. 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.

Agree that having appropriately qualified persons undertaking the works is important. Have added further

info on this at section 6.4 , emphasising the importance of good contractors and reference to the Association

of Structural Underpinners in the contacts section. However we cannot require particular people to

undertake the works through the planning system. We may however, apply conditions to ensure applicants

appoint a suitably qualified engineer to monitor works and ensure the contents of the structural statement

are complied with

The council is developing a Code of Construction Practice to be funded by the applicant which would allow

construction to be monitored and enforced. This is being developed separately to this guidance, alongside

emerging City Plan policy. Comments will be added to database for consideration in developing this policy.

67. 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 e.g. 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. A fund be established by

WCC and developers required to put in a considerable sum as a

1 Character of the neighbourhood is considered in assessing planning applications (see intro to section 6).

However although we can try to retain a mix of housing including affordable housing, we cannot take

into account ownership of the property when determining planning applications.

2 We require a structural statement in all cases which shows how engineering design has considered

ground and surface water issues. A flood risk assessment is required in areas of known flood risk.(see

sections 6.3 and 6.4 of the guidance) We also have policies which require important trees to be

protected and an arboricultural report would be required where important trees are affected (see

guidance section 6.2). The tree officers are always consulted where trees are affected by basement

proposals. Thames Water are also sent the weekly list of planning applications and choose those they

consider they need to comment on, which do often include basement developments.

3 The Party Wall Act is in place to protect immediate neighbours in relation to structural damage and the

party wall engineer can require money to be held in escrow (effectively a bond) in case of any damage.

This is always a private matter between neighbours and cannot be controlled through the planning

policy, see guidance section 8.

4 The construction management plan should cover these issues; this has been added to list of issues to be

considered. Code of Construction Practice will consider this issue.

5 The council is not empowered to control the number of developments happening in one street at one

time through the planning regime and would not in any case be able to predict when approved schemes

are started within the three years the permissions remains live. Where large estates have a controlling

38

deposit against future problems. They should also be required

to take out an insurance policy to cover potential damage over

the next 10 years.

4. Construction Traffic preventing residents from driving in and

out as well as obstructing council and emergency service

vehicles.

5. Recommendation: That no more than one sub-basement

project can take place at any none time in the same block or

section of street.

6. 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 e.g. to have a vehicle moved which is blocking

the road

freehold interest encourage the coordination of these developments Where this is not possible we will

expect construction management statements to identify the other. This is set out in the guidance note at

section 6.8. However, we do ask people to identify other permissions in the vicinity and liaise with those

undertaking these schemes to minimise disruption (see section 6.8 and appendix).

6 Further guidance has been included in the SPD appendices on contents of a construction management

plan. An enforcement officer has also now been appointed to deal with enforcement in relation to

basement development. Nuisance will also be considered as part of the Code of Construction Practice

which proposes to introduce a single point of contact for residents in relation to construction issues.

68. 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.

Points 1-2 are in the emerging City Plan planning policy CM28.27 (separate to the SPD guidance note, which

is the subject of this report). Comments will be added to the database to be considered in developing

emerging policy.

3 The council is not empowered to control the number of developments happening in one street at one time

through the planning regime and would not in any case be able to predict when approved schemes are

started within the three years the permissions remains live. Where large estates have a controlling freehold

interest encourage the coordination of these developments Where this is not possible we will expect

construction management statements to identify the other. Info on this is set out in the interim guidance

note at section 6.8.

4 The planning policy can only consider planning issues and cannot influence rates of council tax.

5 The Party Wall Act is in place to protect immediate neighbours in relation to structural damage and the

party wall engineer can require money to be held in escrow (effectively a bond) in case of any damage. This is

always a private matter between neighbours and cannot be controlled through the planning policy. Further

info is in the guidance note at section 6.8.

69. 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.

Planning policy cannot prohibit basement development but seeks to ensure it is sustainable development,

which does not adversely impact on residential or visual amenity In some circumstances basements do not

require planning permission and we can only limit basement development if there is a sound planning reason

for doing so. Limits on extent and depth of basement development are being considered in developing our

local plan policy (separate to the guidance, which this report relates to).

70. Anne

Broadhurst

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

Points 1-2 are in the emerging City Plan planning policy CM28.27 (separate to the SPD guidance note, which

is the subject of this report). Comments will be added to the database to be considered in developing

emerging policy.

3 The council is not empowered to control the number of developments happening in one street at one time

through the planning regime and would not in any case be able to predict when approved schemes are

39

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.

started within the three years the permissions remains live. Where large estates have a controlling freehold

interest encourage the coordination of these developments Where this is not possible we will expect

construction management statements to identify the other developments in the area. This is set out in the

interim guidance note at section 6.8.

4 The planning policy and guidance can only consider planning issues and cannot influence rates of council

tax.

5 The Party Wall Act is in place to protect immediate neighbours in relation to structural damage and the

party wall engineer can require money to be held in escrow (effectively a bond) in case of any damage. This is

always a private matter between neighbours and cannot be controlled through the planning policy. See

section 8 of the guidance.

71. 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.

A suggested 1m soil depth and 0.2 drainage figure has been arrived at in consultation with our tree

specialists and using accepted sources. It is to specifically allow for the growth of trees and mature planting

in gardens. The guidance does however say this is what is needed to support tree growth in the majority of

cases and does not require this in all locations. Depth of excavation and any specific limitations and

requirements will be considered in developing emerging City Plan policy (separate to this guidance)

72. 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. Careful consideration has to be given to the

construction methodology - with a focus on both short term and

long term structural risk.

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 rule should be

one storey - and no exit clause for "exceptional circumstances". The

one storey limit should also be applied to garden excavations.

Comments noted. The guidance sets out our requirement for a structural statement and construction

management plan to address these issues (see section 6.4 and 6.8).

The structural report is provided to demonstrate that a qualified engineer has certified that development is

suitable for its site taking into account the ground conditions and flood risk. The planning department

cannot agree a specific engineering solution and as pointed out, planning officers are not qualified to assess

engineering design and to do so would go beyond the legal remit of the planning system.

Decisions in relation to listed buildings must be based on an understanding of what makes that individual

building special. This will include historic fabric, plan form, historic importance but the elements that

contribute to its significance will be different in each case and each decision should be based on an analysis

of this. The level of intervention required in undertaking a basement will mean that under many listed

buildings an extra storey will be unacceptable but this needs to e considered in relation to each individual

listed building We do not preclude other forms of extensions to listed buildings and we therefore do not

consider we can preclude basements under listed buildings.

Limits on depth of basement excavation will be considered as part of emerging City Plan policy (separate to

this guidance).

An Article 4 Direction entails the removal of permitted development rights. Government has issued guidance

on when and how to make an article 4 direction which says that local authorities should consider making

directions only in exceptional circumstances where the exercise of permitted development rights would

harm local amenity, the historic environment or the proper planning of the area. Even if a direction were

made, this would not prevent basement development but mean that it always required permission. As you

say this could also be problematic in that if we make a direction and then refuse permission, owners could

40

WCC should consider exercising an Article 4 Direction. potentially claim compensation from the council which for a basement development would be substantial.

We would also no longer be able to charge a few for the submission of a basement application.

In relation to depth Alan Baxter’s Associates have suggested that although more problematic double

basement are more technically feasible.

73. James Hewitt

1 Strongly against the construction or deepening of basements for

existing properties.

2 Considers the council should insist that such basements have a

zero greenhouse gas footprint during their lifecycle.

3 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.

1 Restrictions on depth of basements will be considered in emerging City Plan policy (separate to the

guidance, to which this report relates).

2 Do not require this for other forms of development and strong justification would be required. This could

only be achieved through policy and not the guidance and will be considered in developing emerging

policy. Guidance does, however, set out how we will seek to reduce the environmental impact of

basements in other respects by protecting existing trees, and ensuring any new basement that is

permitted has soil above it to allow for flood attenuation and soft landscaping, encouraging biodiversity.

Residents can also set their own local policies through a neighbourhood plan.

3 Fees in relation to planning applications are set by central government. Westminster City Council has (so

far unsuccessfully) lobbied central government to be able to set fees locally.

74. 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

Development is usually subject to a condition on hours of work which limits construction to between 8am

and 6pm, Monday to Friday. Additional info has been added to guidance on construction, see section 6.8 and

appendices and the new City Plan policy is linked to a Code of Construction Practice which will help create a

clear link between planning and other relevant processes, ensuring these work together and are followed

through. Comments will be passed to Transport for London and officers undertaking work on the Code of

Construction Practice to ensure specific concerns are addressed.

75. 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

1. Section 106 agreements must relate to the particular development in question and are there to make the

development acceptable, not simply to raise income.

2. The impact of different schemes may vary according to the size and proposed use of the basement and the

extent of physical alteration involved. However, each case is always considered on its merit based on the

specific qualities of the site and details of what is proposed.

3. We have included additional guidance on construction management plans in the SPD appendices.

Construction management plans should always be specific to the site and added reference at 6.8 to plans

being site-specific. Planning applications are subject to set fees set by central government and cannot

make additional charge for validating construction management plans. However, we are considering

developing a more detailed Code of Construction Practice as part of emerging City Plan policy.

4. We do not do this for other types of development and no specific reason to do this for basements (it may

not be technically feasible in any event). The emerging City Plan policy (separate to the guidance) will

consider sustainable design standards in relation to basements further.

5. The planning process provides an external independent assessment of planning issues. Any breach of

planning permission/ conditions will be investigated by planning enforcement.

41

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.

76. 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’.

National legislation sets out a defined statutory process before we can use the draft policies set out in the

booklets. This process takes some months and involves a number of stages of consultation and an

independent examination in public by planning inspector and means that the new policies will not be in place

for some time. As this is a slow process the guidance document was produced and this will be adopted and

used as soon as practicable.

Agree that protection of trees is important and the draft policy will further consider requirements o protect

existing trees and to maintain soil depth above basements to allow planting of mature trees above them. See

also section 6.2 of the guidance.

77. P Varrakalion Basement extensions – particular care should be taken with

plumbing and foundations.

Agree. A structural statement is required with applications for basement development and this must show

how engineering design has considered ground and surface water issues. See section 6.4 guidance and

appendices.

78. Henry Proctor Quite apart from the appalling nuisance that this is likely to cause

such an 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.

Noted. The structural statement which takes account of structural issues and this would include

consideration of any impact on adjoining heritage assets. The guidance note highlights the importance of

specialist expertise when undertaking development which will affect a listed building. Section 6.4 identifies

the need for a CARE accredited structural engineers and have added words identifying the need for this

expertise for works to or adjacent to any listed building.

79. 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'.

Policy issues and detailed wording will be considered in developing City Plan planning policy CM28.27

(separate to the SPD guidance note, which is the subject of this report). Comments will be added to the

database to be considered in developing emerging policy.

80. 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 work from home, my quality of life is affected.

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.

For info on construction see section 6.8 guidance. Development is usually subject to a condition on hours of

work which limits construction to between 8am and 6pm, Monday to Friday and the new City Plan policy is

linked to a Code of Construction Practice which will help create a clear link between planning and other

relevant processes, ensuring these work together and are followed through. Planning system cannot be used

to impose taxes on particular development.

81. 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

Noted. The guidance provide advice on flood risk and requires submission of a structural statement which

will consider issues such as impact on the water table underground streams and subsidence and must ensure

these are taken into account in structural engineering design. A flood risk assessment is also required in areas

of known flood risk.

42

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.

Development is usually subject to a condition on hours of work which limits construction to between 8am

and 6pm, Monday to Friday. Advice on construction management is in the guidance at section 6.8, and

advice on ensuring highways are repaired at section 7. Further detail on issues to be addressed in the

construction management plan has been added in the appendices including reference to types and sizes of

vehicles. Emerging City Plan policy is linked to a Code of Construction Practice which will help create a clear

link between planning and other relevant processes, ensuring these work together and are followed through.

Comments will be passed to officers undertaking work on the Code of Construction Practice to ensure

specific concerns are addressed.

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.

In some circumstances central government legislation dictates that basements do not require planning

permission and we can only limit basement development if there is a sound planning reason for doing so.

Guidance seeks to ensure it is sustainable development, which does not adversely impact on residential or

visual amenity and mitigate any negative impacts. See guidance note, especially sections 6.4 and 6.8 for

advice on subsidence and noise.

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

• The property owner would be responsible for procuring the

policy, not the contractor

• The policy would name a specific contractor(s)

• The number of properties covered under the policy would need

to be determined according to the scale of development

proposed

• The duration of the Tail Risk would need to be

determined according to the scale of development proposed

• The policy premium would be paid in full prior to

commencement of Works

• The insurer would be responsible for assessing claims

• 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

Planning policy cannot duplicate other regimes or legislation, and must be focused on material planning

considerations. The Party Wall Act already provides protection for adjoining properties should any damage

occur as a result of works and Common law protects buildings further away if they are damaged as a result of

development. Costs of making good damage are always the responsibility of the party undertaking the

development. These issues are always private matters between neighbours and could not lawfully be

included in planning policy. Info on Party Wall Act and reference to common law included in the guidance

note at section 8.

43

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.

1. Covered by Party Wall Act, see Section 8 of guidance.

2. Details on what we can do to manage these issues is in the guidance at section 6.8. Emerging policy will

also be linked to a revised Code of Construction Practice which will seek to ensure the construction

process is better managed to mitigate negative impacts.

3. The lifestyle choices of the owners cannot be considered in planning decision making. See advice on

material planning considerations in section 5 of the document.

4. No provision for this through planning, but are other legal avenues to address these issues which are

referred to in the SPD.

5. A range of different people are responsible for enforcement, see guidance note for details of who is

responsible for what areas of legislation (see process diagram on p12 and section 7 for details of the

range of council departments involved).

6. Guidance encourages retention of soft landscaping and gardens wherever possible. This issue will be

considered further in emerging City Plan policy (separate to spd).

85. Margot Bright Within the Westbourne Conservation Area the presence of

unmapped underground watercourses. As the houses are on made

ground, with a high perched water table resting on clay (including

clay pits from which their bricks were made), and have a history of

subsidence as well as the addition of many new or deepened

basements in the past few years, residents worry about the

cumulative effects. The report of Alan Baxter & Associates

comprehensively address the concerns relating to basement

developments, clearly inform the two documents being consulted

on & offer sound technical guidance. However, adding a new

basement is a difficult, risky job requiring highly specialised

expertise, and detailed knowledge of the patient's history. How to

ensure this vis-a-vis basements?

Our comments:

1) An Expert Panel is surely required, to assist & bolster officers,

planning committee members (& district surveyors?) whose

decisions need to be appeal-proof. Such a panel could also help the

beleaguered officers charged with enforcement.

2) Requiring applications to be signed off by a member of one of the

engineering professional bodies, IMechE, sounds tougher than it is.

They do not discipline their members like the General Medical

Council. Why not draw up an approved list of firms with the relevant

specialist expertise, as WCC's tree department does for tree

surgeons?

The structural statement must be signed of by an appropriately qualified engineer and we will also consider

the possibility for applying conditions to permission to ensure a qualified engineer visits sites to monitor

works. We consider this is as far as we can go under the planning regime.

1) An expert panel would require resourcing and staffing from council officers and it is considered putting the

onus on applicants to procure and pay for specialist expertise represents a better use of resources

2) We cannot recommend specific engineers but have included links with contacts for the relevant

professional bodies and trade organisations who provide details of qualified specialists, who must meet

certain criteria to become members.

3) Agreed. We have gone through the process of converting the document to an SPD to ensure its status in

the planning process is clear and will undertake publicity as soon as it is formally agreed and adopted,

ensuring as wide circulation as possible.

4) Noted. Damage to adjoining properties is be covered by the Party Wall Act (see section 8 of guidance).

Agree that greater caution is needed where geology/hydrology suggest a greater degree of risk and have

endeavoured to empathises this further in sections on flood risk and structural issues. We will consider

degree of risk further in developing the document.

44

3) Residents welcome the fact that compliance with the detailed

and helpful contents of the Interim Guidance will be 'material' to the

granting or refusal of planning permission from January 2014, ie

after this consultation. (See booklet) This will be critical bearing in

mind the flood of applications aiming to beat the implementation of

the new policy in spring 2015. It does not appear to be widely

appreciated or understood yet, though: WCC should clarify and

draw attention to this point, and the 'teeth' that this Interim

Guidance has, on its planning website and elsewhere.

4) Local knowledge, and the requirement for developers (small and

large) to consult neighbours pre-application, and demonstrate that

this has been done. This is helpful, but may we point out that in our

area there are many examples of sub-standard underpinning, and

sub-standard basement work that has already caused flooding or

subsidence problems to nearby properties and gardens etc. Much

previous work, including very recent basements and their pump

arrangements, would not come close to satisfying the requirements

of these two documents. This needs to be borne in mind by those

signing off new applications. The precautionary principle should

apply where the local hydrology/geology suggest any degree of risk.

Representations received during public participation phase (February-March 2014) ( Local residents groups and Amenity Societies: Light Red, Statutory bodies, national advisory groups: light purple,

Developers/ Private Sector Planning consultants: blue, Great estates: orange, Members and MPs: yellow, Individual Residents: green)

1 St Marylebone

Society

The document is comprehensive and clear, and we strongly support this revised

policy.

Not clear to us how much weight this will carry in the interim before being

incorporated into the emerging Westminster City Plan to be adopted in 2015*.

As we said in our previous response, for residents and local businesses, especially

in smaller streets, the biggest issue is often that of prolonged, often very noisy

works and significant obstruction of streets during the construction process.

Unfortunately this often means that the affected residents are obliged to

complain repeatedly to try and lessen the impact, and we are not sure that this

will change unless there is some sort of integrated monitoring service, preferably

paid for by the applicant.

Sub basements almost always require artificial light, ventilation etc., which is

unsustainable, and the plant often causes noise nuisance and is an eyesore for

neighbouring properties. Habitable rooms should have daylight and natural

ventilation. We have seen recent examples of deep basements in prime housing

locally where staff accommodation is apparently only lit through pavement lights,

Noted and support welcomed.

It will be a supplementary planning document and as such will be a material consideration in

determining planning applications. However, it does not and cannot introduce new policy, so

will not bring in any new controls which do not exist at the moment, but will ensure those

that exist are better understood and used in decision -making.

Acknowledge that construction of basements can lead to significant disruption for residents.

As part of the emerging City Plan policy we are looking at introducing an integrated

monitoring system through the Code of Construction Practice. In the interim we have

included some further guidance on construction management within the SPD, including a

new appendix to promote best practice and coordination between council teams with

responsibility for construction management.

Need for adequate light and ventilation is included within the SPD at Section 6.2 and 6.7 and

certain standards are enforced by environmental health.

45

and is entirely artificially ventilated, which is not acceptable.

Quite aside from sustainability issues, the scale of some recently proposed

residential basements, often in smaller streets, is often incompatible with the size

of the houses above, and we strongly agree that allowed residential basements

should generally be restricted to a single level. In addition, the increased size of

such residences often means a much increased impact on the immediate area, on

local parking, for example.

We agree with MP Karen Buck that local councils should have more power to

refuse inappropriate residential basements, and we note that the London

Assembly has also called on the Mayor to take action to limit excessive

development across London to include specific changes to planning policy

to limit the size and depth of new or extended basement schemes. Both these

initiatives are very welcome.

Issues related to restrictions on basement development require new policy and will be

considered further in developing the City Plan planning policy CM28.27 (separate to the SPD

guidance note, which is the subject of this report). Comments will be added to the database

to be considered in developing emerging policy.

2 South East

Bayswater

Residents

Association

Booklet No. 3: LDF consultation – CMP Revision (comments on City Plan policy not

included here)

Comments on Draft SPD on Basement Development in Westminster

Section 3, when is planning permission required? we think that in Section 3

developers should be warned that a deep basement in a mews or small scale

street may be considered out of context for its site, so that it is desirable for them

to test a proposal by submitting a planning application. We suggest the following

amendment (highlighted) to paragraph two on page 11:- ‘Most basement

development will require planning permission but there are certain circumstances

where it may be ‘permitted development’, see box left. This would usually be

where the excavation work is under the footprint of an unlisted building and

involves no external alterations, and is not out of context with the domestic scale,

function and character of its location (see page 11). For unlisted buildings outside

a conservation area, larger extensions may be classed as permitted development

1. If your property is located in a conservation area, planning permission 2 may

also be required for associated demolition works.’

Section 4, Submitting a planning application. In section 4, change the word

‘should’ to 'must', with regard to the pre-application consultations with

neighbours (first sentence of third paragraph on page 13). Later in the same

sentence, you should say that details of ‘their local amenity society’ can be found

on the Council’s website and, perhaps, start a new sentence after ‘an application’.

In the check-list (page 14), Noise Assessment (second box), add ‘internal’: ‘Noise

Assessment, where internal or external plant is proposed.’

Section 6 The context We agree and stress that ‘all basement development

Comments made on City Plan policy CM28.27 will be considered in developing City Plan

(separate to the SPD guidance note, which is the subject of this report). Comments will be

added to the database to be considered in developing emerging policy.

• Although the effect on context is an important consideration when determining planning

applications, as set out in section 6, and although this may affect the recommendation, it

would not affect requirements for planning permission/ permitted development rights,

which are set by central government so no amendments made to Section 3, although we

have expanded advice on permitted development.

• Consultation and discussion with neighbours is not something we can require or enforce,

but only encourage through the guidance; the word ‘must’ would not therefore be

appropriate. Reference to amenity society details added, as requested.

• Amended to where external plant is proposed (or internal plant requiring external

ventilation)

• 6.2 Added words ‘at the boundary’ as requested

• In cases where there is known flood risk and we require a flood risk assessment, then we

would require details of flood resistance and resilience measures. However, this is not

the case for all basement development and outside these areas the guidance note can

only encourage this.

• Guidance states that front lightwells are unlikely to acceptable in mews streets, where

front lightwells are not characteristic. However, this does not mean that the excavation

of a basement will be unacceptable in principle. At Para 6.6.5 the guidance states that:

New lightwells set in shallow front garden areas are unlikely to be acceptable and they

46

should be appropriate to its site and context’ and that there can be over-

development ‘in smaller scale streets and mews’ (third paragraph on page 17).

6.2 Trees, gardens and landscaping Page 20, third paragraph: ‘Consideration

should also be given to how trees will be protected during building works,

including trees at the boundary and in adjoining gardens.’ (Add ‘at the boundary’.)

6.3 Flood risk Page 24, second paragraph: ‘In all basement development,

applicants should incorporate flood resistance and …’ (Not ‘should consider

incorporating’.)

6.6 Visual Impact Annotations to diagram on page 32: ‘height should not exceed

that of the original basement or 2.7m if no basement already exists’ (change

‘ground floor’ to ‘2.7m’). Often the original ground floor is tall, and we don’t think

this should justify a deep basement just because originally there was no

basement. We think it should be made clear somewhere that in mews and other

small streets, the excavation of a front light-well or ventilation shaft, where none

exists already, would require planning permission, which is unlikely to be granted.

6.7 Use of basements for living accommodation Page 35, second paragraph,

current wording:- 'Extensions to create new living space will generally only be

acceptable if used with the rest of the premises as part of a single dwelling. These

will be acceptable in principle if the proportion of subterranean living

accommodation does not exceed the above ground living space and the space is

in addition or ancillary to the existing residential accommodation at ground level

and above.' Our proposed amended wording:-First sentence ‘Extensions to create

new living accommodation, including those beneath a garden, will generally only

be acceptable if used with the rest of the premises as part of a single dwelling’.

We agree, as amended with the highlighted changes. (‘living accommodation’

instead of ‘living space’, for consistency, see below). We also propose the

clarification that ‘living accommodation’ can be beneath a garden. Second

sentence (to become two sentences):- ‘These will be acceptable in principle if the

volume of subterranean living accommodation under the footprint of the existing

house and garden (if in a conservation area) does not exceed one third of the

volume of existing above-ground living accommodation and the space is in

addition or ancillary to that accommodation. In the case of a house not in a

conservation area with a garden, the volume of all subterranean living

accommodation, including that below the garden, should not exceed the volume

of existing above-ground living accommodation and should still be in addition or

ancillary to that accommodation.’

Material alterations to the existing wording are highlighted. We think that the

comparison set out in this passage of the SPD should be in terms of volume, not

of area. For instance, a basement beneath a garden which is three storeys deep is

larger than one of the same area which is only one storey deep. We also think

will not be permitted to mews or similar properties where there is no visual buffer

between the front elevation and the street.

• Amended to ‘living’ rather than ‘living space’ as suggested and added reference to the

fact that living accommodation can also be under the garden. However, this needs to

reflect current adopted policy in the City Plan: strategic policies. As worded sets out our

current practice, and environmental health requirements and the suggested changes

would introduce new policy. These cannot be introduced through this SPD and will

therefore be considered when considering the need for limits to basement extensions as

part of emerging City Plan policy.

47

that the comparison should be primarily in terms of the volume of a basement

under the footprint of the original house and only secondarily, where there is a

garden, in terms of the overall volume of a basement beneath the garden, by

comparison to the original volume above ground.

3 Tachbrook

Street Residents

Association

Makes sense, support Support welcomed

4 Westbourne

Residents

Gardens in the WNA/ Notting Hill East area are already very small to allow

developments to extend an additional 50% especially where there are already

coal hole extensions is excessive here. We would prefer basements only under the

original foot print of the dwelling.

2. 1.5 metre depth is insufficient to support an appropriate range of flora

necessary to support and extend desirable bio diversity.

3. we are not necessarily in favour of limiting depths of basements as it can be

efficient to house service elements at lower levels and in large developments it is

possible to insert parking and even studio and performance space. Also we do not

believe that deeper developments increase neighbourhood costs proportionally.

4. We are concerned that in major projects there does not exist the necessary

technical expertise to either design, build and monitor complicated basement

constructions. Sceptical that the enforcement officers with a background in

planning have the technical knowledge to be effective. Existing enforcement is

already very weak in our area. Developments often end up different to what had

been agreed in the planning application and rarely, if ever, are miscreants forced

to correct.

5. We believe that a properly thought through methods statement has been

instrumental in reducing the incidence of nuisance to neighbours during

construction. We would like to see more emphasis on these.

6. Much disruption during construction is the result of drilling out cast concrete

and hope to see designs which ensure that this activity is minimised if not

completely eliminated.

7 future building failure especially to neighbours could be safe guarded by the

purchase of an insurance bond attached to the building and not to the owner and

deposited perhaps with the local authority.

8. There should be a register of ‘good builders’ and a ‘grey list’ to make consumer

choice more efficient.

Comments largely relate to emerging City Plan policy (separate to the SPD guidance note,

which is the subject of this report) and these comments will therefore be added to the

database to be considered in developing emerging City Plan policy.

Soil depth Our trees specialists indicate 1.2m (with adequate soil volume) will allow mature

tree growth. This is current practice and the guidance sets out the standards we use at the

moment. However, the guidance recognises that 1.5 may be needed in certain locations. See

Section 6.2

Structural stability during works would be controlled through the building regulations and

Party Wall Act and not through planning.

5 the guidance has sought to emphasise the importance of careful construction management

in the document and added further guidance at Appendix 3 to emphasise its importance.

7 The condition of and damage to adjoining properties is covered by the Party Wall Act and

this does allow a sum of money to be held in escrow to cover damage. See Section 8 of the

guidance. We do, however require the structural statement to demonstrate works can be

undertaken safely.

8 We cannot recommend particular contractors. However, we have included reference to the

Association of Structural Underpinning Contractors who have lists of contractors with

specialist expertise in basement construction in section 6.4 and the appendices.

5 Environment

Agency

pleased that our previous suggestions and comments have been considered in the

production of the policy in respect of tidal flood risk, surface water flood risk and

managing the impacts of construction (waste). We have no further comments to

make on the above plan.

Noted. However, the document has been amended to go back to previous version as the

suggested changes would amend our adopted policy. Added sentence to confirm that This is

based on our current adopted policy. However, the Environment Agency has indicated they

will not object to basement extensions in some of the locations we identify as unacceptable in

48

case where it can be demonstrated that flood risk can be mitigated we currently identify as

unacceptable. This approach will therefore be reviewed in our emerging City Plan policy,

based on the evidence in the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. These changes are instead

being considered as part of development of City Plan Policy (separate to the SPD).

6 Canal & River

Trust

We note the reference to the Trust, and would only add that a link to the "Code of

Practice for Works Affecting the Canal & River Trust" in the appendices would be

beneficial. This should be www.canalrivertrust.org.uk/about-us/for-

businesses/undertaking-works-on-our-property.

Added to sources of further information in the appendices.

7 Alastair Mellon

Providence

Developments

Hill Road

Studios, 7 Hill

Road

St John's Wood

1. P.19 most tree roots do not go much deeper than 500mm. In Westminster and

in St John’s Wood in particular by the time you are 1.5m down there is clay and

tree roots cannot draw sustenance from clay. 750mm should be plenty of depth

on top of a basement to sustain most types of vegetation. Not realistic to expect

fully mature trees to grow on top of a basement as this would have greater and

greater dead load each year and would be potentially dangerous to occupants.

State simply, you are setting the bar too high 750mm is sufficient depth of soil. to

insist on more only encourages people to dig down deeper than necessary.

2. Basements in general are darker and this can be mitigated by making them

taller. You proposed restrictions are not sensible - a 2.7mm finished floor to

ceiling height minimum would be a better proposal ensuring that we build a stock

of buildings that have highly valuable flexible space.

3. "Extensions to create new living space will generally only be acceptable if used

with the rest of the premises as part of a single dwelling etc" There is no rationale

not to allow the extension of the living accommodation beyond that already in

existence. As for staff quarters, these will be primarily for sleeping and as such are

not critical. Most of these houses with staff quarters are only occupied for a few

weeks per annum so staff will generally have the run of the house if they stay

100% in London. Far better to address the Uber wealthy who "park" their wealth

in London property by increasing council tax to say, £150,000 per annum.

4. You are bringing forward to the planning phase an entire panoply of issues

which have to be addressed before construction starts and are better addressed

by building control. You are adding costs up front so only rich people will be able

to take on these projects.

1. This is guidance provided by our tree specialists based on and is current practice. This is the

standard our tree specialists ask for currently when determining planning applications to

support adopted policy which seeks to protect trees, support biodiversity, future mature

tree growth, green corridors, general greenification and natural planting and is not new

policy. This will not be the same for every site and consideration of soil volume is

particularly important and the guidance states that this is what will be required to support

tree growth in the majority of cases. However, proposals will be considered on a site by site

basis and the need for policy standards and restrictions will be considered in emerging City

Plan policy (separate to the guidance, to which this report relates)

2. Environmental Health enforces minimum standards set out in the Housing Acts. See

Section 7 of the guidance.

3. This is to ensure all living has adequate natural light and is an environmental health

requirement. It is important to include these standards as if the design does not meet the

standards the dwelling may therefore be considered for action under the Housing Act 2004

by our Residential Environmental Health team. In those circumstances, that team would

have the power to require works to improve natural light and the view to the affected

rooms (which may require planning permission) or alternatively, where this is not

practicable, to prohibit the use of those rooms. Planning policy cannot influence rates of

council tax.

4. The document sets out current standards and includes advice on planning, building control

and other standards which all applicants must comply with at the moment.

49

8 Association of

Structural

Underpinning

Contractors

(ASUC)

Association of Structural Underpinning Contractors (ASUC) is a trade body whose

intention is to raise the standards of health, safety and quality across the

foundation repair and basement construction sectors. ASUC members include

some of the leading basement construction companies. It was founded in 1992 by

members working in the foundation repair industry. Standards in the industry

were improved by ASUC members being audited on health and safety, technical

competence, financial strength and the completeness of their insurance cover.

The increase in standards achieved by ASUC members enabled the association to

introduce an insurance-backed latent defects guarantee scheme in 2002. This

cover is provided by a major insurance company directly to the homeowner and

covers any problem with the foundation repair work. An ASUC guarantee is now

frequently demanded by insurers as a prerequisite for foundation repair work

Basement construction uses underpinning, piling and other structural techniques

that are similar to those used in traditional foundation repair which has led to

several ASUC members being at the forefront of the basement construction

industry.

A major cause of problems with basement construction is the often poor quality

of the contractors undertaking the work. It is difficult for residential owners and

even for construction professionals to be able to assess the quality of basement,

underpinning and piling contractors. Often decisions driven by costs lead to poor

quality contractors being retained who often have a limited approach to health &

safety with short cuts being taken with temporary works, propping and with the

construction sequence. Poor contractors will often also cause excessive negative

construction impact and have little regard for residents in terms of noise,

vibration, dust and traffic management.

Grosvenor Estates, as a direct result of concerns over the quality of basement

construction contractors, now requires that all basement construction work is

completed only by ASUC members.

Membership to ASUC is open to any contractor who meets the entry standards.

However only about half of the contractors who apply reach the required audit

levels across all areas and become members. Members continue to be audited

annually.

ASUC has also been working with the Health and Safety Executive. One initiative

has been the publication of the ASUC Guidelines on safe and efficient basement

construction directly below or near to existing structures. I have attached an

electronic copy of these which we are happy for you to put on your website. The

guidelines are targeted at residential owners as well as at construction industry

professionals.

Reference to the association of structural underpinning contractors added as guidance/ good

practice in section 6.4 and the appendices.

50

In light of the challenges of basement construction in built up areas we would

support any measures to improve the quality and competence of contractors

allowed to work in Westminster. This could be requiring either that all

contractors undertaking basement construction work are:

1. Approved to a specified level, or

2. Members of audited and approved trade associations.

9 Simon Haslam Support the content of the SPD subject to it being implemented wisely. We

support all policy that promotes good basement development.

We consider good basement development to be development:

1. With an acceptable[1] impact on the street scene; ([1] This may be not

significantly harmful, neutral, or beneficial).

2. With an acceptable impact on any heritage assets including, where relevant,

the building itself;

3. With an acceptable impact on the amenity of neighbours and those using the

public spaces around the building including the street;

4. Which promotes, in a proportionate way, sustainable development – in

relation to UK carbon emissions;

5. Which does not cause an unsympathetic alteration to the leafy and well-treed

character of gardens;

6. Which does not cause harm to biodiversity and which takes opportunities to

improve biodiversity.

7. Which incorporates SUDS and deals acceptably with other hydrological

matters;

8. Which is well designed (including protection from flooding and other

technical matters);

9. Which does not cause an adverse impact on the structural stability of any

building, while recognising that planning policy cannot itself prevent a

proposal being implemented in a way which causes an adverse impact on the

structural stability of neighbouring buildings. However, planning policy can

reduce the risk by encouraging the sector to innovate and develop, and to be

organised responsibly.

Soil depth above basements support the requirement that basement

developments under gardens should not harm existing protected trees and should

support; biodiversity, future mature tree growth, green corridors, general

greenification and natural planting. However we consider that the 1200mm soil

and drainage layer, increasing to 1700 soil and drainage layer where large trees

are proposed is excessive.

Noted and support welcomed

Requirements 1-9 are addressed in the guidance.

Soil depth Recommended soil depth is I200m-1500m, including drainage layer of 200mm,

therefore a minimum 1m soil depth plus drainage layer, depending on the site and also taking

into account total volume of soil. This is the standard our tree specialists ask for currently

when determining planning applications to support adopted policy which seeks to protect

trees, support biodiversity, future mature tree growth, green corridors, general greenification

and natural planting and is not new policy. However, the document does state in the majority

of cases, this is what would be needed to support tree growth. The appropriateness is always

considered on a site by site basis. Policy requirements will be considered further as part of

City Plan policy development (separate to this SPD).

Construction: References to ASCU has been added to the guidance but this cannot be a

requirement.

[1] This may be not significantly harmful, neutral, or beneficial.

51

Managing the impacts of construction and Structural Issues We consider that an

important measure to mitigate the negative impacts of construction and of the

risks of structural issues is the quality of the contractors undertaking the works.

This factor has been recognised by the Council’s engineering advisors, Alan Baxter

Associates, and by Grosvenor Estates. Grosvenor Estates requires that all

contractors undertaking basement construction work on their property are

members of the Association of Structural Underpinning Contractors (ASUC). ASUC

is a trade body whose aim is to improve safety, quality and standards in the

underpinning, foundation repair, piling and foundation sectors. Members are

subject to a rigorous technical, health & safety, organisational, training, insurance,

environmental and financial audit before being accepted as members. ASUC

membership is open to any contractor that meets the audit standards.

An option could be for the Council to suggest or require that contractors

undertaking basement construction are members of an approved body such as

ASUC or a body with similar standards.

10 Frogmore

property

A) As I see it there are a number of variables that should be treated separately

and differently, namely where the applicant:-1 is an owner occupier of a

detached property2 is an owner occupier of a semi-detached or terraced

property 3 is “pretending” to be 1 or 2 above but is really doing it to 'as a deal ' to

make a profit and should therefore be expected to make payments under a

planning gain tariff.

B) should create an obligation for the applicant to accompany the application, at

the applicants sole cost, with :-1- a traffic study to take account of how busy the

road is, how restricted the road is, (issues about access for residents and

ambulances and fire trucks etc) and what other construction is taking place or

planned to take place under planning applications/consents for a basement

together with an obligation at the applicants sole expense to repair any damage

to the road.2- an obligation to consider the 'water table' and the effect on

neighbours of the proposed works with a further obligation (in the event planning

is granted and subsequent detrimental issues arise) to remedy any damage that

arises as a result of the works .

C) In addition and where 2 above applies, but still at the applicants sole cost, to :-

1 - undertake a survey of the adjoining/abutting property/ies to establish the

condition . to put up a bond / guarantee to cover the cost of the remedial works

to include the cost of the injured party having to relocate whilst the remedial

works are undertaken . 2 - take account of neighbours living ' the other side of

the wall ' and therefore to have restricted hours of working, particularly

before 9.00 am and after 5.30 pm and particularly at weekends.

D) In respect of point A)3 - where the current s106 triggers aren’t reached and

A) Ownership of the property cannot be considered in determining planning applications.

B) 1 Traffic is considered in the construction management plan and by highways team see

section 6.8, Section 7 and further advice on the issues to be considered in construction

management plan added in to the appendices. Highways do currently take a deposit of

the repair of roads (see section 7). Planning cannot control whether there are other

schemes in the vicinity but we do ask applicants to consider this issue in their

construction management plan. 2 impact on groundwater must be considered as part of

the structural statement, see Section 6.4 and also flood risk assessment is required in

areas of known flood risk (see section 6.3);

C) Covered by the Party Wall Act, see Section 8 of guidance for detail, 2 all basement

applications are currently subject to hours of work restrictions, which preclude weekend

working see section 6.8,

D) These issues are not specific to basement development and cannot be considered under

planning regimes

E) The Party Wall Act is there to facilitate development. Under this act, neighbours may be

entitled to reasonable access to neighbouring land, to facilitate proposed work and the

courts may enforce this. This is also a private matter between neighbours in which the

council cannot intervene and changes to the Party Wall Act would require primary

legislation from central government. Advice on party wall issues can be found in Section

8. However, to ensure these issues are considered, we have added further detail on

52

the applicant is “pretending” to be A)1 or A)2 but is really doing it to make a

profit he should be expected to pay a planning gain tariff - there should be a '5

year ownership ' rule should apply other than in the event of death. If the

applicant sells the property within 5 years from PC, then a bullet payment of pay

(50 % - could be less or more) of the added value after deducting the costs of

creating the extra space should become payable . This would be comparable

with the current 'affordable' policy that is generally applied in Central London.

Basement extensions often take place on sites with severe access constraints, the

applicant may not have sufficient rights of access to do the works without having

to acquire new rights (or prove in court that it has them). Under these

circumstances e costs of both sides should be borne by the applicant. .

importance of considering rights of way/ access for adjoining occupiers to new section on

issues to be considered in preparing construction management plan in appendices.

11 Baroness

Gardner

Strongly support the proper control of basement developments in the city,

particularly in terms of the pre-planning arrangements and the need for a

construction management plan to be submitted with the planning application.

Important point is that the precedent set by adjoining properties should be taken

in to account in considering any new applications as it seems unfair that where

most of the neighbouring properties have already installed basements, or have

permission to do so, it would be unfair to not permit these to a new applicant.

Support welcomed.

Under planning law, each case must be considered on its merits. If a basement under a

neighbouring property has already been granted permission, it is likely that the planning

issues would be similar and a basement may well be acceptable. However, in reaching a

decision the characteristics of the individual site would need to be considered as well as the

cumulative impact of proposals.

12 Anthony

Williams

Fails to understand why you are going through this process yet again, unless the

purpose is either to confuse local residents, or (more likely) to ensure that they

are overwhelmed by the sheer volume of documents, and thus fail to respond.

Agree the process is confusing. However, it is a legal requirement to undertake a 4-6 week

period of further consultation to allow this to be adopted as an SPD, which will make the

status of the guidance clearer in planning decision-making and less open to challenge.

13 David Bennett 1. Technical issues: have already been covered in detailed criticism in previous

feedback as regards subsidence, leakage and flooding affecting adjoining

properties. unless developers can guarantee that these will not happen in the

longer term then applications for excavation in settled residential areas should

be rejected.

The proposal to limit basement developments to a maximum fifty per cent of a

garden as part is unacceptable as it is arbitrary and would still allow large

excavations. The limit should be set at the footprint of a building or at most

three meters from this in exceptional cases.

2. Non technical issues mainly disturbance, from vibration, noise and pollution.

property owners have been granted planning permission to extend beyond the

usual definition of a basement from the lowest part of a building to one

covering up to 85% of a garden and at several levels. This has had the effect of

creating a sharp increase in demand from those seeking large financial gain

from rising property prices and cheap labour rather than based on a lifestyle

choice. These developers ranging from owner occupiers to offshore companies.

should be an immediate freeze on basement planning applications on existing

1. Need for limits will be considered as part of emerging City Plan policy CM28.27 (separate to

the SPD guidance note, which is the subject of this report) comments will therefore be

added to the database to be considered in developing emerging policy. However, this will

need to take into account permitted development which means in some circumstances

excavation beyond the footprint of the building and into the garden would not require

permission (see section 3 of SPD for further advice on permitted development).

2. Lifestyle choices and financial gain are not planning considerations. See advice on what

constitutes a material consideration in the guidance at section 5. The council cannot stop

determining applications as we are required to determine applications that come before us

and if we do not do so then applicants can appeal to the planning inspectorate on the basis

on non-determination and an independent inspector will then make a decision.

3. The draft endeavours to provide helpful advice for residents affected by basement

development and those submitting an application. The NPPF makes clear that SPD must

“help developers to make successful applications” and should not add unduly to financial

burdens on developers.

53

properties which are beyond the footprint and/or at more than one level and

all listed buildings until the Council has a coherent policy.

3. the style of the drafts appears sympathetic to developers and does not

recognize fully the problems for nearby residents from heavy plant e.g drilling,

pile driving, excavators, generators and heavy cement and grab lorries. The

policy should be that those genuinely needing more space relocate and pay the

five or seven percent land transfer tax as is usual. The burden of inconvenience

should rest on the property owner requiring more room not those in proximity.

4.The draft section on disturbance shows a lack of touch with reality quote '

Environmental Health Officers can also take action if noise dust and vibration

reach unacceptable levels'. Comment that this is not usually the case if within

stated working hours. The Considerate Constructors Scheme is equally

ineffective in these situations.

5. Should be appropriate compensation for residents badly affected by

excavations. Suggest rebate of council tax to be recovered from developer and

equivalent in rental value and costs such as service charges during the hours of

work.

4. There is a 24 hour action line for complaints in relation to noise. Even within the prescribed

working hours, noise levels must be kept to acceptable limits. However, process for

improving construction management is being considered further in developing the Code of

Construction Practice, which will accompany emerging planning policy.

5. This cannot be achieved through the planning regime.

14 John Buchanan,

W2

The 50% rule is arbitrary as it does not distinguish between various types of

property, and I use the case of my own basement at 9 Caroline Place as an

example.

The use of lightwells rather than skylights, particularly in back gardens not seen

from the road, should be encouraged in order to provide light, outdoor access and

fresh air to the lower ground quarters.

Noted. Need for limits will be considered as part of emerging City Plan policy CM28.27

(separate to the SPD guidance note, which is the subject of this report) comments will

therefore be added to the database to be considered in developing emerging policy.

Agree that adequate natural lighting should be provided where habitable accommodation is

being placed in basements and the guidance encourages this at 6.1 and 6.7. Requirements for

light must also be balanced against design considerations. Advice in guidance at Section 6.6.

15 Chuck Anderson • There are no photographs of the disruption which outrages local residents

and goes on for years.

• The Council claims it is powerless to refuse such applications on the grounds

that matter most to local residents: disruption. It also asserts that

”government legislation says we cannot consider . . . the number of different

construction projects going on at the same time.” This is lunacy: the effects of

multiple simultaneous projects – not just only local disruption, but alterations

in the water table – are cumulative. They must be considered by someone. If

the Council does not have such powers, should it not be lobbying government

to secure them?

• Extensions are not used to provide extra bedrooms for kiddies, but to

enhance the value of the property by incorporating swimming pools,

gymnasia, cinemas and shooting galleries. It is widely recognised that these

homes are used by extremely wealthy people as an investment currency.

Most are owned by overseas residents who benefit from tax breaks and

rarely visit; they leave their properties in the care of housekeepers while their

• The guidance includes photographs of excavation in progress as well as completed

basements. Planning is focused on design and not construction phases of development, see

advice on material considerations ate Section 5.

• The guidance itself can only set out current council powers and controls and advice on

these issues (section 6.8). The council is also developing a Code of Construction Practice to

mitigate impacts of construction and this will be linked to emerging City Plan policy, which

is being developed separately to this SPD.

• An extension may be used for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling

house and we cannot require it to be for sleeping accommodation. Ownership, the

personal circumstances of property owners cannot be considered in determining planning

application.

54

value steadily increases on the London property market. Where else can your

money earn 10% a year? The effect is to create a dead zone devoid of local

amenities while pricing ordinary people out of the housing market.

16 Sir Hugh

Cortazzi

• Reiterate the importance of the strict implementation of the proposed new

planning guidelines. Basement developments in central London have caused

much grief and disturbance to neighbours. They have also caused

environmental damage and been a source of increasing friction in parts of the

borough. Developers sadly show little or no consideration for residents and

effective enforcement measures are called for.

Agree that this is important. An enforcement officer has recently been appointed with

responsibility for enforcement in relation to basement works. Emerging policy is linked to a

Code of Construction Practice which will seek to bring together the different council units

involved in enforcement.

17 Owen Holdaway

1. I the basement policy should not allow massive underground excavation works

without serious proof that the works will not affect the foundations of the

building and/or it does not cause too many disruptions to residences.

2. with existing basement flats one should have the right to extend and build on

their own exterior space with less interference, providing it does involve

additional excavations. a separate planning pack and guidance needs to be

given for existing basement flats, and their wish to merely extend on their own

outside space. This is the case if it particularly involves building additional floor

space on existing patios. Special consideration for flats that are not street

facing so will not affect the overall aesthetic of the building, even if the building

is listed.

3. The council needs to differentiate between those who already have basement

flat and are not a property developer doing massive underground excavations.

4. The process should be more transparent and quick if residences wish to do

work that does not involve massive structural works and does not take a

considerable period of time.

1. A structural statement is required to demonstrate this. See section 6.4 and advice on

contents of structural statement in the appendices.

2. Work to exterior space of basement flats could also impact on neighbours and needs to be

considered though the planning process to ensure they do not affect adjoining occupiers

amenity or otherwise adversely affect the character of the area. Where a building is listed

the impact on the special interest, historic fabric and structure all needs to be considered.

3. Whether works are undertaken by a property developer or a local resident cannot be taken

into account in determining planning applications.

4. The length of time and process for determining planning applications is prescribed by

central government.

18 James Ingham 1. Section 3 summary is not fully accurate. It is permitted development to

construct a basement beneath the garden of a building, not just under its foot

print.

1. The document provides a link to fuller details on permitted development. The complexity

of this area means it is not possible to provide a complete summary of all circumstances

where permission may or may not be required. However have amended Section 3 to include

55

2. p13 Basement development is often contentious….. Planning policy and

guidance should be driven by the merits and land use characteristics of

schemes and classes of development. Perceptions of development impacts

appear to be the fundamental driver for the production of this document and

the wish to appease residents who live near basement developments.

3. Given the complexity of the basement construction s, it is particularly important

that detailed proposals for all aspects of design and construction are fully

worked up…etc. Basements are no more complex than other construction

projects, and do not require special treatment. Tall buildings do not require

this input at application stage, or buildings with green walls or other innovative

building techniques. Basements do not require to be singled out for special

treatment all of the details that need to be resolved are better resolved under

other statutory regimes such as building control, party wall agreements and

freeholder consent on the large estates.

4. Demonstrate to neighbours details showing structural matters have been

considered by a chartered civil engineer, including the impact on stability of

adjoining properties, on drainage, nearby trees and on boundary walls onerous

to require submission of details. it will substantially delay the preparation of

basement schemes as inevitably those consulted will wish to instruct their own

consultants and engage directly in the scheme design. This is the role of the

LPA not next door neighbours, and this will make the planning process longer,

more expensive and onerous than it needs be for schemes which it should be

stressed by definition are inaudible, invisible, do not cause over-looking or loss

of daylight, sunlight or overshadowing because they are invisible.

5. Validation requirements If these requirements are set out elsewhere they do

not need to be repeated here. Replicating advice and guidance in different

locations adds confusion and complexity and expense to the process as all

sources need to be found and cross checked to make sure they are identical

and don’t contain slightly different versions. p.14 Application checklist Delete

and refer to central checklist of application validation requirements.

6. Advice for neighbours This section should be deleted as it does not constitute

advice on the planning merits of basements. The advice that it does contain is

generic to all developments and basements do not need to be singled out as a

class of development to receive this advice.

7. p.17Section 6 Nothing sets out the positive benefits of basement development

there is no recognition within the document that the major driver for basement

development is the fact that local plan policy is over 1,000 pages in length all of

which combine to make development in other locations difficult or impossible

to achieve. Basements are unregulated and one of the few locations left where

increases in floor space for houses can be added in ways which (temporary

reference to the complexity of permitted development.

2. The purpose of an SPD, as set out in the NPPF, is to help applicants make successful

applications. For a successful planning applications to be made it is important applicants are

aware of the contentious nature of proposals and areas they should consider. One of the

aspects most likely to add difficulty to this process is lack of engagement and discussion with

neighbours. It is therefore crucial to advise applicants of this. However, this is guidance.

3. Our advice from specialist structural engineers (Baxter’s) is that basement construction is

indeed more complicated than above ground construction and that there are different issues

that need to be considered, particularly where this is a residential basement extensions.

Added ref to source of this info. Tall buildings and large redevelopment schemes tend to

attract major contractors who have experience of large scale construction work and are

required to adhere to certain codes of construction. This is not the case for basement

development, which is less regulated.

4. Discussion of structural details with neighbours is not a requirement but something we

strongly advise should applicants wish to minimise delay, difficulties and cost through the

planning and construction process. This information is required for the planning application

and a properly planned project will have these details available at this stage. A party wall

agreement will be required for basement works and these negotiations will therefore need to

take place.

5. The website provides a long list of different types of validations requirements but does

not provide the list of requirements specifically for basement development. The purpose of

this document is to bring together specific information requirements in relation to basement

to avoid the need to consult a wide range of different documents. Applicants can choose not

to use the concise list if they prefer.

6. Other local residents have indicated this section is useful. It is also important for

applicants that residents are aware of what constitute material planning matters and this

issue is particularly problematic for basement development where the number of complaints

and difficulties in relation to damage to adjoining properties and difficulties with aspects of

construction works not enforced by planning is much higher than other forms of

development (see other comments in this table). It is therefore sensible to provide this

information here and should help residents, developers and the planning department in

providing greater clarity on issues which will be considered in determining planning

applications.

7. The document recognises that basements can provide much needed accommodation and

this is noted at 6.7 and throughout the document. Document does not introduce any further

regulation but brings together a list of the relevant adopted policies to save applicants from

looking through the wide range of policy documents and ensure all relevant policies are listed

in one place. Consider that the property market and lack of available space are more of a

driver for basement development than local plan policy.

8. The particular sustainable design considerations in relation to basement development

56

construction effects apart) do not impact on neighbours or the wider

streetscape. Basements should be promoted and encouraged as cost effective

ways of adding more floor space, enabling individuals to add value to their

property and making London a more attractive location for investment.

8. s.6.1 Sustainable Design p.18. this matter is already dealt with by a significant

number of existing policies, further regulation is not required in the form of this

document. These points are common to all development in Westminster and

there is no need to single out basements for special attention in this respect.

These matters will be required by condition anyway so it is onerous to require

this information to be submitted at the application stage. In addition, the

requirement to meet the highest possible standard is vague and imprecise and

sets an unreasonably high threshold to meet even if it can be defined in the

circumstances of a given application.

9. p.19depth and volume of soil, if the 1.5m soil depth is what is required to

achieve drainage and planting then that the advice should make clear that such

basements will be granted permission as by definition they have no adverse

impact on existing site condition or those of neighbours so far as planting or

drainage are concerned. an arboricultural report landscaping scheme, is

reasonable and standard practice for any scheme affecting trees. It is not clear

why basements need additional guidance in this respect.

10. Advice in these pages can be simplified into 3 points: There is a tiny

minority of locations in Westminster where flooding makes basements

unacceptable in principle. There is a substantial area where flooding is not an

issue. In between there is a band where basements must be justified, and this

should be done with the EA. All the other advice repeats policy contained

elsewhere and is a further example of this SPD adding further layers of

complexity where it is not needed. As this matter is already dealt with by a

significant number of existing policies, further regulation is not required in the

form of this document which only adds to multiple layers of policy and further

complexity for applicants, and so should be deleted.

11. Requirement for a structural method statement should be dealt with by

condition. It is unreasonable to require detailed design work and the

production of working drawings to be carried out at risk in advance of the grant

of planning permission. Such a method statement is only required post

planning once the detailed design work can commence, but even then, is better

and more efficiently dealt with by the Building Regulations, The Party Wall Act

and the need to secure consent from freeholders. This whole exercise is a

paper chase which benefits no one, and the cost of which is borne primarily by

the applicant.

12. 6.4 LAND STABILITY, GROUND CONDITIONS AND STRUCTURAL

are set out here. Basement development tends to use extensive amounts of concrete. Extract

larger amounts of spoil and often incorporate the more energy intensive uses associated with

basements uses such as swimming pools and media rooms. Not further regulation but setting

out the applicable policies in relation to basement development

9. Advice is specific to basements, 1.5m soil depth is not required on every site and would

not render a development acceptable, as it would have to also demonstrate it complies with

the other policies set out in this guidance note.

10. The suggested summary is inaccurate, information requirements are wrong and it does

not capture the implications of different types of flood risks in different areas and the

different levels of information that would be required to support this. This is a particularly

significant issue in relation to basement development, and no other document provides

specific advice on basements and flooding. The purpose of this document is to make clear

what all requirements are in one document. Again, this is not further regulation but setting

out the applicable policies in relation to basement development.

11. Current practice and practice across all central London boroughs is to require a structural

methodology with basement applications and an application would not be validated without

one. This information is also available on our website. This is never covered by condition and

structural issues must be considered by the applicant at design stage.

12. This section of the NPPF does not relate to areas which are geologically unstable but

relates to ground conditions and ensuring a development is suitable for its site. This is

particularly relevant to basement development. Applicants must demonstrate that all

development has taken into account ground conditions, land instability and that adequate

site investigation information, prepared by a competent person be provided to demonstrate

these impacts have been understood. It is therefore a requirement to show that an

appropriately qualified person has done site-specific investigation and demonstrated that this

is appropriate for this site given the ground conditions and level of risk. Planning permission

should only be granted where it is clear development is suitable for its site and Baxter’s have

demonstrated there are significant risks associated with basement development in some

locations, which necessitate a level of investigative work not required for other form of

developments. Applicants must demonstrate that this work has been undertaken by an

appropriate specialist.

13. This document sets out how those generic policies apply specifically to basement

development. Where ground excavation is proposed, archaeology is a particularly significant

consideration and is more likely to be disturbed. It therefore needs to be considered in this

document.

14. The submission of construction management plan at planning application stage (not by

condition) is already a requirement for all basement development. This is set out in our

agreed validation lists which have been through public consultation and this is not something

new introduced by the SPD. However, to assist with the level of detail we will expect in a

construction management plan and ensure that this is only requiring information which is

57

ISSUESp.25 The NPPF does not even mention subterranean development.

The reference at para 121 does not deal with subterranean development but

with development in areas which are geologically unstable. This is a

misrepresentation of national panning policy which does not support the

approach taken in the SPD.

13. 6.5 HERITAGE ASSETS/Archaeology &7 USE OF BASEMENTS FOR

LIVING ACCOMMODATION already dealt with by existing policies, further

regulation is not required in the form of this document which only adds to

multiple layers of policy and further complexity for applicants, and so should be

deleted.

14. Construction method and management will need to be considered by the

applicant and their design team at an early stage, and prior to submission of a

planning application. Not clear what a construction management plan can

achieve before planning permission is granted. Post planning via a condition

precedent such a CMS has a valuable function, but prior to this it represents an

onerous paperchase for applicants which is expensive, time consuming and

serves no practical purpose.

15. Works should be carefully planned in consultation with neighbours and

programmed so they can be completed in the shortest time possible. Give

adjoining owners the wrong impression of their importance and role in the

process. It is not realistic to expect that property owners will give control of

multi million pound projects to their next door neighbours. This should be

deleted.

proportionate and reasonable at planning application stage, a list of issues for construction

management plans to consider has been included within the appendices. We have also

included some text to reiterate and explain the need for construction management plans at

planning application stage at section 6.8.

15. The guidance seeks to encourage responsible development and engagement with and

consideration for neighbours and local communities. Although this cannot be enforced, this

will make the development process quicker, easier and less costly for all involved. It also sets

out the powers we do have and will use should the development cause excessive noise and

disruption which adversely affects amenity of adjoining occupiers.

This document brings together details on out our current practice on basement development

and does not introduce any further regulation.

19 Judith Harvey • Supportive of families wishing to extend their homes to provide much-needed

accommodation rather than the swimming-pool-and-gun-room extensions

being created. It is these latter developments about which local residents –

people who actually live in Westminster rather than touching down here – are

least happy about. But the council's guidance document reads like a how-to for

such developments, down to the photo of a new basement leisure centre.

• The council claims it has no legal powers to deal with the matters which worry

residents the most about basement developments, firstly the noise and

disruption of such developments and secondly the reality that parts of the

borough are becoming dead zones with subsequent loss of amenities for the

ordinary people who are still hanging on living in them. Maybe the council feels

as powerless as residents feel when their lives are disrupted by adjacent

basement developments, but I wonder what action it is taking to raise these

issues at a level where a difference can be made?

• Controlling of use of individual rooms in a dwelling house is not be possible through the

planning system if these are for a purpose which is incidental to the enjoyment of the

dwelling house. The photo of the interior of a basement shows a basement which is being

used as a child’s playroom

• The purpose of the guidance is to provide as much information as possible on our current

policies and powers in relation to basement development. It cannot introduce controls, but

this will considered in developing the City Plan planning policy on basements, which is

separate to this SPD. The guidance sets out the range of powers we have to deal with these

issues.

20 Pat Burn Having read your document on basements I would like to say that it is extremely

comprehensive and seems to cover the issues which are a problem for so many

neighbours.

Support welcomed

58

In order to protect neighbours from the excesses of these basement

developments, which cause so much real damage to homes and distress and

anguish to residents, will you be able to insist that these recommendations are

adhered to? And, to ensure that building control is effective so as to produce

quality work during construction?

The document will only be as good as the advice it contains if it is strictly followed

by all concerned. This is vital.

The document is guidance and therefore includes some examples of best practice which is

there for encouragement and not everything within it can be enforced. The emerging City

Plan planning policy (separate to the SPD guidance document) will consider whether

additional controls on basement development should be introduced. The document is a

planning document and is therefore focused on planning rather than building control. It is

also important to note that much of the building control work for the council is carried out by

approved inspectors in the private sector, 70% of projects in Westminster are supervised in

this way.

21 Peter Arnett To the fullest extent possible I would request that planning applications for

excavating new, and extending existing, basements of residential properties in

Westminster should be rejected as the norm and only allowed in exceptional

circumstances. The borough is densely packed and the construction of new

basements is, I believe, inappropriate in such proximity to neighbours.

Suggestions below for a revised SPD.

• Types of development no problem in principle with basements being

excavated as part of large commercial buildings, located away from

residential areas. Excavation under a building such as a small shop in a mixed

business/residential area, such as a high street, should be treated in line with

the principles set out in this letter for residential properties, particularly if the

property adjoins a residential property. Requests that our elected

representatives on WCC refuse to give planning consent for residential

basements in most circumstances.

• Situation in which owner sells the property soon after development, with the

property value enhanced, is particularly undesirable and deserves

appropriate sanctions. Where an owner or property developer creates a new

basement shortly before sale, expects the cost of the excavation to be more

than recouped on sale and most likely would be living elsewhere during such

a development. People make a profit whilst suffering no disturbance,

whereas neighbours have to suffer disturbance and indefinite future risk of

structural failure. WCC should reject their basement planning applications.

Suggest that all basement planning applications are approved on the

condition that the owner posts a bank guarantee in favour of WCC in the

amount of 10% of the expected open market value of the house as at the

time of completion, the bank guarantee is thereafter reduced by 2% of the

expected open market value for each complete year, after five years the bank

guarantee is cancelled. However, if the owner instead sells the property

within that five year period, he must pay WCC between 10% and 0% of the

house value, inversely pro rata to the length of time the property was

Need for limits will be considered as part of emerging City Plan policy CM28.27 (separate to

the SPD guidance note, which is the subject of this report) comments will therefore be added

to the database to be considered in developing emerging policy. The guidance cannot legally

do this and explains and expands on our exiting adopted planning policy.

Noted, the SPD is aimed at small-scale development as suggested and this is explained at

paragraph 1.3.

Property values and ownership are not planning considerations and cannot be included

within the guidance, and many types of development are undertaken to enhance property

values, this is not specific to basement development. See Section 5 which sets out advice on

what are material planning considerations, which we can take into account when determining

planning applications.

Housing we cannot prevent people from seeking to extend their homes for purposes

incidental to the enjoyment of their homes, as long as proposals have an acceptable impact

on residential/ visual amenity etc. This issue is not specific to basements.

Nuisance: appreciate that basement development can cause significant nuisance over

extended period and do require a construction management plan to try and ensure the

applicants have considered how they can reduce negative impacts (see section 6.8). However,

planning is focused on design phase of development impact of construction would not be a

reason for refusing basement development. Better management of construction issues is

being considered in the Code of Construction Practice which is being developed to support

emerging City Plan policy.

Visual impact: Note support for consideration of visual impacts. This guidance is there to

ensure development has a satisfactory appearance once completed. We are required to

59

occupied following completion of the development, or else the bank

guarantee is enforced by WCC.

• Overall undesirability of basement development The SPD makes quite a good

read and raises a number of important issues about basement development,

such as in sections 6.1 “Sustainable design”, 6.2 “Trees, gardens and

landscaping” and 6.6 “Visual impact”. But as a whole, I found the SPD lacking

in vision as to the future state of the borough if basement developments

continue to be allowed now. What about the future in 20, 30 or 50 years’

time when more and more basements start to adjoin each other and the ones

constructed now start to require repair and rectification?

• Housing Basements will bring little extra living space for the community by

comparison. If a basement development cannot benefit the community by

increasing the housing stock, then it can only be for the benefit of the

individual home owner who wants to create extra space. New basements do

not provide additional housing units and do not solve any social problems for

the community. Indeed, they increase the average price of the housing stock

in the borough, which some might interpret as adding to the social problems.

• Nuisance recent approval of a plan to redevelop a Grade II listed building in

Bayswater, involving the excavation of a new second basement level to

accommodate a swimming pool and associated plant; the entire project now

scheduled to exceed two years partly as a result of the volumes of earth

which have to be excavated and the extent of construction underground,

local residents are paying for a completely unnecessary “prestige” element

(the pool) by having to endure two years of noise, dust and unsightly works,

whereas the owner (living elsewhere during the project) will walk into a

finished product and later, perhaps, pocket a handsome profit. WCC needed

to see the extent of the nuisance to neighbours resulting from that particular

basement development.

• Visual impact Pleased to read in the SPD the section on visual impact, which

makes several points about the appearance of lightwells, etc. Agree that the

visual amenity of residents who are able to look into a neighbour’s rear

garden is every bit as important as the visual amenity of other neighbours

who look at the front of a developed property from across the road. But it

would be a lot simpler if we didn’t have to worry about lightwells, escape

hatches, mechanical ventilation and skylights in the first place, through WCC

refusing permission to basement developments as a matter of principle.

• Trees On the subject of trees in section 6.2 of the SPD, I think that the

minimum depth of 1.2m to 1.5m for the topsoil above the top of basement

slab is a bit miserly. Would suggest a figure of 2m to allow for the

development of a mature tree over time.

determine applications submitted to us and I cannot simply refuse these on the basis they

may be visible.

Trees/Soil Depth Recommended soil depth and volume has been arrived at in consultation

with our tree specialists and this is the standard we currently ask for. We agree that the same

depth/volume of soil may not be appropriate in all locations. However, guidance states that

in the majority of cases 1.2m (1m soil plus 0.2m drainage layer) is what is needed to support

tree growth; in some circumstance more will be required and soil volumes will need to be

considered in all cases.

Structural issues: Our technical evidence does suggest that basements can be built in any

location and we require structural statement to ensure this can be done safely. However,

limits on excavation will be considered further in emerging City Plan policy.

60

• Flooding. I own another property in the countryside, which has an extensive

basement and have ongoing problems with water incursion and the

basement has started to flood a couple of times when the pumps failed.

Fortunately I do not have problems with rising damp, although another house

with a basement nearby does. All the builders’ guarantees in the world are

not going to stop newly created basements from becoming a major source of

problems, including water seepage or flooding, in years to come, whether the

problem arises from land settlement, changes in the water courses, major

storms, tree roots or whatever. Basement rectification will be in 50 years’

time like the demolition of tower blocks is now – dealing with a building fad

that has turned into a problem.

• Structural Issues and future problems Not see much in the SPD about the

structural risks of excavating a new building under a residential house. Got

the impression from the SPD that with modern engineering techniques, lots

of concrete and a Party Wall agreement a newly excavated basement was

structurally tried and tested, with no need to worry. My house in Bayswater is

in the middle of a terrace, like many in Westminster. What would happen if

my neighbour were to construct a basement first? There would be a year of

noise, vibration, dust and misery. Then maybe 20 years passes and my house

gets sold to someone who also wants to construct a basement. As he would

be digging next to a void space, wouldn’t the process be a lot more

complicated for his contractors to avoid disturbing his neighbour’s basement

space than it was for the neighbour who had dug first? And how would the

neighbour’s walls have stood up to 20 years of use and decay? For how long

are builders’, architects’ and engineers’ guarantees effective in practice?

These are all potential problem areas that today’s planning committee on

WCC will open up for future generations of Westminster residents if they

continue to allow basement developments. concerned the structural stability

in the future of basement developments decided now, if WCC will not agree

to a near-total ban, could it please consider instead rejecting new basement

developments where the proposed basement is, say, deeper than the

horizontal distance from the basement wall to the boundary of the plot of

land on which it is being dug.

New basement excavations do lead to loss of amenity to neighbours and

excessive development project timeframes. The excavation of new basements is

already causing tensions between residents now, but this will be as nothing

compared to the structural problems that will inevitably arise later as basement

structures decay and nature takes its course.WCC must think deeply about the

future implications of these new housing ideas for the borough and its residents,

61

not simply assess the attractive pictures of bright new underground living spaces

from today’s architects. The risks of excavating new basements can be tolerable in

the countryside or in less densely packed urban areas – but not in Westminster. In

my opinion planning applications for them should, as the norm, be refused.

22 Phillis Sharpe

Welcome this opportunity to make representations on planning policy for the

excavation of additional basements in the borough. I would like to see a policy

which refuses to give planning permission for newly dug basements for the

following reasons:

1. Basement excavations take a long time to complete (some up to 2 years) with

consequent noise from digging and nuisance during the removal of subsoil etc.

making life miserable for all the adjacent neighbours.

2. In this part of Westminster the residential terrace buildings were built in the

mid to late 19th century, often with fairly shallow foundations. Consequently

when a new single or double basement is excavated and tanked, it sets up a rigid

block in the terrace which can result in damaging cracks in the neighbouring

buildings as the equilibrium of the terrace is undermined.

3. Proposals are often made for the creation of basements in the back gardens. If

built these will affect the water levels of the area, causing ground water levels to

rise and create problems in existing houses (our own 1840s coal vault under the

front path has been flooded all winter and regularly floods after heavy rainfall). If

front gardens are destroyed there will be further run-off of storm water into the

already hard-pressed drains in the roads.

Need for limits will be considered as part of emerging City Plan policy CM28.27 (separate to

the SPD guidance note, which is the subject of this report) comments will therefore be added

to the database to be considered in developing emerging policy.

1. Construction management plans are required with planning applications; see advice on

these at section 6.8 of the guidance and the appendices.

2-3 Structural statements are required to consider issues of water table and structural

stability see Sections 6.4 and 6.3, as well as guidance in appendices on detail of structural

statements.

23 Sarah Joiner In the main the document is clear and well thought out. But there are a number

of omissions; the document lacks the human element, it is very scientific and

residents do not get the recognition they deserve.

• Under ADVICE FOR NEIGHBOURS in the section headed Commenting on a

Planning Application: Material Considerations WCC must include the impact

on traffic, road access, parking and servicing DURING the development in its

criteria for comment/objection/support.

• I welcome WCC’s intention to have developers submit the Construction

Management Plan with the Planning Application. That the CMP came later has

been a serious problem in recent years as in a number of cases, it is likely

permission for the work would never have been granted had the full details be

known at the start. The CMP, when it is submitted, must be detailed, accurate,

manageable and enforceable. It must also be time specific.

• Currently CMP requirements are wholly inadequate – WCC needs to set

out the precise information it needs from developers and in exactly what order.

This would enable a planning officer to quickly spot where information is

lacking and be able to work through submitted documents much more

effectively.

This list sets out those details which are material considerations when determining a planning

application. What are and are not material considerations is set out in legislation which

comes from central government. These do not include servicing etc during the development

but only the impact once the development is completed

CMP: additional guidance on CMP added to appendices to try and improve quality of

submissions.

This is guidance. We can only encourage developers to consult with residents and cannot

enforce this. The planning department will, however, always consult adjoining occupiers

once planning applications have been submitted to us.

We cannot legally specify when development should start within a planning permission.

Applicants have three years from the date of approval and can start works at any time during

this period.

62

• Page 13 – The developer is required to show evidence of consultation

as part of the application. What exactly does this mean? How widely do they

consult? At the very least it must be the ENTIRE street in which the work is

taking place PLUS the buildings/properties directly behind the site.

• Page 37 – WCC states it is difficult to know when work will commence

as planning permission is granted for 3 years. WCC must insist that developers

put a realistic timeframe in the application to enable the council to plan better.

• Page 37 – WCC states that it does not have the power to enable the

council to … WCC needs to lobby to get the powers it needs. I find it

unsatisfactory that WCC does not have the wit to link up with all other London

boroughs regardless of party politics and get national government to listen to

them. What is happening in Westminster today will happen in Tower Hamlets

tomorrow and a united front is the only way to move forward. I am sure our

local MPs would be glad to support the local authorities in this endeavour.

WCC has lobbied central government and the GLA on these issues. As this form of

development currently only affects a small number of central London boroughs, it is

generally considered a local issue.

24 Chris Sheppard After reading Basement Development in Westminster I can see that there is a

presumption in favour of allowing the excavation and construction of

basements. I would like to appeal urgently for that position to be changed.

There is no reason to allow residents to build basements or carry out other large-

scale and disruptive work on their houses. Activity that causes the amount of

disruption caused by some of the projects needs to be justified on a case by case

basis. Of course maintenance on older buildings must be carried out, but there

has to be a distinction made between that and simple self-indulgence by the

owner.

No one but the owners of the buildings benefits from the additional space created

and the increase in the value of the property (unless of course the associated

increase in the council tax on the place is enormous). In most cases it is clear that

the person having the work done is not living in the property, but rather is causing

a nuisance which they do not have to put up with themselves. Sometimes it

seems as if there are more builders in St John's Wood during the day than there

are residents.

The guidance note is to set out current powers and in relation to basement development. City

Plan Planning policy is being developed (separate to this SPD) and will consider the

appropriateness of introducing further controls.

25 Sophie Massey-

Cook

The SPD is a well-written and carefully considered document. Detail is given on

the technical and architectural criteria on which basement development

applications will be decided. There is, however, presumption developments

should be enabled and technical issues overcome by the use of sophisticated

engineering techniques. There is a danger that the published criteria may serve to

encourage developers to strive to meet the standards, rather than curb the

number of developments. Westminster Council seems to lack the power, and

possibly inclination, to reject applications on the basis of the disruption which the

excavations cause to neighbourhoods. Planning committees must decide whether

or not specific basement developments are of benefit to the community. Too little

Legislation requires us to prepare policy which is positive and the NPPF states that

supplementary planning documents can only be produced where they will help applicants to

make successful applications.

Disruption: Planning policy and decision-making is focused on the design phase of

development and has limited powers to control the construction phases of development but

there are numerous powers available which can control disruption, the SPD tries to make

clear the range of powers we do have to control and manage construction works. To respond

to significant number of comments received on this issue, section 6.8 have been expanded

and new appendix added on information requirements for the construction management

63

attention has been paid in this consultation document to the disruption and

emotional trauma caused to residents by the scale of developments we now face.

An increasing number of these developments are asset-stripping projects where

buildings are reduced to a cardboard cut-out façade, while soil is extracted for

multiple levels of basement. The destructive nature of these developments needs

to be given thought before we lose too much of our historic Westminster housing

stock. The special architectural or historic interest of listed buildings goes beyond

appearance. It includes the location and hierarchy of rooms and historic floor

levels, foundations, the original purpose of the building, its historic integrity,

scale, plan form and fabric. Consequently, the hollowing out of a building and

addition of new floors underneath the original lowest floor level of a b building

will affect the hierarchy of the historic floor levels, and hence the original

building’s historic integrity. Careful consideration should be given to whether the

purpose of these basement developments will enhance the properties themselves

and the character of the area in general.

Too little consideration is given to the impact of the construction process on the

local neighbourhoods. P.37 states: “It should be noted that the planning system

has limited powers to control the construction process and its impacts, and not all

of these issues will be considered by planning officers” This is an unsatisfactory

situation and Councillors must undertake to seek legislation at a higher level to

rectify this problem. Due to relative values of land/property and construction

costs, only a few London boroughs are affected by the issues of basement

development and that this is not yet an issue of national importance. This makes

it all-the-more important that these issues be dealt with and properly managed at

a local level.

WCC propose to reject applications which seek to extend downwards as a way of

accommodating more households, which is strange given government policy to

provide ever more housing. I do not advocate increasing population density in

inner London, however, providing much needed housing would seem the only

logical argument for allowing these developments. Actually the purpose of these

basements is almost always to provide swimming pools, cinemas and gyms under

already spacious houses - a purpose which is difficult to justify on the basis of

need.

Inner London Councils seem to be standing by whilst wealthy developers treat our

housing stock and residential areas in much the same way as reckless bankers in

our economy. People are able to make eye-watering profits, at the expense of

hard-working and worthy citizens, who have their own amenity chipped away.

John Stuart Mill in “On Liberty” argued for the maximum individual liberty, but set

a limit. “The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make

plan. These issues will also be considered going forward in the Code of Construction Practice

which is being developed alongside the emerging City Plan policy (separate to this SPD).

Historic Buildings: Detail on importance of hierarchy of rooms and architectural and

protecting heritage assets including listed buildings is included in the guidance at Section 6.5.

This refers to protecting location and hierarchy of rooms and historic floor levels,

foundations, the original purpose of the building, its historic integrity, scale, plan form and

fabric. We also require specific specialist accreditation from the structural engineer where

basement developments are proposed under listed buildings.

Housing, the policy does not seek to reject basement extensions for residential purposes but

seeks to ensure appropriate standards of housing and as such self-contained basement

dwellings would not usually be granted permission. However, the use of basement rooms for

swimming pools or cinemas is not something we can control if these are incidental to the use

of the rest of the property as a residential dwelling.

The planning system exists to regulate the development and use of land in the public interest.

64

himself a nuisance to other people.” These basement developments are a huge

nuisance for residents of Westminster and it is not in the spirit of Mill for Planning

Committees to favour the desires of those with greater wealth over the wellbeing

of the rest of the population. I ask the Council to develop policy and make

decisions in the light of Mill’s principle.

26 P Strang No objections to make to the draft circulated and would be grateful for its

acceptance and application as soon as possible.

Noted, support welcomed.

27 V Ashton

Concern about the proliferation of these big basements, the impact on the

neighbourhood. Causes huge disruption for residents and will lead to a

breakdown of the community. Constant noise, lorries, disruption, damage to

roads, trees, water table etc. What once were relatively modest family houses

will become increasingly unaffordable for all but the very wealthy.

Urge the Council

• To keep strict control over these developments.

• To extract substantial fees which will enable the Council to effectively

counteract appeals.

• To restrict the numbers allowed in any one street at any one time.

• To monitor closely the impact on underground water levels, subsidence of

neighbouring properties.

Concerns noted and acknowledge disruption to residents from basement development works

can be significant. Planning policy and decision-making is focused on the design phase of

development and has limited powers to control the construction phases of development but

there are numerous powers available which can control disruption, the SPD tries to make

clear the range of powers we do have to control and manage construction works. To respond

to significant number of comments received on this issue, section 6.8 have been expanded

and new appendix added on information requirements for the construction management

plan.

• Further Controls over basements will be considered as part of emerging City Plan policy

and not the SPD guidance, which this report relates to.

• Fees for planning applications are set by central government. The council has lobbied to

be able to set fees locally but has been unsuccessful.

• See Section 6.8, we have no powers to do this but do ask for information to be submitted

as part of the construction management plan.

• See guidance on structural statements in appendices. The structural engineer is expected

to monitor this as part of works.

28 Victoria Wegg-

Prosser

Would like there to be

(a) more restrictions on Conservation area development (not just those referred

to with regard to St. John’s Wood)

(b) no subterranean basements allowed in mews or cul-de-sacs ( c ) no

permissions granted for basements deeper than one storey

(d) a timeline offered in the document as to when subterranean basements have

been assessed with regard to flood risk / water ingress to neighbouring

properties, how often, and when there will be a full review of the water aspects

connected with subterranean extensions so that the Council can be aware of

developments over time which might otherwise not be noted.

(e) Residents should be able to report concerns over water ingress / problems

with pumps etc to the Council, and this ability to report concerns should be widely

advertised so that the fabric of the City we love is not needlessly endangered

through lack of knowledge about the effects of damage occasioned by water

problems associated with the construction and maintenance of subterranean

A) Development is more restricted within conservation areas where all works have to protect

the distinctive local character and appearance. See Section 6.5 of more detail.

b) and c) In some circumstance this may be permitted development. Restrictions will be

considered as part of emerging City Plan policy development. This report relates to the

guidance (SPD) which explains current powers and policy.

d)Every application is assessed in this way through the structural statement and flood risk

assessment where appropriate

e) Agree it is important to have a system for reporting and monitoring impacts of basement

development policy, and especially any potential impacts on groundwater etc. This will be

considered in the City Plan going forward and have added this to issues to be considered in

developing our revised strategic Flood Risk Assessment and Local Flood Risk Management

Plan. Have also added reference to in SPD at para 5.8 to residents submitting any evidence of

65

basements. concerns/ damage as a result of adjacent basement development.

29 Y Zommer 1. The document is far too complex for the ordinary resident to assess, and many

have commented to me on this.

2. The document, as it is, is mainly technical and therefore does not take into

account the overall impact on the community of these destructive developments.

The cost to a neighbourhood’s infrastructure due to the accumulative wear and

tear of roads etc and the impact on the quality of life for residents due to noise,

dust and vibrations from drilling do not appear to be factored in.

3. The following recommendations should be made in order to have a robust and

worthwhile policy which protects a densely populated urban area such as ours: A.

Basements should be no more than one level below the ground. So any multiple

basements are to be banned.

B. Basements should not exceed more than 50% of the garden.

C. The amount of subterranean space created should not exceed more than 25%

maximum of the original building.

D. The applicant must pay upfront a fee which is worked out as a percentage of

the cost of the proposed construction works and would generated funds to go

back into the community or towards affordable housing. Works out roughly as the

cost of construction and would generated funds to go back into the community or

towards affordable housing. E. The applicant must prove they have lived in the

property for a minimum of three years prior to application. This is in order to

eliminate the speculators, newcomers, non tax-paying developers who's demands

for the media room/swimming pool status symbol currently forces long term

residents to endure damage and disruption.

F. Only council tax payers should be allowed to apply for basement developments.

G. The application must demonstrate the integrity of the area's original

architecture is respected.

H. No basement developments should be allowed in terraced streets as the

structural effect on a row of houses is irreversible.

I. The number of basement developments in a street at any one time should be

limited, as multiple developments are an unfair burden on the other residents.

J. In the case of mews, where there is a limited vehicle access

and no outside private space for lightwells around the buildings,

basement developments must be restricted to one storey only in order to ensure

only proper habitable spaces are created.

1. Other residents have not submitted comments to this effect. While we have tried to

ensure the document is as simple and clear as possible, basement development does raise

technical issues and needs to also include technical information aimed at

developers/consultants/planning officers.

2. See Section 6.8 and Section 7 for info on highways, and section 6.8 and appendices for

detail on construction management.

3. A-B these points are already in the draft City Plan policy which we have also consulted on

(this is separate to the SPD, which includes adopted policy only). C will be considered as part

of developing emerging City Plan policy and not the guidance note, to which this report and

stage of consultation relates. D planning application fees are set by central government. We

have lobbied unsuccessfully for the right to set our own fees. The requirement for affordable

housing contributions could apply to basement development if it is of a sufficient size but

affordable housing requirements are not specific to basement developments. E-F anyone can

apply for planning permission and they do not have to be the owner of the site. This is set

out in central government legislation. G this is current policy see sections 6.4 and 6.5 of the

guidance. H we have obtained advice from specialist structural engineers on this matter and

there is no structural engineering justification for this proposal. I see section 6.8, this is not

possible under planning legislation. However, we do ask applicants to consider this issue in

their construction management plan. J the draft policy seeks to do this

Many of these issues were consulted upon as part of the draft City Plan planning policy issued

in October. These comments will be taken forward for consideration as part of the next

iteration of this planning policy but cannot be included within the guidance note, which sets

out current adopted policy and controls we can use to manage basement development at the

moment.

66

Appendix C Supplementary Planning Document

67

Appendix D: Consultation Statement prepared to accompany SPD at Public Participation Stage

68

Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 Basement Development in Westminster Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), Statement of Consultation, February 2014 This statement has been prepared to accompany the draft Basement’s SPD and to comply with Part 5 Regulation 12 (a) of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. It sets out the details of those people consulted during the preparation of the document and is followed by details of the formal consultation process. Consultation on all SPDs follow procedures set out in Westminster’s adopted ‘Statement of Community Involvement’ (January 2007). 1 Title of the Document: Basement Development in Westminster Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) 2 Purpose and Reasoned Justification for production of the Basements SPD In recent years, there has been a significant increase in applications for basements excavations and extensions. The council is developing a specific planning policy on basements in its emerging City Plan. Until this has been adopted the supplementary planning document aims to provide advice both for applicants wishing to undertake basement development and local residents affected by such works. It aims to

• Explain when planning permission is required and what information you need to submit;

• Explain the current policy framework and how planning applications for basement development will be assessed in relation to this;

• Provide advice on the other regimes used to control basement development and other useful information and contacts.

3. Consultation in connection with preparation of the SPD In advance of the formal period of public participation on our intention to adopt this guidance as an SPD, extensive consultation has been undertaken in relation to this issue. The decision to draft the document was taken following a series of consultation exercises undertaken on our emerging City Plan (November 2011 and 23rd March 2012 and 24th January to 18th March 2011), where the issue of basements was raised as of significant concern to local residents. A draft of a guidance note was prepared taking these concerns into account and this has been subject to a period of consultation, along with the emerging planning policy on this issue, between 10 October and 29 November 2013. During this time, the draft was made available on the Westminster website and placed for public inspection in Westminster City Hall and Libraries. A letter was emailed to 550 consultees inviting comments on the documents and officers attended the

69

surgeries of all the area forums in October and November 2013 with copies of the consultation document. Specific workshops were also held at South and St John’s Wood Area Forums. A number of other meetings were also held with specific stakeholders. 86 responses were received to this consultation, although these do not all relate specifically to the content of the guidance note. 4. Issues Raised Main issues raised in consultation can be summarised as follows:

• Construction impacts and highways issues;

• Structural issues especially damage to adjoining properties

• Concerns in relation to flood risk and hidden rivers;

• Concerns in relation to the role of different council departments with regards to basement works and what planning can do.

These comments have shaped the content of the current SPD, which in particular seeks to provide details of the range of different powers available to the council to tackle this issue, and to provide information which will be helpful both to applicants and to neighbours affected by basement development. All responses received are available for public inspection. 5. Formal Consultation Process on Draft Supplementary Planning Document The Cabinet Member for Built Environment agreed that formal public consultation on the intention to adopt the guidance note as a Supplementary Planning Document on 21/02/2014. The consultation period will last for four weeks from 21/02/2014-24/03/2014. During this period, the revised document will be made available on the council website, at libraries and in City Hall. Consultation notification will be sent out by email to stakeholders who have been involved in the previous stages of consultation on this document. All adjoining boroughs will be consulted as part of the duty to cooperate. 6. Availability of Documents During this period, the draft document will be available online and can be downloaded from the internet at: http://www.westminster.gov.uk/services/environment/planning/permission/basements/. We are currently in the process of upgrading our website and once this new website is live (from March 5th) you will be able to find the documents on the website here: http://www.westminster.gov.uk/basements-planning-policy/. Documents can also be inspected at the main reception, City Hall, 64 Victoria Street, SW1 (Open 8.30am-6pm, Monday-Friday).

70

Hard copies will also be made available at public libraries and provided on request (address for requests below, Part 7). 7. How to comment on the draft SPD Representations on the draft SPD can be submitted in writing during the four week consultation period. Representations should preferably be made by e-mail and submitted to: ldf@westminster.gov.uk Alternatively they can be made by post to the following address: City Planning, Westminster City Council, City Hall, 64 Victoria Street, SW1E 6QP Any representations may be accompanied by a request to be notified in future, at a specified address, of the adoption of the SPD. For further information please telephone: 020 7641 2503 8. Next steps Following public participation, the SPD will be revised to take account of any further comments received and the document and details of all consultation comments and how they have been addressed will be put before the Cabinet Member for Built Environment for a decision on whether to adopt. If adopted, all final documents will be published on the website, alongside the final Statement of Adoption.

71

Appendix E: List of Consultees.

Carlton Hill Residents' Association Abercorn School Ambika House Limited American School in London Ancient Monuments Society One Housing Group Bayswater Residents Association Belgravia Residents Association (James Wright) Belgravia Residents Association(Helen Oratore) Bengali Cultural Association (two consultees) Bengali Women's Group Biomedic Foundation British Buddhist Association Brownie Guide Unit 6th East Paddington Cardinal Hume Centre Caxton Youth Organisation Central and Cecil Housing Trust Walsingham Planning Westbourne Park Family Centre Cosmic (Children of St. Mary's Intensive Care) Cotes House Tenants & Residents Association Covent Garden Community Association (Jo Weir) Covent Garden Community Association (Isabel Lee) DHA Planning (Laura Leatherbarrow) Davis Coffer Lyons Derwent London (Richard Hillebron) Dorothy Gardner Nursery Centre DPDS (Diane Bowyer) Deloitte Real Estate (Rebecca Burnhams) Pimlico FREDA (Moy Scott) Pimlico Toy Library (Maggie Harper) Pursuing Independent Paths Queen’s Park Crèche Queen's Park Estate Society Mary Nicholas Queen's Park Neighbourhood Forum Fitzrovia Court Residents' Association Forsterss Solicitors (Michael Cunliffe) Knight Frank LLP, Martin Fellows Freshwater Court Residents' Association The Garden History Society Great Portland Estates Plc (Toby Courtauld) Grosvenor Ltd (Ian Morrison) Hallfield Estate Residents' Association Imperial College Early Years Education Centre Independent Mothers Pre-School

Jacs Club The Knightsbridge Association Landmark Hotels Loftus Family Property London Borough of Islington London Borough of Wandsworth Go Ahead London LHA London Ltd London Travel Watch London Wildlife Trust Lydford Estate Tenants & Residents Association M R Partnership Malcolm Scott Consultants Ltd Martlett Court Residents' Association Mary Paterson Nursery School Meanwhile Gardens Playhut Medical Foundation For The Care Of Victims of Torture Metropolitan Police Service Pat Youngs Metropolitan Police (Central Traffic Unit) Brian McDonnell Londonewcastle National Grid DPM Consultants Mono Consultants Ltd Ginny Hall Out and About Club Paddington BID Kay Buxton Paddington Waterways & Maida Vale Society Elizabeth Virgo Parkinson's UK Paul Dickinson & Associates Paul Dickinson PCCG Licensing Working Party Matthew Bennett Peacock and Smith Lucie Jowett Reliance Trust Ltd Brian Kingham Residents' Society of Mayfair and St James's Road Haulage Association Ltd Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Preeti Gulatyagi) Alan Baxter and associates (Jim Gardiner) Salvation Army - Edward Alsop Court Sanctuary Housing Association - Dean Abbot House Save London Theatres Campaign Inner London Scope Nor-West Club Shaftesbury PLC Soho Family Centre Soho Society Matthew Bennett SSAFA Forces Help (Westminster Division) St George Central London Limited St James Group Ltd St. Andrews Club

72

St. Christina’s School (RC) St John's Wood Pre-Preparatory School St. Judes Over 50s Club St. Marylebone Society St. Mary's Hospital Estates & Facilities St. Vincent’s Family Project Stephenson Harwood LLP Sustrans Tachbrook Nursery School The Berkeley Group The British Hospitality Association The Central London Gurdwara The Portman Estate The Strand, Aldwych and Trafalgar Square Association The Tree Council Westminster Society Thorney Island Society Travis Perkins (Hanah Bellamy) Trehearne Architects (Tim Kempster) The Twentieth Century Society University of Westminster (Eric Mackenzie) Westbourne Neighbourhood Association (Richard Perkins) Western Charitable Foundation Young England Kindergarten Marylebone Association Stephen Quinn Chris Thomas Ltd The Crown Estate English Heritage Transport for London (TfL) London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) Cluttons LLP (Nigel Abbott) Firstplan (Kate Matthews) Heart of London Business Alliance (Sarah Porter) London Underground Grosvenor (Nigel Hughes) The Royal Parks Agency (Colin Buttery) Abbey Community Association Ltd/South Westminster Action Network Tom Ball Churchill Gardens Estate CityWest Homes Limited eas planning a trading name of Capita Symonds (Stuart Walburn) Corporate Property Division Alan Wharton Rolfe Judd Planning Canal & River Trust London Octavia Housing The Chelsea Society Brent Planning Service North Paddington Society Hyde Park Estate Association St John's Wood Society

South East Bayswater Residents Association (SEBRA) Paddington Residents Active Concern on Transport (PRACT) Westbourne Residents Highways Agency Town Planning Network Rail Atkins Global (Peter Heath) Verizon Jim Igoe Thames Water Utilities Ltd Matthew Bennett New West End Company (NWEC) Richard Garland Essie Graham Westminster Senior Citizens Forum Carers Network Westminster Westminster Property Association (WPA) The Theatres Trust Charlotte Street Association London Diocesan Fund Alan Bradley Crossrail HCA International Ltd Fitzrovia Neighbourhood Association Covent Garden Area Trust Howard de Walden Estates Ltd Meard and Dean Street (David Bieda) Katherine Hosleyns St James's Conservation Area Trust Ms J Young Westbourne Neighbourhood Association Nicholas Evans Victoria Business Improvement District (BID) Fusion Online Ltd Mike Carless, London borough of Barnet Cross River Partnership St Marylebone Society Westminster Senior Citizens Forum GVA Grimley Ltd The Victorian Society The Georgian Group The Portman Group CB Richard Ellis (Keith Hearn) The Curch Commissioners ARUP Richard Coleman City Designer The Roman Catholic Diocese Of Westminster Fitzrovia Trust Sandra Edwards Moreton Triangle Residents Association Moy Scott Cargill PLC SSE Utility Solutions Damien Hutchins Gieves and Hawkes Mark Henderson BLD International Fashion Agency Ltd Julian Sterk

73

Hunza (Peter Meadows) Condici Limited (Miles Fallman) Church Street Library Licensed Taxi Drivers Association Ltd Westminster Amenity Societies Forum (WASF) Natural England Phoebe May University of Westminster (Nick Bailey) Action on Hearing Loss Foundation for People with Learning Disabilities (FPLD) Mental Health Foundation Mind - National Association for Mental Health Spinal Injuries Association (SIA) Arthritis Care CBRE Ltd Caroline Keane Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) GMS Estates Limited London Business School First Base Ltd Victoria Palace Theatre European Land & Property Ltd Turley Associates Grosvenor Ltd Ashley Gardens Residents Association Pimlico FREDA Edward Reeve Langham Estate Management Limited A Liammari Joan Safran Stewart Ross Associates tp bennett LLP (Mike Ibbott) Derek Horne & Associates Ltd Pocket LivingMarc Vlessing Soho Society Foundation for People with Learning Disabilities (FPLD) Mental Health Foundation Colliers International Residents of Carlton House Terrace Westminster Academy Paddington Academy The Inland Waterways Association Andrew Smith London Forum of Amenity & Civic Societies Residents Osel Architecture Belgravia Residents Association Paddington Waterways and Maida Vale Society Churches Together in Westminster Shire Consulting Kensington Society Valentine Montagnani

RNLI Butterfly Conservation Garden Square News Four Rivers Resident's Association Network Stadium Housing Association Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners Royal Albert Hall London Chinatown Chinese Association Stanley Tse Jeffrey Green Russell Limited Andrew Cotton Thornbury Castle Royal Air Force Club Richard Graham TCG Bars Limited Tim Carnegie Drew Planning & Development Ltd The British Antique Dealers’ Association (BADA) Colliers International Beverley Butler Savills (Alex Graham) Kirkwells Quod Tom Vernon NLP Planning (Claire Heathcote) Savills (Tom Elliot) Vern Pitt Scott Brownrigg Natalie Walter ESA Planning Hannah Murray CBRE - Central London Retail Stanhope Plc Jonathan Trout Genesis Housing Group Dominic Whiston Development Securities Plc Simon Hesketh Biomedic Foundation BNP Paribas Real Estate Libraries and Culture The Wigmore Hall Trust Environment Agency (London Office) Bennetts Associates Legal and General Property Shape Arts Subway Gallery Inner North West London PCT's Kensington and Chelsea with Westminster Friends of the Earth Leicester Square Association National Portrait Gallery Jonathan Glanz Patricia McAllister The Belgravia Society Rose Doyle BRE Global Limited Dolphin Square Foundation City of London (Department of Planning & Transportation) Hugh Cortazzi

74

Phoebe May Matthew Ford Outdoor Media Centre Alan Wipperman and Co GMRA Committee British Beer and Pub Association Michael Bolt Quadrant Town Planning Ltd (Louise Morton) St James’s Conservation Trust Grosvenor Gerald Eve LLP Land Securities Group PLC (Robert Noel) Bayswater Village Patricia Bench Mary Travers Qatari Diar (Jeremy Titchen) Planning Potential Ltd (Rebecca Rogers) Savile Row Bespoke (Mark Henderson) Inner North West London PCT's Pimlico FREDA Churches Together in Westminster Joan Safran Kensington and Chelsea with Westminster Friends of the Earth City Of Westminster College Maryland Road Community Association Mayfair Residents Group Brewery Logistics Group Forextra Developments Ltd Cluttons LLP Owain Nedin Paul Wayne CgMs Consulting (multiple emails) Metropolis (Amir Aramfar) CAMRA Moreton Triangle Residents Association Exhitibition Road Cultural Group DP9 (Alex Walker-Robson) Colliers International (Jonathan Manns) DP9 (Angela Parikh) WCC Environmental Sciences Team London Borough of Southwark Simon Tarrant dp9 (Jenny Turner) Baker Street BID Sotheby's McCarthy & Stone Colliers Ltd (Timothy Cakebread) Public Health Intelligence and Social Determinants (Anna Waterman) Iceni Projects Limited (Ralph Salmon) Collins & Coward Limited (Ian Coward) GL Hearn (Simon Taylor) Robert Ward-Booth Basement Force (Simon Haslam) Berkeley Homes (Travis Crawford) Fusion Online Ltd (Sean Wildman)

Soho Estates Ltd (Julian Greenhalgh) Preston Bennett Paul Jenkins Turley Associates Olivia Willsher Paul Kentish & Co Ruth Bloomfield Turley Associates (Will Lingard) Kingly Partners LLP Paul Rowntree Savills (UK) Ltd (Alex Graham) Sanei Hopkins Architects Nicholas Taylor and Associates The Central London Gurdwara Carers Network Westminster PC Dalton Planning Turnberry Consulting Christopher Pattinson Katherine Hosleyns Church street Library Natural England Iceni Projects Ltd Jack Brudenell DP9 (Chris Beard) Carter Jonas Kieron Gregson British Land David Bloy pcdalton consultancy Phillipa Dalton Karen Buck MP P Strang Garden Square News Merritt Thornton Central and Cecil Housing Trust - Dora House Consultants Michael Thornton, IanPhillips DS2 Olivia Binder Pilbrow and Partners Catherine Jenkins Iceni Projects Limited Kieron Hodgson CGMS (Dan Fyall) Daniel Rinsler Kieron Gregson Savills (UK) Limited Joe Haines Joanne Ellingham Strutt and Parker Jennifer Thomas Strutt and Parker Jon Jennings GVA Grimley Ltd Tom Bradfield Savills (UK) Limited Mark Richards Wells Mackereth Architects Martin GL Hearn Greg Taylor Bective Angela McAdam TJR Planning Tracy Rust First Plan Tom Webber HDG Ltd Charlie Hammond GVA Ltd James McAllister Planware Ltd Oliver Mitchell deputy private secretary to the Prince of Wales Jonathan Hellewell Julia.buckley@gmail.com; Julia Buckley MSMR Architects Cranbrook Basements (D Kavvanagh, K O’Conner) Brick Court Chambers

75

Mary Ardant Bayswater Residents Association Rose Doyle Cotes House Tenants & Residents Association Peacock and Smith Dp9 (Jennie Turner) Save London Theatres Campaign St George Central London Limited St. Jude’s Over 50s Club All Westminster Councillors John Walker, Development Planning, Westminster City Council

Barbara Terres Environmental health, Westminster City Council Anthony Deroche, Highways, Westminster City Council Jonathan Rowing Westminster City Council Sean Dwyer, Highways Planning, Westminster City Council Barbara Milne, Tree Officer, Westminster City Council Tony Fenton, District Surveyor, Westminster City Council

76

APPENDIX F: Strategic Environmental Assessment Screening Report and Determination

77

Westminster City Council Basement Development in Westminster Supplementary Planning Document Screening Report on the need for Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the Draft Basement Development in Westminster Supplementary Planning Document, August 2014, under Regulation 9 of the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004. 1 Introduction 1.1 Westminster City Council has prepared a draft Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Basement Development in Westminster, in order to provide more detailed advice and guidance about a number of adopted policies in Westminster’s Development Plan and how we will apply these to help applicants make successful applications for basement development which will contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. This screening report explains the process the City Council has used to determine whether or not the contents of the Basement Development SPD require a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and sets out its determination, in accordance with the European Directive 2001/42/EC and the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004, and taking into account advice in the government’s Planning Practice Guidance (2014). 1.2 The Basements SPD has been prepared to provide more detailed advice and guidance about adopted policy in Westminster’s development plan, which includes the following planning development documents:

• Westminster City Plan: Strategic Policies (2013);

• Saved Policies in the Unitary Development Plan (2007);and

• The Mayor of London’s spatial development strategy (the London Plan) (2011 and as subsequently altered) All of the policies in the documents making up the council’s development plan have been subject to a full Sustainability Appraisal. The draft Basements SPD explains how a number of these adopted policies apply to basement development, in particular Westminster City Plan: Strategic Policies: Sustainable Design (S28), Health Safety and Wellbeing (S29), Heritage (S25), Flood risk (S30), S31 (Air quality), Biodiversity and green infrastructure (S38) as well as London Plan policy on Quality and Design of Housing Developments (3.5), Sustainable Design and Construction (5.3), Urban Greening (5.10), Geological Conservation (7.20) and Flooding and Sustainable Urban Drainage (5.12 and 5.13), as well as a number of saved policies in the UDP and advice in the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. A full list of policies is set out in the SPD itself.

1.3 The legislative background set out below outlines the regulations that require the need for this screening exercise. Section 3, provides a screening assessment of the likely significant environmental effects of the SPD and the need for a full SEA. 2 Legislative Requirements for SEA

78

2.1 The basis for Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Sustainability Appraisal (SA) legislation is the European Directive 2001/42/EC on ‘the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment.’ It is known as the ‘SEA Directive’. The SEA Directive was transposed into English law by the Environment Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004, or the ‘SEA Regulations’. Detailed guidance on these regulations can be found in the Government publication ‘A Practical Guide to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive’ published in September 2005. 2.2 It is considered best practice to incorporate the requirements of the SEA Directive into an SA. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 required local planning authorities to prepare an SA for each local development document (see section 39(2)). The Planning Act 2008 subsequently removed the requirement to undertake an SA for a Supplementary Planning Document (Part 9, Chapter 2, paragraph 180 of the 2008 Planning Act amended section 19, subsection 5 of the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act). However, an SEA may still be needed, as the requirement to undertake SEA applies to plans and programmes which are subject to preparation or adoption by an authority at a local level. 2.3 The fundamental consideration in making this decision is whether the document may have ‘significant environmental effects’. The best way to determine this is to carry out a screening procedure. The Council must consult three statutory bodies on the SEA screening: Natural England, English Heritage and the Environment Agency. The next section of this paper therefore sets out the SEA Screening of the proposed SPD. 3 Screening 3.1 The ODPM practical guidance provides a checklist approach based on the SEA regulations to help determine whether SEA is required. This guide has been used as the basis on which to assess the need for SEA as set out below.

79

Taken from: A Practical Guide to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive (2005) ODPM-p13

3.2 Table 1 below sets out the 8 questions identified in the diagram above and sets out the determination of the City Council on each with regard to the proposed SPD. Establishing the need for SEA

Table 1 Stage Answer (Y/N)

Reasons Next step

1 Is the SPD subject to preparation and/or adoption by a national, regional or local authority OR prepared by an authority for adoption through a legislative procedure by Parliament of Government (Article 2(a))

Y The SPD is to be adopted by Westminster City Council.

Proceed to question 2.

2 Is the SPD required by legislative, regulatory or administrative provisions? (Article 2(a))

N The SPD is not required but has been prepared to provide more detailed advice

Proceed to question 3.

80

and guidance on current adopted policy and its application to basement development. The process for preparing SPDs is set out in the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2012.

3 Is the SPD prepared for agriculture, forestry, fisheries, energy, industry, transport, waste management, telecommunications, tourism, town and country planning or land use, AND does it set a framework for future development consent of projects in Annexes I and II to the EIA Directive? (Art. 3.2(a))

Y (to part 1) N (to part 2)

The SPD will be for Town and Country Planning purposes. The framework for future development consents of projects listed in Annexes 1 and 2 of the EIA Directive is set by the higher level of policy and the SPD provides guidance/advice on this.

Yes to one criteria, go to question 4.

4 Will the SPD, in view of its likely effect on sites, require an assessment under Article 6 or 7 of the Habitats Directive? (Article 3.2(b))

N A Habitats Regulation Screening Assessment was prepared for the City Plan: Strategic Policies and concluded that no significant effects would occur on European sites. As the purpose of this draft SPD is to expand on adopted policies, the council has determined that a HRA is not required.

5 Does the SPD determine the use of small areas at local level, OR is it a minor modification of a plan subject to Article 3.2? (Article 3.3)

N The draft SPD/guidance does not determine the use of land or allocate land or identify sites for housing. It is not a minor modification of development plan policy , but provides guidance on and explains existing adopted policies.

6 Does the SPD set the framework for future development consent of projects (not just projects in Annexes to the EIA Directive)? (Article 3.4)

Y The development Plan policies which the SPD expands upon set the broad framework for future development consents. The draft SPD/guidance will provide additional guidance on the interpretation and practical application of these policies, and as such could be seen as part of the framework for development consent of basement projects.

Proceed to question 8.

7 Is the SPD’s sole purpose to serve the national defence or civil emergency, OR is it a financial or budget plan, OR is it co-financed by

N/ N/A N/A

81

structural finds or EAGGF programmes 2000-2006/7? (Article 3.8, 3.9)

8 Is it likely to have a significant effect on the environment? (Article 3.5)

N No. The purpose of the SPD is to provide guidance to assist in the interpretation of adopted development plan policies. the aim of which include the promotion of exemplary standards of sustainable design and protecting the amenity of local residents and businesses. Given this, it is the policies that will have significant (positive) environmental effects rather than the SPD which merely provides more detailed guidance/advice (including on procedural matters and providing information about sources of further advice) rather than the SPD. The policies to which the guidance relates were subject to SA and SEA through the Core Strategy and London Plan preparation processes. The draft SPD is will not in itself have any significant effects on the environment. In coming to this view, due regard has been had to Annex II of the SEA Directive (2001/42/EC). The considerations of Annex II (2)1 were fully examined as part of the SA report for the adopted Development plan policies. See table 2 below for detailed reasoning.

Directive does not require SEA

3.3 Table 2 below sets out the criteria for determining the likely significance of effects on the

environment taken from Schedule 1 of the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 and applies them to the proposed Basement Development SPD.

Assessment of the likely significant effects of the SPD/ guidance

Table 2 Criteria for determining the likely significance of effects on the environment from Schedule 1 of the Environmental

Assessment

82

Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 Criteria (from Annex II of the SEA Directive and Schedule 1 of Regulations)

1. Characteristics of the SPD, having regard, in particular to:

1a The degree to which the plan or programme sets a framework for projects and other activities, either with regard to the location, nature, size and operating conditions or by allocating resources.

The SPD will not set a framework for the allocation, size, activity or operating conditions of development within Westminster. The overarching framework is set out in higher level policy and the SPD will provide additional guidance on the existing policies these include (which have already been subject to SA and SEA). The SPD will provide advice and guidance on this framework for basement development projects but this will be a finer grain of guidance on existing policies, which do not extend the purpose of the parent policies.

1b The degree to which the plan or programme influences other plans and programmes including those in a hierarchy

The SPD will have less material weight than the London Plan, City Plan: Strategic Policies and Unitary Development Plan which have statutory development plan status. It only expands upon existing adopted policies and will not be able to introduce new policies. The SPD will be at the bottom of this hierarchy and will have no impact on those documents above it as it cannot introduce new policies not already contained in higher order plans.

1c The relevance of the plan or programme for the integration of environmental considerations in particular with a view to promoting sustainable development

The SPD/guidance will help with the delivery of plan policies and encourages development proposals to incorporate sustainable design, to help reduce the environmental impact of basements and enhance quality of life. These objectives are enshrined in national guidance and the SPD/guidance provides guidance on how this can be achieved and is intended to promote achievement sustainable development by ensuring that development fulfils the economic, social and environmental dimensions set out in higher level policy.

1d Environmental problems relevant to the plan or programme

The SPD itself will not result in any environmental problems beyond those already identified in the SA for the City Plan: Strategic Policies. Those which were highlighted through the Sustainability Appraisal and are particularly applicable to basement development are as follows: 5) need to reduce greenhouse emissions and support climate change adaption 7) need to reduce flood risk 8) need to protect and enhance and create environments that encourage and support biodiversity 9) need to improve air quality 13) need to conserve and enhance the historic environment and architectural, archaeological and cultural heritage. All of these environmental issues are addressed through current adopted policy and the SPD provides guidance to support these adopted policies and explain

83

how these can be applied to basement development to mitigate environmental impacts and problems, particularly associated with basements including flooding, land instability, loss of trees and vegetation and potential for damage to heritage assets.

1e The relevance of the plan or programme for the implementation of [European] Community legislation on the environment (for example, plans and programmes linked to waste management or water protection)

The SPD and its parent plans fully comply with relevant European Union and national legislation and requirements.

2. Characteristics of the effects and of the area likely to be affected [by the SPD], having regard, in particular, to:

2a The probability, duration, frequency and reversibility of the effects

It is anticipated the SPD will have positive effects on the sustainability of the City by providing guidance to support adopted policies by showing how these apply to basement development and allow the preparation of successful planning applications which will assist in the achievement of sustainable development. However, it is not considered any effects will be significant in magnitude and these will not go beyond national and local policy frameworks.

2b The cumulative nature of the effects Through providing clear guidance on adopted policy, the SPD will result in gradual delivery of better designed more sustainable basements. Although this effect should be positive, it is not considered to be significant in its magnitude and does not go beyond national and local policy frameworks. The cumulative impact of basement development on groundwater is frequently raised. Current policy on flooding seeks to ensure that flood risk is taken into account and new development should not increase the risk of flooding and the SPD provides further guidance on how this relates to basements to reduce potential cumulative impacts.

2c The trans-boundary nature of the effects

None.

2d The risk to human health or the environment (for example, due to accidents)

Should have a limited positive impact by providing clear guidance on adopted policy and ensuring potential negative impacts of basement development on residential amenity (including through impact on noise, air quality etc) have been mitigated.

2e The magnitude and spatial extent of the effects (geographical area and size of the population likely to be affected)

The SPD applies to the whole of Westminster although basement development tends to be concentrated in limited parts of the City and any influence will be at a local level. Although it recognises that the character of different parts of Westminster should affect the approach, the SPD/guidance is provided in the form of general principles to improve the quality of design of basement development and provide additional clarity on existing policies that set the strategic policy framework. The guidance itself is not site-specific, nor does it set

84

alternative approaches to different spatial areas. The SPD/guidance does not allocate land, specify land uses or identify sites for development.

2f The value and vulnerability of the area likely to be affected due to: i) Special natural characteristics or cultural heritage; ii) exceeded environmental quality standards or limit values; or iii) intensive land-use

The SPD explains the adopted policies within the existing Plans and help deliver sustainable development.. The SPD/guidance encourages important and valued natural and built assets to be safeguarded, retained and incorporated within developments (rather than lost) and to maintain their settings where appropriate). This is in accordance with adopted policy. By promoting consideration of the environmental context and higher standards of design it is not considered this will have a significant effect beyond those of the parent policy, which promotes exemplary standards of sustainable design (City Plan: Strategic Policies S28). The SPD itself does not allocate land and will not result in any additional development or identify land uses.

2g The effects on areas or landscapes which have a recognised national, Community or international protection status.

There is a significant concentration of heritage assets across Westminster. These are protected through adopted policy and The SPD provides further guidance on the implementation of policy in relation to basement development.

4. Conclusions and Reasons for determination 4.1 On the basis of this screening process the City Council has determined that the Basement Development in Westminster SPD would not be likely to have significant environmental effects in itself. In coming to this conclusion regard has been had to the fact that the SPD will not have effects beyond those of the ‘parent’ policies in the Council’s adopted development plan which have themselves been subject to sustainability appraisal. In view of this conclusion, the Council has determined that the SPD does not require a Strategic Environmental Assessment or a Sustainability Appraisal. In reviewing these criteria the Council has been mindful of all relevant considerations, and the following in particular: a. The SPD/guidance would be applicable across the whole of the City of Westminster but would only apply to proposals for new basements, which tend to have limited local effects. b. The SPD/guidance will provide guidance and add clarity on the existing and proposed design policies of the relevant adopted development plan Policies. c. The SPD/guidance does not present any new policies, does not amend any existing policies, nor allocate sites for any specific use.

85

d. The SPD seeks to guide design process to ensure development proposals have regard to the site characteristics and constraints, as well as those of the immediate wider context. e. It sets out general good practice, that are not place or location specific, and which will assist in delivering better designed more sustainable places and help applicants to make successful applications. f. The SPD guidance does not create or raise any trans-boundary issues. 4.2 The City Council has consulted with the three statutory environmental bodies – English Heritage, the Environment Agency, and Natural England. Each of the consultation bodies confirmed they were happy with the screening exercise and commented as follows: English Heritage As a statutory consultee in respect of the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of plans we are pleased to review this document to ensure that the protection of the historic environment has been appropriately considered. Having done this, we advise that we concur with the City of Westminster’s conclusion that the SPD does not present new policies; amend any existing policies; or allocate land; and will not result in any additional development or identify land uses. For this reason, English Heritage is satisfied that the SPD itself cannot produce significant environmental effects on the City of Westminster’s historic environment and therefore does not require SEA. Environment Agency

Confirm that, given the nature of the SPD, we do not wish to make a response to the screening report. Natural England Natural England does not consider that this Supplementary Planning Document poses any likely or significant risk to those features of the natural environment1 for which we would otherwise provide a more detailed consultation response and so we do not wish to make any substantive comments on this consultation. The approach and methodology used in the Screening Report are acceptable to Natural England an in line with advice that would be offered by us. Therefore, Natural England can also agree with the conclusion that in this instance and in respect of this document, which clarifies and reinforces higher level policies, a Strategic Environmental Assessment is not required. .

86

For completion by the Cabinet Member for Built Environment Declaration of Interest I have <no interest to declare / to declare an interest> in respect of this report

Signed: Date:

NAME:

State nature of interest if any HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH..HH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.. (N.B: If you have an interest you should seek advice as to whether it is appropriate to make a decision in

relation to this matter) For the reasons set out above, I agree the recommendation(s) in the report entitled Adoption of Basement Development in Westminster as a Supplementary Planning Document: Hand reject any alternative options which are referred to but not recommended. Signed HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH Cabinet Member for Built Environment Date HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH If you have any additional comment which you would want actioned in connection with your decision you should discuss this with the report author and then set out your comment below before the report and this pro-forma is returned to the Secretariat for processing. Additional comment: HHHHHHHHHHHHHH.HHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH..HHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.HHHHHHHHHHH. If you do not wish to approve the recommendations, or wish to make an alternative decision, it is important that you consult the report author, the Head of Legal and Democratic Services, Strategic Director Finance and Performance and, if there are resources implications, the Strategic Director of Resources (or their representatives) so that (1) you can be made aware of any further relevant considerations that you should take into account before making the decision and (2) your reasons for the decision can be properly identified and recorded, as required by law.

87

Note to Cabinet Member: Your decision will now be published and copied to the Members of the relevant Policy & Scrutiny Committee. If the decision falls within the criteria for call-in, it will not be implemented until five working days have elapsed from publication to allow the Policy and Scrutiny Committee to decide whether it wishes to call the matter in.