MAPPING SUBTERRANEAN LONDON: The Hidden Geography of Residential Basement

MAPPING SUBTERRANEAN LONDON: The Hidden Geography of Residential Basement Developments 2008-2017.

Linked Research Sophie Baldwin: 120054615 Elizabeth Holroyd: 120545962

2

Contents

1. Glossary of Key Terms

5

2. Introduction

6

3. The London Boroughs

9

4. Methodology: The Data Collection

11

5. Basement Typologies

19

6. Kensington and Chelsea

37

7. City of Westminster

47

8. Hammersmith and Fulham

57

9. Islington

65

10. Camden

75

11. Haringey

85

12. Overall Analysis

92

13. The Effects

110

14. Reflection

112

15. Bibliography

114

See supplementary document for appendix.

See USB stick for all data.

3

4

1. Glossary of Key Terms

Terrace House - A house forming part of a continuous row.

Detached House - A house which is not joined to another on either side.

Semi-Detached House - A house joined to another on one side only by a common wall.

Basement Development - Any excavation to form new or additional floor space under the ground level of an existing property or within its curtilage and under its garden. It may also include basements which are part of new build development.

Small Basement - Up to 3 metres in height under the footprint of the house.

Medium Basement - 3-6 metres in height under the footprint of the house, or 3m in height under the footprint of the house and extended under the garden.

Large Basement - Greater than 6 metres in height under the footprint of the house, or 6m in height under the footprint of the house and extended under the garden.

Prime Borough - A main administrative division of London, which for the purpose of this report include The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and The City of Westminster.

Inner Borough - An administrative division of London further from the centre than the Prime Boroughs, which for the purpose of this report include; Hammersmith and Fulham, Islington, and Camden.

Outer Borough - A administrative division of London furthest from the centre, which for the purpose of this report includes Haringey.

Planning policies - A definite course of action created by the government or an institution in the light of given conditions to guide and, usually, to determine present and future decisions regarding planning applications.

Party Wall - A wall that stands on the land of two, or more owners.

Alpha Territories - A label within the Mosaic geodemographic system for postcodes containing the wealthiest individuals in the UK. Plutocratic London - A term used by some critical theorist to describe the manner in which London has been reshaped by the interests of powerful wealth-elites.

Transnational Elite - a group of individuals with immense amounts of wealth who live and work and have influence in myriad locations across the globe.

Golden Postcodes - Streets which include properties with the highest average value.

5

2. Introduction

“Inequality is all around. You can rage at the phenomenon of young people, unable to afford sky-high London rents, cramped into one shared room, while the super-rich dig down under their homes or buy the house next door to expand their living space.” 1

This report sets out to explore the extents of a new subterranean architecture within the ‘golden postcodes’ of plutocratic London. The 2008 financial crash resulted in widespread austerity yet also saw large increases in wealth in the property market. This encouraged the notion of housing no longer being deemed as a human right,2 or for the purpose of social good, but as a “safety deposit box”3 for the alpha elites. This project, working alongside the British newspaper, The Guardian4 intends to expose the extravagant trend in basement developments commonplace within the alpha territories of many centrally located London boroughs.

London has been argued to be the destination of choice for the super-rich and has been recorded as the “world capital” for money laundering and corruption.5 Respectively, London as a city provides the landscape for financial elite to “enjoy luxury lifestyle and cleanse their reputations”.6 Knight Frank, a well known London property agent, crowned London property the most sought after in the world (2016), with the title of the most important location to Ultra High Net Worth Individuals.7 An Ultra High Net Worth Individual (UHNWI) has been defined as someone with a wealth of £24.2 million ($30 million) or more, a sum including business interests, investments and property, but excluding their main home.

Despite threats of Brexit, it is still argued that London will remain a “magnet”, and in the European context, the dominant city for the super-rich.8 London, as a city, is now home to the highest number of billionaires, 86, followed by New York with 74 (2017).9 Additionally it has been predicted that the number of UHNWI in the UK is due to increase by 30%, to a total of 12,310 by 2025.10 The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea alone, is known to home around 4,900 UHNWI’s.11 The large number of transnational elites, with property assets in prime London boroughs causes a ripple effect over the entire city as the merely-wealthy are displaced by the super-wealthy, and so on. This pushes people and families on lower incomes to the outskirts of the city, with many cases out of the capital completely.

Due to strict planning policies on the housing market in London, with restrictions in place on both lateral and vertical construction, the super-rich are combating this by building down. Resultantly, there has been a surge in the construction of a range of basement

1

<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/19/inequality-threat-recovery-poverty-pay:> [Accessed on 30/05/17] Articled 25, the right for adequate housing. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 <http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_ Translations/eng.pdf> [Accessed on 20/12/17] 3 Anna Minton, ‘Big Capital, Who is London For?’ 2017. pg xiv. and Fernandez, R. Hofman, A and Aalbers, M ‘London and New York as a Safe Deposit Box for the Transnational Wealth Elite’ 2016.

4 The Guardian is a well-known British newspaper for its liberal values, founded in 1819 under the name ‘The Manchester Guardian’, changed simply to The Guardian in 1959.

5 Anna Minton, ‘Big Capital, Who is London For?’ 2017. pg 1 6 Transparency International, ‘Paradise Lost: ending the UK’s role as a safe haven for corrupt individuals, their allies and assets’ April 2016. pg 2. <http://www.transparency.org.uk/publications/paradise-lost/#.WjqABbacab8> [Accessed on 20/12/17] 7 Knight Frank, ‘The Wealth Report’ 10th Edition, 2016. pg 36. <http://content.knightfrank.com/research/83/documents/en/wealthreport-2016-3579.pdf> [Accessed on 20/12/17] 8 <https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/01/london-to-remain-a-magnate-for-global-super-rich-despite-brexit-knight-frank> [Accessed on 20/12/17] 2

6

sizes, from the ‘typical’ one or two stories, to immense ‘iceberg’ basements. One company which delivers such excavations, The London Basement Company, reported in 2008 a 30% increase year-on-year.12 The rise in basement projects seems to align with the increase in construction size. The average new floor space created in 2004 was around 400 square foot, which by 2008 had risen to 700.13 Within prime locations of London, both the City of Westminster and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) have seen a major rise in subterranean excavations between 2008-2016. During this period, RBKC alone granted 1055 basement excavation applications.14 With such an increasing trend in subterranean excavation, the projects have inevitably not gone unnoticed. Tim Coleridge former RBKC’s cabinet member for planning policy stated that “basements have been the single greatest planning concern our residents have expressed to us in living memory.”15 The main priority of this report therefore is to provide the exact data information of subterranean excavations in the prime and subprime London boroughs. The study focuses on the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, the City of Westminster, Hammersmith and Fulham, Camden, Islington and Haringey. Collecting information on the scale, location, house type, architect/designers, and development amenities, we aim to provide the factual platform to be able to discuss further the effects that the ultra-wealthy and basement developments are having on London as a city, from local planning policies to the widespread displacement of individuals.

The report initially declares the methodology in chapter 4 of how the database has been recorded which moves into the specifics of the types of basement excavations in chapter 5. This is followed by an investigation of each borough separately with maps and graphical representations of the data. Chapter 12 provides information on the overall collection of data and thus a comparison between the six London boroughs. With the data gathered for this report, it is possible to examine further the potential effects of multiple subterranean developments, with topics of interest posed in the following chapter, 13.

Although the linked research submission,16 of which this report is a part of, suggests a completion of the project, the database that we have created in fact provides the outset for further analysis and future routes of study and enquiry.

9

The Sunday Times, ‘Rich List 2017, the division of wealth’, <https://nuk-sto-editorial-prod-staticassets.s3.amazonaws.com/ SundayTimesGraphics/Rich-List/2017/rich-list-2017/division-of-wealth/index.html> [Accessed on 20/12/17] 10 Knight Frank, ‘The Wealth Report’ 10th Edition, 2016. pg 22. <http://content.knightfrank.com/research/83/documents/en/wealthreport-2016-3579.pdf> [Accessed on 20/12/17] 11 Anna Minton, ‘Big Capital, Who is London For?’ 2017. pg 10 12 Stephen Graham, ‘Vertical’ 2016. pg 314 13 Ibid. pg 314 14 Results from our data, see figure 6, chapter 12.

15 <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/25/kensington-palace-mega-basement-plan-angers-neighbours-claim/:> [Accessed on 30/05/17] 16

Linked Research is a module on the MArch course at Newcastle University where students undertake research with a member of staff.

7

30

31 32

29

28

26 24

33

12

11

13 3

7

14 5

15

16

25 27

8

1

2 4

9

10

22 23

6

21

17 20 18

19

Map of the London Boroughs

1. City of London (Not a London Borough) 2. City of Westminster 3. Kensington and Chelsea 4. Hammersmith and Fulham 5. Wandsworth 6. Lambeth 7. Southwark 8. Tower Hamlets 9. Hackney 10. Islington 11. Camden 12. Brent 13. Ealing 14. Hounslow 15. Richmond Upon Thames 16. Kingston Upon Thames 17. Merton

8

18. Sutton 19. Croydon 20. Bromley 21. Lewisham 22. Greenwich 23. Bexley 24. Havering 25. Barking and Dagenham 26. Redbridge 27. Newham 28. Waltham Forest 29. Haringey 30. Enfield 31. Barnet 32. Harrow 33. Hillingdon

3. The London Boroughs

The year 2017 marked a record of 134 billionaires living in the UK, worth a total of £418.817bn, compared to £355.033bn in 2016.1 Although the UK ranks third in the number of sterling billionaires per country, US in first place with 445, London is home to the greatest number of sterling billionaires per city, 86.2 Additionally, Greater London hosts the highest number of millionaires within the UK, reaching 436, followed by the south-east region with 129. Despite threats of Brexit, London remains the city of choice for the financial elite.3 London has become the transglobal hub for the super-rich, with the highest recorded number of high-net-worth-individuals (HNWI) moving into the country; 125,000 between 2002-2015, followed not-so-closely by the US with 52,000.4 The uber-wealthy are attracted to London for its favourable tax environment,5 alongside many other factors such as the ease of travel from a centrally located position, and the high quality of schools and universities. London property has increasingly become a value container for the alphaelite, especially within the ‘golden postcodes’ which make up plutocratic London.

With land as a scarce commodity, and strict planning restrictions on both lateral and vertical extension of existing properties in London, the super-rich are building down, creating a trend in subterranean construction. Planning policy in the UK has evolved to monitor construction above-ground, with policies designed to negotiate issues such as visual impact, character of properties, views from and of properties, density of developments and the open space between buildings. As a result, extensive policies on basement excavations have not previously been required. The increase in area per property, by a subterranean development, subsequently strengthens the financial asset.

The influx of transnational elite with property assets in the prime London boroughs has inevitably caused a rippling effect on house prices over the entire city. This results in people with lower incomes being pushed further out of the city. London house prices have been recorded as nearly 12 times the average earnings,6 with the private housing stock being worth £1.27 trillion, as of 2016.7 This is an increase of 529% over a twenty year period.8 Unsurprisingly, the prime territory of The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea holds the highest average house price of £2,407,461, as of June 2017.9 This is followed by, The City of Westminster, Camden, and Hammersmith and Fulham, making up the top four most expensive areas in London.10 This report concentrates on collecting information on subterranean construction taking place within the ‘prime’ boroughs11 of Kensington and Chelsea and The City of Westminster, the ‘inner’ boroughs12 of Camden, Hammersmith and Fulham, and Islington, and the ‘outer’ borough13 of Haringey. By focusing on this cluster of six London boroughs the data will begin to show trends in basement excavations.

1

<https://nuk-sto-editorial-prod-staticassets.s3.amazonaws.com/SundayTimesGraphics/Rich-List/2017/rich-list-2017/division-of-wealth/index. html> [Accessed on 02/01/18] 2 Ibid. [Accessed on 02/01/18] 3 <https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/01/london-to-remain-a-magnate-for-global-super-rich-despite-brexit-knight-frank [Accessed on 02/01/18] 4 <https://www.gaystarnews.com/article/london-is-the-city-of-choice-for-millionaires-moving-abroad/#gs.5q6YH2c> [Accessed on 02/01/18] 5 Anna Minton, ‘Big Capital, Who is London For?’ 2017. pg xi 6 <https://www.lloydsbank.com/assets/media/pdfs/press-releases/2017/170217-london-boroughs-hackney-leads-the-way-with-the-highest-risepress-release.pdf> [Accessed on 02/01/18] 7 Ibid. [Accessed on 02/01/18] 8 Ibid. [Accessed on 02/01/18] 9 <http://www.rightmove.co.uk/news/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Rightmove-House-Price-Index-19-June-FINAL.pdf> [Accessed on 02/01/18] 10 Ibid. [Accessed on 02/01/18] 11 <https://www.lloydsbank.com/assets/media/pdfs/press-releases/2017/170217-london-boroughs-hackney-leads-the-way-with-the-highest-risepress-release.pdf> [Accessed on 02/01/18] 12 Ibid. [Accessed on 02/01/18] 13

Ibid. [Accessed on 02/01/18]

9

6

5

3

1

4

2

Highlighted: The London boroughs which have been studied in this report.

1. Kensington and Chelsea 2. City of Westminster 3. Hammersmith and Fulham 4. Islington 5. Camden 6. Haringey

10

4. Methodology: The Data Collection

The primary focus of this report is to begin the process of providing the numerical data behind the well-discussed trend of ‘iceberg’ basement excavations commonplace within the alpha territories of London. As of yet, there has not been a detailed quantitative research method applied to analyse the extents of the new subterranean architectures of London. The main headlines, broadcasted by several media outlets, often focus on celebrities and their ambitious and luxurious plans of colossal basement excavations, which in most cases lead to “basement wars”1 between neighbours. However, these headlines fail to demonstrate the extent of the multiple types of basement excavations materialising across London. This report therefore aims to generate precise data information on basement excavations taking place over six London boroughs in order to formulate statistical facts and uncover the patterns and spread of subterranean accommodation.

The data which has been collected thus far targets the six London boroughs of; Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster, Hammersmith and Fulham, Islington, Camden and Haringey, between the period of 2008 to 2017. This provides a ten year framework of investigating any trends within basement developments. However, it must be noted that at the time of this report, January 2018, not all basement applications from the later months of 2017 had been finalised and thus a number were still pending. As a result it was not possible to record a complete data set for the year of 2017. The start date of 2008 was specifically chosen for being the year of the great financial crash. Although the average UK income was struggling to recover, the assets of the financial elite, Britain’s billionaires, increased by 112% between 2009 and 2015.2 Whilst the majority of the UK was suffering from widespread austerity, there was a vast increase in using property as asset for the super-rich. Property increasingly became a mere value container within the golden postcodes of plutocratic London.

The data has been collected, in most cases, by the publicly accessible forum of each London borough’s planning portal. To apply for the planning permission of a basement excavation, all proposals are handled by the local authority. The planning process aims to ensure sustainable developments and plays a crucial role in “identifying what development is needed and where, what areas need to be protected or enhanced and in assessing whether proposed development is suitable.”3 The application of a basement development will be made public by the local authority with notices outside such property, and can be found on the planning portal website. With each application, the submission must include necessary plans of the site, supporting documentation, the completed form and the fee.4 It is common with applications that any other relevant drawings or information are included to help the local authority determine the outcome.

The data in this report therefore has been collected by the information provided on each London borough’s planning portal. This required precise parameters in order to collate the necessary information on basement applications, and the same search criteria per borough. The London borough of Haringey proved to be an exception, which required a freedom of information request. The Freedom of Information Act allows one to access

1

Referenced from BBC’s ‘Millionaire Basement Wars’ Documentary, 2015 <http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05r86yg> [Accessed on

02/01/2018] 2

<https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/apr/26/recession-rich-britains-wealthiest-double-net-worth-since-crisis> [Accessed on

02/01/2018] 3

‘Plain English Guide to the Planning System’ <https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/391694/Plain_

English_guide_to_the_planning_system.pdf> pg 4 4

<https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200126/applications/59/how_to_apply/6> [Accessed on 02/01/2018]

5

<https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-information-request> [Accessed on 02/01/2018]

11

information which has been recorded and held by a public sector organisation.5 The organisation of a spreadsheet became the clearest way to record all the data. A master spreadsheet was devised to be used across the selected London boroughs, which primarily included information on; the year of application, the decision date, the decision (granted or refused), the house number and postcode, average depth of excavation, the architect or designer, and a brief description. These factors permit statistical analysis of basement excavations per year, per borough, alongside allowing for trends to formulate in terms of their location, their depth and the architects or designers working on such projects. With an ample range of depth and house type being recorded, for example, terrace, semi-detached, and detached properties, it became essential to codify categories of basement excavations. The spreadsheet was therefore advanced to include certain typologies. In addition to the typologies, the drawings of each basement application often highlighted whether the proposal included a swimming pool. The inclusion of a swimming pool generally became the indicator which separated the ‘small’ from the ‘medium’ and ‘large’ subterranean developments. An extra element was thus added to the spreadsheet to allow for quick differentiation between those which included swimming pools. In the future it will be possible to add more variables into the database in order to gain a greater understanding of the design amenities included basement applications, for example gyms and cinema rooms.

The typologies can be identified on the adjacent page, figure 1, and will be discussed at greater length in the next chapter. Simply, the basement proposals have been separated by their scale; small, medium or large, and their house type. This results in a corresponding code between 1 and 6.

What could be argued as a limitation within the data collection is the categorisation of basement excavations by the average depth below the existing property. The data generally relies on one storey being recorded as 3 metres in height, two storeys as 6 metres and so on. These do vary depending on proposed amenities however, with a swimming pool requiring a greater floor to ceiling height than 3 metres. This simplified calculation was due to time constraints. An ideal measurement would be to record the exact added volume of proposed accommodation per property. This however proved too difficult. For example, Kensington and Chelsea alone, had an average of 1103 applications per year with a key word reference of ‘basement’ to sort between 2008 and 2017.6 When recorded in our database this led to an average of 117 accepted subterranean development proposals per year. Nonetheless, the recorded information does allow for a rough indicative range of volume added per typology proposal.

An example of the spreadsheet can be seen on the following pages, figure, 2, with the initial generated statistics separated per borough in the chapters 6-11. The included spreadsheet is an example of just one year (2008) of one borough (Westminster) recorded. The overall database therefore incorporates 60x this amount of information with 10 years of 6 London boroughs.

6

Number of applications regarding basements per year, information provided by the planning portal of Kensington and Chelsea <https://www.

rbkc.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-applications/planning-applications> [Accessed on 02/01/18]

12

Size of Basement

Terrace or Semi-Detached

Detached

Small, ‘The Typical One’

Typology: 1

Typology: 2

Typology: 3

Typology: 4

Typology: 5

Typology: 6

Medium, ‘The Fancy One’

Large, ‘The Iceberg’

Figure 1: Typologies

13

Figure 2: Data collected for The City of Westminster, 2008.

Westminster 2008 Year

Date

Decision

2008

Thu 22 May 2008

2008

Depth

Architect

Description

Typology

Pool

W2 2LH

5

Lawson Robb

One Story Basement, With Pool, Terrace, Under Whole House

3

Yes

201

W2 6HX

3

Mira Esposito

One Story Basement, Detached, Under Whole of New-build

2

No

Granted

30

SW1W 9HR

3

The London Basement Company

One Story Basement, Terrace, Under Whole House

1

No

Tue 04 Mar 2008

Granted

12

W9 PX

4

Lazarus Properties Ltd

One Story Basement, Semi Detached, Under Majority of House

1

No

2008

Mon 31 Mar 2008

Granted

24

SW7 2EP

3

Mitchell Price

One Story Basement, End Terrace, Under Whole House

1

No

2008

Thu 13 Mar 2008

Granted

25

NW8 6BS

5

BB Partnership Ltd

One Story Basement, Detached, Under House and Garden

4

No

2008

Fri 29 Feb 2008

Refused

41

NW8 7DH

3

Wolff Architects

One Story Basement,Semi Detached, Under Whole of New-build

2

No

2008

Tue 10 Jun 2008

Refused

32

W1K 1DJ

6

JCL Planning

Two Story Basement, Terrace, Under Whole House

3

No

2008

Thu 11 Sep 2008

Granted

23

W9 1AD

4

MRJ Rundell Associates Ltd

One Story Basement, Detached, part of house and part of garden

1

No

2008

Mon 15 Sep 2008

Refused

71

W1K 1JA

6

Gregory Phulliphs Architects

Two Story Basement, Terrace, With Pool, Under Whole House

5

Yes

2008

Thu 07 Aug 2008

Granted

87A

NW8 6PP

6

Paul Davis Partners

One Story Basement, With Pool, Terrace, Under 50% of House

3

Yes

2008

Fri 18 Apr 2008

Granted

36

SW1X 7BA

6

Design Studio Group

Two Story Basement, Terrace, Under Whole House

3

No

2008

Thu 06 Nov 2008

Refused

24

NW8 9UG

5

Jakub Grzerielucha

One Story Basement, With Pool, End Terrace, Under House and Garden

3

Yes

2008

Fri 23 May 2008

Granted

44

NW8 0QN

3

The London Basement Company

One Story Basement, Detached, Under Whole House

2

No

2008

Thu 17 Jul 2008

Granted

3

W9 2PY

4

Eades Hotwani Partnership

One Story Basement, Terrace, Under Whole House

1

No

2008

Mon 13 Oct 2008

Granted

1

SW7 1DD

3.5

kbw Charted Surveyors

One Story Basement, Terrace, Under 50% of House

1

No

2008

Thu 03 Apr 2008

Refused

4

NW8 7LJ

3

The Heder Partnership

One Story Basement, Terrace, Under House and Garden

3

No

Granted

25

NW8 9JB

5

d-raw associates

One Story Basement, With Pool, Detached, Under Whole House

4

Yes

House No.

Post Code

Granted

1

Wed 14 May 2008

Refused

2008

Tue 15 Apr 2008

2008

2008

14

Address

Fri 23 May 2008

2008

Fri 16 May 2008

Granted

1

NW8 9SA

4.5

Wolff Architects

One Story Basement, Detached, Under 50% of House

2

No

2008

Tue 20 May 2008

Granted

14

SW7 1DX

3.5

GMA Architecture

One Story Basement, Terrace, Under House and Garden

3

No

2008

Fri 23 May 2008

Refused

43

NW8 9RG

6

Found.

One Story Basement, With Pool, Detached, Under House and Garden

6

Yes

2008

Tue 29 Apr 2008

Granted

9

W1J 5DL

3.5

darling associates

One Story Basement, Detached, Connecting House and Out House

2

No

2008

Wed 16 Apr 2008

Granted

25

W1J 5RQ

6

JTL Architects

Two Story Basement, Terrace, Under Whole House

3

No

2008

Tue 15 Apr 2008

Granted

7

SW1X 8DB

3

The London Basement Company

One Story Basement, Terrace, Under Whole House

1

No

2008

Mon 14 Apr 2008

Granted

12

W1G 6QE

4

Dols Wong

One Story Basement, Terrace, Under Whole House

1

No

2008

Tue 24 Jun 2008

Granted

3

W9 2PY

3.5

Eades Hotwani Partnership

One Story Basement, Terrace, Under Whole House

1

No

2008

Thu 12 Feb 2009

Refused

The Studio 7

NW8 9QE

3

Eldridge Smerin

One Story Basement, Detached, Under Whole House, Under Whole of New build

2

No

2008

Fri 04 Apr 2008

Granted

21

W1S 4EU

3

ESA

One Story Basement, Terrace, Under Whole House

1

No

2008

Fri 04 Apr 2008

Granted

16

SW1H 9AA

3

Donadl Insall Associates

One Story Basement, Terrace, Under Whole House

1

No

2008

Wed 28 May 2008

Granted

6

SW7 1JT

6

Nagan Associates

Two Story Basement, Terrace, Under Whole House

2

No

2008

Tue 15 Jul 2008

Granted

The Lodge Rutland Gardens

SW7 1BX

9

HWL International LLP

Two Story Basement, Detached, Under Whole House

4

No

2008

Thu 28 Aug 2008

Refused

68

NW8 0ET

3

Casson Conder Partnership

One Story Basement, Terrace, Under Whole House and Part of Garden

3

No

2008

Mon 18 Aug 2008

Granted

63

SW7 1NH

6

Pieter Brand

One Story Basement, Terrace, Under Whole House, With Pool

3

Yes

2008

Mon 04 Aug 2008

Granted

2

W1G 7BJ

3.5

Glenn Howells Architect

One Story Basement, Detached Under Whole House and Part of Garden

4

No

2008

Mon 21 Jul 2008

Granted

19

W1X 8AR

3.5

The London Basement Company

One Story Basement, Terrace, Under Whole House

1

No

2008

Fri 01 Aug 2008

Granted

12

SW1W 9DB

5

lees associates LLP

One Story Basement, Terrace, Under Whole House, With Pool

3

Yes

2008

Fri 21 Nov 2008

Refused

42

NW8 0ES

3.5

Papa Architects LLP

One Story Basement, Detached Under Whole House and Part of Garden

4

No

2008

Thu 28 Aug 2008

Refused

68

NW8 0ET

3.5

Casson Conder Partnership

One Story Basement, Detached, Under Whole House

2

No

2008

Thu 31 Jul 2008

Granted

30

NW8 6HJ

4

Richard Mitzman Architects

One Story Basement, Detached Under Whole House

2

No

2008

Wed 16 Jul 2008

Granted

2

SW7 1HX

3

The London Basement Company

One Story Basement, Terrace, Under Whole House

1

No

2008

Mon 20 Oct 2008

Granted

57

W2 3QG

3

Morrison Brink Stonor LTD

One Story Basement, Terrace, Under Whole House

1

No

2008

Tue 09 Sep 2008

Granted

28

SW1X 8SA

6

PTP Architects

Two Story Basement, Terrace, Under Whole House

3

No

2008

Wed 05 Nov 2008

Granted

4A

NW8 9XR

3

Alistair Howe Architects

One Story Basement, Terrace, Under Whole Garden

1

No

2008

Mon 01 Sep 2008

Granted

22,

SW1X 7AX

4

Jones Lambell Architecture and Design LTD

One Story Basement, Terrace, Under Whole House and Garden

3

No

2008

Tue 30 Sep 2008

Granted

18 - 19

NW1 4QP

3

Tom Giannini

One Story Basement, Terrace, Under Whole House

1

No

2008

Wed 08 Oct 2008

Granted

10

W1X 8DD

3.5

Wolff Architects

One Story Basement, Semi-Detached, Under Whole House

1

No

2008

Fri 08 Aug 2008

Granted

19

SW1W 9HP

3

The London Basement Company

One Story Basement, Terrace, Under Whole House

1

No

2008

Wed 13 Aug 2008

Granted

6

SW1W 0JP

3

RSA Architects

One Story Basement, Terrace, Under Whole House

1

No

2008

Mon 04 Aug 2008

Granted

9

W1J 5DL

6

darling associates

Two Story Basement, Detached, Connecting House and Out House

4

No

2008

Mon 29 Sep 2008

Granted

27

W2 1PN

3

Lisa Shell Architects LTD

One Story Basement, Terrace, Enlargement of existing basement

1

No

2008

Sat 25 Oct 2008

Refused

29

NW8 9JB

4.5

Stone Force Ltd

One Story Basement, Detached, Under Whole House and Garden

4

No

2008

Mon 06 Oct 2008

Granted

12

SW1X 8AD

6

Nilsson Architects

One Story Basement, Terrace, Under part of House

1

No

2008

Mon 17 Nov 2008

Granted

12

WC2E 9DH

4.5

Charles Leon Associates

One Story Basement, Terrace, Under Whole House with Pool

3

Yes

2008

Thu 25 Sep 2008

Granted

15

SW1X 8BT

9

MSMR Architects Ltd

Two Story Basement, Terrace, Under Whole House with Pool

3

Yes

2008

Wed 20 Jan 2010

Granted

91

W2 5BB

3.5

Claridge Architects

One Story Basement, Terrace, Under Whole Garden

1

No

2008

Wed 08 Apr 2009

Granted

28

NW1 6DB

3

LPA

One Story Basement, Terrace, Under Whole House

1

No

2008

Fri 05 Sep 2008

Granted

4

SW1W 8PG

4.5

Nash Baker Architects

One Story Basement, Terrace, Under Whole House and Garden

3

No

2008

Wed 03 Sep 2008

Granted

12

SW1X 8DH

4

Paper Project Architecture and Design Ltd

One Story Basement, Detached, Under Whole House and Part of Garden

4

No

2008

Thu 30 Oct 2008

Granted

41

SW1W 8PQ

3.5

Jones Lambell Architecture and Design LTD

One Story Basement, Terrace, Under Whole House and Whole Garden

3

No

2008

Tue 25 Nov 2008

Granted

4

W9 1AZ

3.5

Michaells Boyd Associates

One Story Basement, Terrace, Under Whole House and Front Garden

3

No

2008

Wed 14 Jan 2009

Granted

14

W1H 5FJ

3.5

Helen Bowen Architect

One Story Basement, Terrace, Enlargement of existing basement

1

No

2008

Thu 27 Nov 2008

Granted

56

SW1W 8JP

3

Richard Falconer Architects

One Story Basement, Terrace, Under Whole House and Garden

3

No

2008

Fri 11 Sep 2009

Granted

21

W2 4LA

4

A P Associates

One Story Basement, Terrace, Under Whole House

1

No

2008

Tue 21 Oct 2008

Granted

21

W9 1AN

6

Spence Harris Hogan

One Story Basement, Detached, Under Whole House and Garden

4

No

2008

Mon 03 Nov 2008

Granted

13B

W2 4NX

3

LDA Architects

One Story Basement, Terrace, Under Whole House

1

No

2008

Tue 25 Nov 2008

Granted

34

SW1X 7BA

3.5

Found.

One Story Basement, Terrace, Under Whole House

1

No

2008

Tue 25 Nov 2008

Granted

3

W2 4AG

3

Parritt Leng

One Story Basement, Terrace, Under Whole House

1

No

2008

Wed 10 Dec 2008

Granted

6

SW1W 0JP

3

RSA Architects

One Story Basement, Terrace, Under Whole House

1

No

2008

Wed 12 Nov 2008

Granted

80

W9 1PR

3

Nagan Johnson

One Story Basement, Terrace, Enlargement Under Whole Garden

1

No

2008

Thu 20 Nov 2008

Refused

29

NW8 9JB

3.5

Stone Force Ltd

One Story Basement, Detached, Enlargement Under Part of Garden

2

No

2008

Fri 30 Jan 2009

Granted

23

W9 1AD

6

MRJ Rundell Associates Ltd

One Story Basement, Detached, Under Whole House and Garden

4

No

2008

Thu 27 Nov 2008

Granted

9

W2 2TN

3.5

The London Basement Company

One Story Basement, Terrace, Under Whole House

1

No

2008

Fri 28 Nov 2008

Granted

7

SW7 1JP

3.5

Assemblage Architects

One Story Basement, Terrace, Under Whole House

1

No

15

16

2008

Mon 03 Nov 2008

Granted

48

SW1X 8RS

8

MSMR Architects Ltd

Two Story Basement, Terrace, Under Whole House

1

No

2008

Mon 02 Feb 2009

Granted

21

SW1W 8PQ

3.5

GJP Ltd Architects

One Story Basement, Terrace, New Build, Under Whole House

1

No

2008

Mon 23 Mar 2009

Granted

11

NW8 9EA

4

Johnathan Tuckey Design

Two Story Basement, Terrace, Under Whole Garden

3

No

2008

Mon 22 Dec 2008

Granted

26

W9 1JY

6

Moxon

One Story Basement, Detached, Under Whole House and Garden, With Pool

4

Yes

2008

Fri 19 Jun 2009

Granted

1

W11 2QL

3

The London Basement Company

Two Story Basement, Terrace, Under Whole House

3

No

2008

Thu 08 Jan 2009

Granted

45

W2 2NX

3

Jeremy Fisher Building

One Story Basement, Terrace, Enlargement Under Part of Garden

1

No

2008

Mon 08 Dec 2008

Granted

4

SW1X 8DN

6

NJL Design Architectural

Two Story Basement, Terrace, Under Whole House

3

No

2008

Mon 23 Feb 2009

Refused

29

W2 4TT

3

Found.

One Story Basement, Terrace, Enlargement Under Part of Garden

1

No

2008

Mon 15 Dec 2008

Refused

22

W1K 7DS

8

Congreve Horner

Two Story Basement, Terrace, Under Whole House, With Pool

5

Yes

Initial Statistics for Westminster 2008:

Total no. of applications:

82

No. of accepted:

67

No. of refused:

15

No. with pools:

12

No. of Typology 1:

36

No. of Typology 2:

09

No. of Typology 3:

23

No. of Typology 4:

11

No. of Typology 5:

02

No. of Typology 6:

01

17

18

5. Basement Typologies

With the collection of vast amounts of data, it became essential to clearly record the various scales and types of basement excavations developing across the six London boroughs of focus within this report. By doing this, one can see the diverse range of subterranean excavations and differentiate between the dramatic change in scale.

Therefore, we have devised a category system which illustrates six potential typologies of basement construction.

Firstly, the properties have been separated into two categories based on the type of house.

Category 1: either a Terrace or Semi-Detached property. Category 2: a Detached property.

The reason for combining a terrace and semi-detached property in the same category is due to the Party Wall Act. The Party Wall etc. Act of 1996 was proposed as a guideline to try and resolve or prevent disputes between neighbours with regards to a party wall.1 A party wall therefore can be defined as a wall that stands on the land of two, or more owners, and as a simple example - the wall that is shared between a semi-detached property. The surge of large-scale basement excavations within the media, sharing titles such as â&#x20AC;&#x153;Billionairesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; basements: the luxury bunkers making holes in London streetsâ&#x20AC;?2 is no doubt when they often connect so closely to neighbouring properties and inevitably cause distress for those living nearby. It is often the noise and disturbance of such works that creates widespread opposition from existing neighbours.

Although there will be irregularities, the footprint of a terrace property with garden is fairly standard, similarly with a semi-detached property. A detached property however is more likely to differ in size, hence the separate categories. These two house types have then been separated into three different options depending on their scale; small, medium and large. There would be great difficulty, in terms of both precision and time, to calculate the exact volume added by a new basement excavation, therefore the following method has proved valuable to categories the basement development types simply and relatively quickly. As an average, we have recorded one storey as being 3m in height.

Small - Up to 3m in height under the footprint of the house.

Medium - 3-6m in height under the footprint of the house, or 3m in height under the footprint of the house and extended under the garden.

Large - 6m plus in height under the footprint of the house, or 6m in height under the footprint of the house and extended under the garden.

1

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/party-wall-etc-act-1996-guidance [Accessed on 22/12/17]

2

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2012/nov/09/billionaires-basements-london-houses-architecture [Accessed on 22/12/17]

19

Typology 1

20

Typology 2

Small, ‘The Typical One’

A ‘small’ basement is the category for when 0-3m (in height) of earth has been excavated under the footprint of the house in order to provide further living accommodation. These are all one storey basements. Thereafter, the developments are separated into two categories based on the type of house; Terrace, including Semi-detached, or Detached, thus either Typology 1 or 2.

Typology 1 - the construction of a 0-3m basement (in height) under the footprint of a Terrace, or Semi-detached house.

Typology 2 - the construction of a 0-3m basement (in height) under the footprint of a Detached house.

It is often the case that Typology 2 constructions are larger in size, due to the grounds of a Detached property being larger than a Terrace or Semi-detached. Yet in proportion to the property and ground size, they are relatively ‘small’ basement excavations.

From taking a random sample of subterranean proposals from the data collected, it is possible to create an indicative volume of excavation per Typology. Please note, this is a rough estimate for initial analysis and for a more accurate representation at least 10% of the data collected would have to be studied and measured. This would involve examining around 500 proposals. Typology 1 has an estimated volume of 280m3 of earth. Typology 2 has an estimated volume of 395m3 of earth.

From the information included in the database, the design of a ‘small’ subterranean basement, in general, provides additional living space in the form of a guest bedroom, a utility room and a type of entertainment room.

21

HALL

BEDROOM

HALL

BEDROOM

HALL

BEDROOM

UTILITY HALL

CINEMA ROOM

HALL

BEDROOM

BEDROOM

UTILITY

CINEMA ROOM

HALL

BEDROOM

UTILITY

CINEMA ROOM

0

2

4

6

8

10

0

2

4

6

8

10

Example: Typology 1 Scale 1:200 0

22

2

4

6

8

10

LIVING ROOM

PLAY ROOM

LIVING ROOM

PLAY ROOM

HALL

BEDROOM

UTILITY

WC HALL

HALL

BEDROOM BEDROOM

UTILITY

WC LIVING ROOM

PLAY ROOM

LIVING ROOM

PLAY ROOM

HALL CINEMA ROOM

BEDROOM

UTILITY

CINEMA ROOM

CINEMA ROOM

Example: Typology 2 Scale 1:200 0

2

4

6

8

10

23

Typology 3

24

Typology 4

Medium, ‘The Fancy One’

A ‘medium’ basement is the category for when 3-6m (in height) of earth under the footprint of the house, or 3m of earth under the house and garden has been excavated to provide further living accommodation. This includes a range of one and two storey subterranean basements. Thereafter, they are separated in category due to the type of house; Terrace, including Semi-detached, or Detached, thus either Typology 3 or 4.

Typology 3 - the construction of a 3-6m basement (in height) under the footprint of a Terrace, or Semi-detached house - OR - the construction of a 0-3m basement (in height) under the footprint of a Terrace, or Semi-detached house and extended under the garden.

Typology 4 - the construction of a 3-6m basement (in height) under the footprint of a Detached house - OR - the construction of a 0-3m basement (in height) under the footprint of a Detached house and extended under the garden.

A ‘medium’ basement therefore can be seen to consist of both one and two storey basements. This is because we have tried to consider both the lateral and vertical potential of subterranean excavations when categorising based on scale. The volume of excavation therefore may take place directly under the footprint of the property, or use the area under the garden.

From taking a sample of subterranean proposals from the data collected, it is possible to create an indicative volume of excavation per Typology. Please note, this is a rough estimate for initial analysis and for a more accurate representation at least 10% of the data collected would have to be studied and measured. This would involve examining around 500 proposals. Typology 3 has an estimated volume of 555m3 of earth. Typology 4 has an estimated volume of 1,185m3 of earth.

From studying the database, the design of a ‘medium’ basement, in general, includes the ‘typical’ additions of a utility room, guest bedroom and entertainment room, but often also comprises of a gym, swimming pool, sauna and/or steam room.

25

HALL HALL

UTILITY UTILITY

HALL HALL

STORE STORE

HALL HALL

UTILITY UTILITY

GUEST GUEST BEDROOM BEDROOM

CINEMA CINEMA ROOM ROOM

WC WC

HALL

BEDROOM

HALL HALL

STORE STORE

GYM GYM

SAUNA SAUNA

HALL

BEDROOM

UTILITY

0 0

2 2

CINEMA ROOM

4 4

6 6

8 8

10 10

Example: Typology 3 Scale 1:200 0

26

2

4

6

8

10

LIVING ROOM

PLAY ROOM

SHOWER / STEAM ROOM

CINEMA

CHANGING ROOM

HALL BEDROOM

STORE

UTILITY

HALL

BEDROOM

LIVING ROOM

PLAY ROOM

WINE CELLAR

KITCHEN

HALL

BEDROOM

UTILITY

CINEMA ROOM

HALL

EN-SUITE

BEDROOM

WC

STORE

SHOWER / STEAM ROOM

CINEMA

CHANGING ROOM

GYM

Example: Typology 4 Scale 1:200 0 0

2 2

4 4

6 6

8 8

10 10

27

HALL

SWIMMING POOL

HALL

SWIMMING POOL

PLANT HALL

SWIMMING POOL

PLANT HALL GYM

SAUNA

GYM

SAUNA

HALL

STEAM ROOM

BEDROOM

SWIMMING POOL

STEAM ROOM

HALL

BEDROOM

UTILITY

CINEMA ROOM

0

2

4

6

8

10

0

2

4

6

8

10

Example: Typology 3 Scale 1:200 0

28

2

4

6

8

10

HALL

WINE CELLAR

CINEMA

PLANT

SWIMMING POOL

HALL

WINE CELLAR

CINEMA

PLANT

SWIMMING POOL

CHANGING ROOM STORE CINEMA HALL

HALL

CHANGING ROOM

STORE WINE CELLAR

BEDROOM

PLANT CINEMA

HALL PLANT

WINE CELLAR

SWIMMING POOL

SWIMMING POOL

SAUNA

HALL

LIVING ROOM

GYM

BEDROOM SAUNA

UTILITY LIVING ROOM

CINEMA ROOM

STEAM ROOM

GYM

STEAM ROOM

0

2

4

6

8

10

0

2

4

6

8

10

Example: Typology 4 Scale 1:200 0

2

4

6

8

10

29

Typology 5

30

Typology 6

Large, ‘The Iceberg’

A ‘large’ basement is when 6m plus (in height) of earth under the footprint of the house, or 6m (in height) of earth under the house and garden has been excavated to provide further living accommodation. These could be a range of two and three plus storey basements. The ‘large’ Typology therefore includes any basement excavation greater than 6m in height. The ‘large’ basements are separated in category based on the type of house; Terrace, including Semi-detached, or Detached, thus either Typology 5 or 6.

Typology 5 - the construction of a 6m plus basement (in height) under the footprint of a Terrace, or Semi-detached house - OR - the construction of a 6m basement (in height) under the footprint of a Terrace, or Semi-detached house and extended under the garden.

Typology 6 - the construction of a 6m plus basement (in height) under the footprint of a Detached house - OR - the construction of a 6m basement (in height) under the footprint of a Detached house and extended under the garden.

From taking a sample of subterranean proposals from the data collected, it is possible to create an indicative volume of excavation per Typology. Please note, this is a rough estimate for initial analysis and for a more accurate representation at least 10% of the data collected would have to be studied and measured. This would involve examining around 500 proposals. Typology 5 has an estimated volume of 1,253m3 of earth. Typology 6 has an estimated volume of 1,690m3 of earth. This calculation however was based on a sample of basement excavations with an average of 8m in height. Subterranean developments within this category are not bound to a maximum of 8m and therefore in some cases the area of excavation could be much greater. The database has recorded examples in excess of 12m.

Similarly to the ‘medium’ basements, the volume of excavation may take place directly under the footprint of the property, or use the area under the garden. This allows consideration for both lateral and vertical basement excavation. The database suggests that these ‘large’, or often labelled ‘iceberg’ basements, include luxurious designs of large swimming pools, cinema rooms, and the occasional car showroom.

31

GUEST BEDROOM

BOILER ROOM

WC

GYM

SAUNA

CINEMA

WINE CELLAR

HALL

HALL

BEDROOM UTILITY

GUEST BEDROOM

BOILER ROOM

WC

HALL

BEDROOM HALL

STORE UTILITY

CINEMA ROOM

GYM

SAUNA

HALL

STORE

WINE CELLAR

CINEMA

Example: Typology 5 0

4

2

6

8

10

Scale 1:200 0

32

2

4

6

8

10

HALL BEDROOM

STORE

WC

BEDROOM

TREATMENT ROOM

HALL BEDROOM

SHOWER STORE

GYM

WC

BEDROOM

TREATMENT ROOM

HALL

SHOWER

STORE

GYM

MEDIA ROOM

UTILITY

LIVING ROOM

TREATMENT ROOM

PLAY ROOM

BEDROOM

HALL

WINE STORE CELLAR LIVING ROOM

MEDIA ROOM

UTILITY

KITCHEN

PLAY ROOM

LIVING ROOM

TREATMENT ROOM

PLAY ROOM

BEDROOM

SWIMMING POOL

SAUNA

STORE HALL

BEDROOM

WINE CELLAR LIVING ROOM

KITCHEN

PLANT

PLAY ROOM

SAUNA

SWIMMING POOL

SAUNA

HALL

SWIMMING POOL STORE BEDROOM STEAM ROOM

UTILITY

PLANT

CINEMA ROOM

BATH ROOM

SAUNA

SWIMMING POOL

STEAM ROOM

BATH ROOM

0

2

4

6

8

10

Example: Typology 6 Scale 1:200 0

2 0

4 2

6 4

8 6

10 8

10

33

HALL

DINNING ROOM

LIVING ROOM

HALL

DINNING ROOM

LIVING ROOM

HALL

SWIMMING POOL

HALL

SWIMMING POOL

WINE CELLAR

STORE

WINE CELLAR

STORE

WC

DINNING ROOM

LIVING ROOM

DINNING ROOM

LIVING ROOM

WC HALL

BEDROOM

PLANT HALL PLANT HALL SWIMMING POOL

GYM

SAUNA

GYM

SAUNA

HALL

SWIMMING POOL

STEAM ROOM STEAM ROOM

UTILITY

BEDROOM

CINEMA ROOM

0

2

4

6

8

10

0

2

4

6

8

10

Example: Typology 5 Scale 1:200 0

34

2

4

6

8

10

STORE

WC

HALL

KITCHEN

CAR LIFT

STORE

WC

HALL

KITCHEN

CAR LIFT

STORE

WC

HALL

KITCHEN

CAR LIFT

HALL

UTILITY

CINEMA

PLANT

SWIMMING POOL

HALL

UTILITY

CINEMA

PLANT

SWIMMING POOL

HALL

UTILITY

CINEMA

PLANT

SWIMMING POOL

HALL

HALL KITCHEN

CAR LIFT

KITCHEN

CAR LIFT

HALL STORE

WC

STORE

WC

STORE

WC

CAR LIFT

KITCHEN HALL

BEDROOM

STAFF ACCOMODATION

BEDROOM

STAFF ACCOMODATION

BEDROOM

STAFF ACCOMODATION

BEDROOM HALL

PLAY ROOM

CAR LIFT

PLAY ROOM

CAR LIFT

PLAY ROOM

CAR LIFT

EN-SUITE

EN-SUITE

BEDROOM

EN-SUITE UTILITY

CINEMA ROOM

CHANGING ROOM STORE CHANGING ROOM

CINEMA HALL

STORE

CHANGING ROOM

CINEMA

HALL

STORE WINE CELLAR

HALL

WINE CELLAR

PLANT

WINE CELLAR

PLANT

PLANT

CINEMA

SWIMMING POOL

SWIMMING POOL SWIMMING POOL

SAUNA

LIVING ROOM

GYM

LIVING ROOM

GYM

LIVING ROOM

GYM

SAUNA SAUNA STEAM ROOM

STEAM ROOM STEAM ROOM

Example: Typology 6 0

2

4

6

Scale 1:200 4 6

8

10

8

10

0

2

0

2

4

6

8

10

0

2

4

6

8

10

35

Highlighted: The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.

200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Graph: Number of basement applications per year

36

2016

6. Kensington and Chelsea

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, the most expensive area in London,1 is a very attractive location for the super-rich. As a prime London borough, Kensington and Chelsea is home to the golden postcodes of the transnational elite. With an overall population of 157,711 residents,2 there are 4,900 Ultra-High-Net-Worth-Individuals living within the royal borough.3 Respectively, Kensington and Chelsea has seen the largest increase in monetary value over London between 1996 and 2016. Throughout this twenty year period, the average house price within the area has grown in value by £1,559,518, equivalent to 524%.4 A study recently completed by ‘Rightmove’, one of the UK’s largest online portals for properties, presents Kensington and Chelsea as London’s “best annual performer”, with an increase of 16.1% in the average house price between June 2016 and 2017.5 Thus, as of June 2017, the average value for property within the royal borough was recorded at £2,407,461.6 Despite being the smallest borough in terms of residents studied within this report, just 0.27% of the population of England and Wales, Kensington and Chelsea saw the largest number of accepted ‘iceberg’ subterranean developments between 2008 and 2016. ‘Iceberg’ basement constructions, both Typologies 5 and 6, have been classified as developments with 6m plus in height excavated under the existing property. The data collected for this report highlights a peak of 173 accepted basement applications in 2012, with an overall annual average of 117 accepted proposals over the nine year period. Of all accepted applications within the borough, around 6% of these were for what has been classed as the ‘large’ or ‘iceberg’ excavations. Thus, Kensington and Chelsea has witnessed a growing trend of subterranean developments within the territory of the financial elite.

The development of subterranean excavations has become a common method to increase accommodation space without infringing on the strict planning controls of vertical and lateral extensions. The extravagant trend however, with proposals often including subterranean swimming pools, gyms and cinemas, has been at the heart of numerous complaints between neighbours. Tim Coleridge, cabinet member for planning policy in Kensington and Chelsea, stated that basement developments “have been the single greatest planning concern our residents have expressed to us in living memory.”7 Such developments can take years to complete and as a result neighbours experience “misery from noise, vibration, dust and construction traffic”.8 Subsequently, the local council introduced new planning restrictions regarding the extents of basement developments. The ‘Basements Planning Policy’ was published in January 2015 which included ‘Policy CL7’ with restrictions on the scale of subterranean proposals. The

1

<https://www.lloydsbank.com/assets/media/pdfs/press-releases/2017/170217-london-boroughs-hackney-leads-the-way-with-the-highest-rise-

press-release.pdf1> [Accessed on 08/01/2018] 2

<https://www.ons.gov.uk/help/localstatistics> [Accessed on 20/12/2017]

3

Anna Minton, ‘Big Capital, Who is London For?’ 2017. pg 10

4

<https://www.lloydsbank.com/assets/media/pdfs/press-releases/2017/170217-london-boroughs-hackney-leads-the-way-with-the-highest-rise-

press-release.pdf> [Accessed on 08/01/2018] 5

<http://www.rightmove.co.uk/news/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Rightmove-House-Price-Index-19-June-FINAL.pdf> [Accessed on

08/01/2018] 6

Ibid, [Accessed on 08/01/2018]

7

<https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/kensington-and-chelsea-wins-battle-against-mega-basements/8673457.article> [Accessed on

08/01/2018] 8

Ibid, [Accessed on 08/01/2018]

37

document stated that the council will require all basement excavations to:9 - not exceed a maximum of 50% of each garden or open part of the site - not comprise more than one storey - not involve excavation underneath a listed building - include a sustainable drainage system (SuDS), to be retained thereafter - ensure that construction impacts such as noise, vibration and dust are kept to acceptable levels for the duration of the works.

The document however, also stated that exceptions may be made on larger sites. The Royal Borough thereafter published the ‘Supplementary Planning Document’ (SPD) in April 2016 to act as a guidance for basement applications. To clarify the exceptions that could be made when considering the approval of basement applications, the SPD of 2016 states…

“For the avoidance of any doubt the exception for large sites does not apply to the normal detached, semi-detached and terraced houses in the Borough. As stated earlier in paragraph 1.3 a ‘case by case’ approach is not appropriate for these normal housing typologies in the Borough, as it fails to meet the objective of the policy to address the cumulative impacts across the Borough.”10 With official restrictions formally adopted in the January of 2015, it will be possible, from the data collected within this report, to begin to analyse if said changes have been successful in restricting the amount of subterranean developments. The data suggests that the imposed restrictions had little effect thus far on the total amount of accepted basement applications within Kensington and Chelsea. In 2014, before the restrictions were adopted, 123 basement applications were accepted, with similar figures after the restrictions with, 124 in 2015, and 122 in 2016.11 However, ‘Policy CL7’ was implemented to restrict the construction of basements greater than one storey in size. When considering only the amount of ‘large’ basement developments within Kensington and Chelsea, the data does suggest a slight decrease in number since the implementation of such restrictions. The years of 2013 and 2014 saw a large increase in the number of accepted ‘iceberg’ basement applications. There was an average of 5 accepted ‘large’ basements applications per year between 2008 and 2012, which rose drastically to 28 and 24 applications in 2013 and 2014 respectively.

This spike in applications could be a result of knowing restrictions were soon to be put in place, with ‘Policy CL7’ taking around two years to be formally addressed. Following the restrictions in January 2015 therefore, the number of accepted ‘large’ basement

9

Kensington and Chelsea, Basements Planning Policy 2015 <https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/pdf/Final%20Basements%20Policy%20Jan%202015%20

adopted%20web.pdf> page 9 [Accessed on 08/01/2018]

38

10

Ibid, page 15 [Accessed on 08/01/2018]

11

Results from our data, see figure 7, chapter 12.

applications decreased to 7 in 2015 and 3 in 2016. This initially suggests a drop in the number of accepted ‘large’ basement excavations in comparison to the previous years of 2013 and 2014. However, in comparison to years of 2008 to 2012, there is not a significant reduction.

A similar analysis can be done on the construction of ‘medium’ basements which this report has classified as developments with 3-6m in height excavated under the existing property. A basement larger than 3m in height, within this report, has been considered as greater than one storey, which has a typical floor to ceiling height of 3m. Between the years of 2008 and 2014, before policy CL7 was set in motion, there was an average number of 32 accepted ‘medium’ basement applications per year. The following years of 2015 and 2016 saw a minimal reduction of this average to 26 and 30 accepted ‘medium’ basement applications. The extent to which the formal restrictions were successful in reducing the amount of ‘medium’ scale construction within Kensington and Chelsea is therefore questionable.

The Architects Journal, a UK based architecture magazine, has published several online articles regarding architects “anger” over the restrictions of multi-storey basements.12 Jason Wren, director of Shape Architecture, was recorded stating that their “workload remains the same” despite tighter restrictions within the royal borough. Wren also noted that although the policies will “create more work” they “[do not] really undermine the viability of projects.”13

12

<https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/anger-at-plans-to-ban-mega-basements-in-south-kensington/8673826.article> [Accessed on

08/01/2018] 13

<https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/architects-westminster-crackdown-wont-kill-off-basement-work/8687162.article> [Accessed on

08/01/2018]

39

Map highlighting the granted basement applications in The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea 2008.

1

3

5

2

4

6

1

3

5

Including pool

40

2

4

6

Including pool

2009

2012

2015

2010

2013

2016

2011

2014

2017

Maps highlighting the granted basement applications in The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea per year.*

*January - September 2017.

41

Map highlighting all granted basement applications in The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea between the period 2008-2017.*

1

3

5

2

4

6

1

3

5

Including pool

42

*January - September 2017.

2

4

6

Including pool

The maps on the previous pages illustrate the boundary for The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, in pink, with the locations of all accepted basement applications between 2008-2017. Each marker placed within the site boundary represents a separate planning application. The maps have been separated by year, indicating each Typology of basement excavation with a different symbol. The final map illustrates a combination of all accepted basement planning applications throughout the period of 2008-2017.

The combined map of 2008-2017 for Kensington and Chelsea illustrates a total of 1,110 accepted basement applications. With the maps split into years, the peak number of accepted applications is visible in the map of 2012, with 173 applications. It must be noted that the map for 2017 only includes data collected from January to September.

Although this report was compiled in the January of 2018, not all basement applications from the later months of 2017 had been finalised and thus a number were still pending.

As a result it was not possible to record a complete data set for the year of 2017.

The final combined map on the adjacent page offers an analysis of the location of subterranean developments. As a prime London borough, it is not surprising that there are multiple areas with a high concentration of basement developments within Kensington and Chelsea. The maps suggest a spread of basement developments across the whole borough. The cluster of Roland Gardens, Roland Way and Drayton Gardens have a significant number of basement excavations. The majority of these however are of Typology 1 and 2 - ‘small’ developments of up to 3m in height. Tregunter Road, Harcourt Terrace, The Little Boltons and Cathcart Road are home to a large number of ‘medium’ developments, Typologies 3 and 5 of up to 6m in height.1 These roads in particular have seen a notable increase in excavations with swimming pools. Additionally, to the east of Kensington Palace, the roads of Kensington Palace Gardens, Palace Garden Mews and Brunswick Gardens highlight a high concentration of ‘large’ developments, greater than 6m in height. Throughout 2008-2017 there were three accepted basement applications including swimming pools on the road of Kensington Palace Gardens alone.

1

Please refer to Figures 3 and 4 for an example of Tregunter Road.

43

The graphics on these two pages illustrate the initial statistical analysis made possible by the data collected for this report. The graphics illustrate the number of accepted and refused applications within Kensington and Chelsea and then go into more detail clarifying the types of subterranean developments taking place. The final graphic offers an indicative depth of subterranean excavation per year within Kensington and Chelsea which has been compared to the height of the famous London landmark, The Shard, at 310 metres.

22

1

14

20 7

125

6

1 20

08

2015 124

62 2010

15

13

173 2012

08

125 75 25

28 13

97 1 1 20

1

6

26 2014

123 2014 20

20

2009 1

56

25

2009

75

20

175

8 2010

175

2015 40

6

1 20

10 1 1 20

20

Accepted Applications

25 2012

Refused Applications

Accepted: 1,055

Refused: 173

Total number of accepted and refused applications between 2008-2016.

200 180

Accepted applications

160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 S

M

2008

L

S

M

L

2009

S

M

2010

L

S

M

2011

L

S

M

2012

L

S

M

2013

L

S

M

2014

L

S

M

2015

L

S

M

L

2016

Total number of accepted applications per year between 2008-2016, categorised by small, medium and large.

44

Small

Medium

Large

Typology 1

Typology 3

Typology 5

Accepted : Refused

Accepted : Refused

Accepted : Refused

257 : 32

666 : 122

55 : 9

Typology 2

Typology 4

Typology 6

Accepted : Refused

Accepted : Refused

Accepted : Refused

22 : 5

31 : 4

24 : 1

Number of accepted/refused applications per typology between 2008-2016

Small Basement (Typology 1 and 2) Medium Basement (Typology 3 and 4) Large Basement (Typology 5 and 6)

Depth of excavation (meters)

310 meters

The Shard

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Combined depth of accepted basement excavations per year.* *This is based a rough estimation of the total depth of excavations per year based on ‘small’ being 3m in depth, ‘medium’ as 6m in depth, and ‘large’ as 9m in depth.

45

Highlighted: The City of Westminster

200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Graph: Number of basement applications per year

46

2016

7. City of Westminster

The City of Westminster is classed as prime London borough, alongside The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.1 Respectively, the value of properties within The City of Westminster are among the highest in the country, with an average cost of £1,424,388.2 In 2016, Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea combined, had and average house price of 5.72 times that of the rest of England and Wales.3 The City of Westminster has seen the second largest increase in monetary value over the last twenty years, with the average house value increasing by 648%.4 In 2015, Westminster was home to 242,299 residents, which equates to only 0.4% of population in England and Wales.5 This illustrates the high concentration of properties with extreme value within a relatively small area of the golden postcodes of London.

Within the territory of the alpha-elite there has been a significant increase in subterranean development. This is partly due to existing planning restrictions which limit the possibility of vertical and lateral property extensions. The City of Westminster has 56 separate conservation areas designated by the council for their “special architectural and historic interest”.6 Within these areas, additional planning controls apply.7 Despite this, properties within these zones are undergoing varying scales of subterranean extensions.

Within The City of Westminster, the acceptance of basement excavation applications reached a peak of 136 in 2014, compared to 67 accepted applications in 2008. This is an increase of 102% of accepted subterranean extensions within six years. The City of Westminster saw the second largest number of accepted ‘large’ or ‘iceberg’ basement developments, which this report has categorised as involving 6m plus of earth excavated in height beneath the existing property.8 Subsequently, basement developments have caused much distress year-on-year between neighbours. Robert Davis, deputy leader of Westminster City Council, stated the “residents have been facing an underground epidemic on their quiet residential streets”.9 As a result, the local council began to introduce policy restrictions regarding the scale of excavation proposals.

Primarily, the Council published the ‘Basement Development in Westminster Supplementary Planning Document’ (SPD) in October 2014 in a attempt to monitor incoming proposals.10 However, this SPD did not include any new planning policies, and instead merely offered support for applicants. The supplementary guide provided

1

Lloyds Bank: ‘Press Release’ February 2017<https://www.lloydsbank.com/assets/media/pdfs/press-releases/2017/170217-london-boroughs-

hackney-leads-the-way-with-the-highest-rise-press-release.pdf> [Accessed on 03/01/18] 2

Ibid, [Accessed on 03/01/18]

3

Ibid, [Accessed on 03/01/18]

4

Ibid, [Accessed on 03/01/18]

5

<https://www.ons.gov.uk/help/localstatistics> [Accessed on 20/12/2017]

6

<https://www.westminster.gov.uk/conservation-areas> [Accessed on 06/01/2018]

7

Ibid, [Accessed on 06/01/2018]

8

Results from our data - see figure 9, chapter 12.

9

<https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/architects-westminster-crackdown-wont-kill-off-basement-work/8687162.article> [Accessed on

06/01/2018] 10

The City of Westminster: ‘Westminster City Plan’ November 2016. <https://www.westminster.gov.uk/westminsters-city-plan-strategic-policies>

[Accessed on 03/01/18]

47

guidance on things such as:11 - If a planning application is needed as well as what information is required when submitting a planning application.

- The policy framework for basement development and how planning applications will be assessed.

In July 2016, when releasing the revised city plan, the Council officially adopted new policies regarding the excavation of basements in chapter ‘CM 28.1 Basement Development’.12 Additionally, The City of Westminster established a ‘basement tax’ which requires residents to pay an average of £8000 in order to be granted planning permission for any basement extension.13 The overall aim of this new policy was to ensure that the environmental impact of the construction will be recognised and managed.14 Key Aspects of CM28.1 Basement Development Policy include:15 - All applications for basement development will: demonstrate that they have taken into account the site-specific ground conditions, drainage and water environment within the area of the development.

- Not extend beneath more than 50% of the garden land; or on small sites, where the longest distance between the existing building and any site boundary is less than 8m, the basement may extend up to 4m from the building in that direction. On all other sides of the building, the basement will not extend beneath more than half of any other garden area; - Not involve the excavation of more than one storey below the lowest original floor level, unless exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated - Will not be permitted where the existing basement already extends 1.8m or more under the highway.

The most significant of these restrictions to effect the design of basement excavations are those regarding the dimensions. The policy states that new excavations should not extend any greater than one storey below the lowest original floor level, and are not permitted to extend beneath more than 50% of the garden. This has led to questions such as “Is it the end for millionaire mega-basements?”.16

11

The City of Westminster: ‘Westminster City Plan’ November 2016. <https://www.westminster.gov.uk/westminsters-city-plan-strategic-policies>

[Accessed on 03/01/18] 12

Ibid, pg. 1221 [Accessed on 03/01/18]

13

The Telegraph: Online 2016 <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/02/uks-first-basement-tax-forces-30k-bills-on-wealthy-homeowners-

bu/> [Accessed on 03/01/18] 14

<https://www.westminster.gov.uk/basement-extensions> [Accessed on 03/01/18]

15

The City of Westminster: ‘Westminster City Plan’ November 2016. <https://www.westminster.gov.uk/westminsters-city-plan-strategic-policies>

pg.1221 [Accessed on 03/01/18] 16

48

<https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2013/oct/15/mega-basement-extensions-planning-policy> [Accessed on 03/01/18]

Due to the timing of this report, January 2018, a full collection of data for 2017 was not possible with many applications still pending. It is therefore difficult to analyse if the official restrictions formally adopted by Westminster in 2016 have been successful in restricting the amount of subterranean developments. It is possible however to note any changes since publishing the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Basement Development in Westminster Supplementary Planning Documentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; (SPD) in 2014. Although this document did not include any formal restrictions on the scale of basement applications, the number of accepted applications reduced drastically from 136 in 2014, to 49 and 48 in 2015 and 2016 respectively.17 This could be a result of the official restrictions declared by neighbouring borough Kensington and Chelsea in January 2015.

17

Results from our data - See figure 7, chapter 12.

49

Map highlighting the granted basement applications in The City of Westminster 2008.

1

3

5

2

4

6

1

3

5

Including pool

50

2

4

6

Including pool

2009

2012

2015

2010

2013

2016

2011

2014

2017

Maps highlighting the granted basement applications in The City of Westminster per year.*

*January - September 2017.

51

Map highlighting all granted basement applications in The City of Westminster between the period 2008-2017.*

1

3

5

2

4

6

1

3

5

Including pool

52

*January - September 2017.

2

4

6

Including pool

The maps on the previous pages illustrate the boundary for The City of Westminster, in pink, with the locations of all accepted basement applications between 2008-2017. Each marker placed within the site boundary represents a separate planning application. The maps have been separated by year, indicating each Typology of basement excavation with a different symbol. The final map illustrates a combination of all accepted basement planning applications throughout the period of 2008-2017.

The combined map of 2008-2017 for Westminster illustrates a total of 791 accepted basement applications. With the maps split into years, the peak number of accepted applications is visible in the map of 2014, with 136 applications. It must be noted that the map for 2017 only includes data collected from January to September. Although this report was compiled in the January of 2018, not all basement applications from the later months of 2017 had been finalised and thus a number were still pending. As a result it was not possible to record a complete data set for the year of 2017.

The final combined map on the adjacent page offers an analysis of the location of subterranean developments. As a prime London borough, it is not surprising that there are multiple areas with a high concentration of basement developments within The City of Westminster, which include a large proportion of ‘medium’ and ‘large’ excavations.

The maps have helped to identify a cluster of accepted basement applications to the east of Buckingham Palace Gardens, including the roads Kinnerton Street, SW1X 8ED, and Belgrave Mews, SW1X 8RS.1 These streets in particular consist of a high number of ‘medium’ excavations with swimming pools within a small area of Westminster.

Additionally, there appears to be a cluster developing of ‘large’ excavations around St John’s Wood. It is clear from the maps however that there are fewer ‘large’ subterranean excavations than the amount in Kensington and Chelsea.

1

Please refer to figure 3, chapter 12 for an example of Belgrave Mews.

53

The graphics on these two pages illustrate the initial statistical analysis made possible by the data collected for this report. The graphics illustrate the number of accepted and refused applications within Westminster and then go into more detail clarifying the types of subterranean developments taking place. The final graphic offers an indicative depth of subterranean excavation per year within Westminster which has been compared to the height of the famous London landmark, The Shard, at 310 metres.

6

20

175

48

6

1 20

08

67

125

83 2010

13

75 25

1 20 4 13

78 1 1 20

6 89

9 2010

2015 49

12

125

08

26 2014

136 2014 20

5

15

2009 7

54

25

2009

75

20

175

2015 5

1 20

12 1 1 20

2012

18 2012

Accepted Applications

Refused Applications

Accepted: 730

Refused: 111

Total number of accepted and refused applications between 2008-2016.

200 180

Accepted applications

160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 S

M

2008

L

S

M

L

2009

S

M

2010

L

S

M

2011

L

S

M

2012

L

S

M

2013

L

S

M

2014

L

S

M

2015

L

S

M

L

2016

Total number of accepted applications per year between 2008-2016, categorised by small, medium and large.

54

Small

Medium

Large

Typology 1

Typology 3

Typology 5

Accepted : Refused

Accepted : Refused

Accepted : Refused

195 : 27

25 : 7

401 : 48

Typology 2

Typology 4

Typology 6

Accepted : Refused

Accepted : Refused

Accepted : Refused

50 : 10

43 : 14

16 : 5

Number of accepted/refused applications per typology between 2008-2016

Small Basement (Typology 1 and 2) Medium Basement (Typology 3 and 4) Large Basement (Typology 5 and 6)

Depth of excavation (meters)

310 meters

The Shard

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Combined depth of accepted basement excavations per year.* *This is based a rough estimation of the total depth of excavations per year based on ‘small’ being 3m in depth, ‘medium’ as 6m in depth, and ‘large’ as 9m in depth.

55

Highlighted: Hammersmith and Fulham

200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Graph: Number of basement applications per year

56

2016

8. Hammersmith and Fulham

The inner London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham has been consistently ranked within the top five most expensive areas in London over the past 20 years.1 Arguably, Hammersmith and Fulham which is not classed as a ‘prime’ borough, still holds an attractive appeal to the financial elite. The average house price throughout Hammersmith and Fulham was £914,478, in 2016. This illustrates a 507% increase since 1996.2 Furthermore, figures released by ‘Rightmove’,3 suggest an increase to £995,559 as of June 2017.4 Home to a recorded number of 179,410 residents,5 just 0.3% of the population of England and Wales, the inner London borough holds an average house price significantly greater than the overall average for Greater London, of £634,321.6 Subterranean developments appear to be a increasingly common trend within Hammersmith and Fulham. The data collected for this report records 98 accepted basement applications across the borough in 2008, which rises dramatically to a peak of 202 accepted applications in 2014.7 This demonstrates an increase of 106%. The majority of these proposals, around 95%, appear to fall under Typology 1. Within this report, these excavations are classified as ‘small’ basement developments with up to 3m in height under the existing terrace or semidetached property.

Additionally, Hammersmith and Fulham showed the greatest number of accepted basement applications between 2008 and 2016 of all the six boroughs investigated within this report.

The total of 1,193 accepted applications ranked highest, followed by The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, with a total of 1,055 accepted proposals. Respectively, concerns have been raised over the rise of new subterranean landscapes. The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, spoke against the rise of basement developments during his election bid of 2016: “The growth of super basements has been really damaging for communities in Hammersmith and Fulham… They cause disruption, noise and annoyance for thousands of Londoners, blighting neighbourhoods for months on end. People have also expressed real concerns about the impact on mega-basements on the foundations of surrounding buildings.”8 During such bid, Khan pledged to emend the London Plan, in order to ensure greater protection for those affected by subterranean developments.9 However, unlike the neighbouring borough of Kensington and Chelsea, Hammersmith and Fulham has not yet introduced official planning restrictions regarding the scale of basement construction. All planning applications which include subterranean developments must comply with the ‘Development Management Development Plan Document’ (DM DPD), and applicants are offered guidance within the ‘Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Document’ of July 2013.10 Within these documents, applications must consult; ‘Housing Policy 9 Basements’, ‘Design Policy 12 Assessment of Proposals for Light-wells and Basement Excavation’, ‘Design Policy 13 Proposals for basements’ and policy DM A8. One of the main components of these policies insists applicants include a ‘Subterranean Construction Method Statement’. This must be completed by a qualified civil engineer or structural surveyor, and be made available to neighbouring property owners.11

1

<https://www.lloydsbank.com/assets/media/pdfs/press-releases/2017/170217-london-boroughs-hackney-leads-the-way-with-the-highest-rise-

press-release.pdf> [Accessed on 07/01/2018] 2

Ibid, [Accessed on 07/01/2018]

3

Rightmove are one of the UK’s largest online portals for properties.

4

<http://www.rightmove.co.uk/news/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Rightmove-House-Price-Index-19-June-FINAL.pdf> [Accessed on 07/01/2018]

5

<https://www.ons.gov.uk/help/localstatistics> [Accessed on 20/12/2017]

6

<http://www.rightmove.co.uk/news/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Rightmove-House-Price-Index-19-June-FINAL.pdf> [Accessed on

07/01/2018] 7

Results from our data, see figure 7, chapter 12.

8

<http://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/news/west-london-news/massive-rise-mega-basement-planning-11256937> [Accessed on 07/01/2018]

9

Ibid, [Accessed on 07/01/2018]

10

<http://www.croftse.co.uk/hammersmith-and-fulham-basement-construction-method-statement/> [07/01/2018]

11

Ibid, [07/01/2018]

57

Map highlighting the granted basement applications in Hammersmith and Fulham 2008.

1

3

5

2

4

6

1

3

5

Including pool

58

2

4

6

Including pool

2009

2012

2015

2010

2013

2016

2011

2014

2017

Maps highlighting the granted basement applications in Hammersmith and Fulham per year.*

*January - September 2017.

59

Map highlighting all granted basement applications in Hammersmith and Fulham between the period 2008-2017.*

1

3

5

2

4

6

1

3

5

Including pool

60

*January - September 2017.

2

4

6

Including pool

The maps on the previous pages illustrate the boundary for the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, in pink, with the locations of all accepted basement applications between 2008-2017. Each marker placed within the site boundary represents a separate planning application. The maps have been separated by year, indicating each Typology of basement excavation with a different symbol. The final map illustrates a combination of all accepted basement planning applications throughout the period of 2008-2017.

The combined map of 2008-2017 for Hammersmith and Fulham illustrates a total of 1,252 accepted basement applications. With the maps split into years, the peak number of accepted applications is visible in the map of 2014, with 202 applications, in contrast the an annual average of 132 between 2008-2016. It must be noted that the map for 2017 only includes data collected from January to September. Although this report was compiled in the January of 2018, not all basement applications from the later months of 2017 had been finalised and thus a number were still pending. As a result it was not possible to record a complete data set for the year of 2017.

The final combined map on the adjacent page offers an analysis of the location of subterranean developments. It appears that the south end of the borough has become increasingly populated with basement constructions, with a much greater density of developments than the middle or north of the borough. The cluster of roads between Parsons Green, South Park and Eel Brook Common have witnessed a significant increase in the amount of accepted basement excavations. This area includes the streets of; Bradbourne Street, SW6 3TF, Coniger Road, SW6 3TB and Chipstead Street, SW6 3SR for example.1 Additionally, there appears to be an accumulation of the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;mediumâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; basement developments of 3-6m in depth surrounding Bishops Park in the south-west corner of the borough.

Ellerby Street, SW6 6EY, in particular has seen a drastic rise in accepted subterranean excavations. It is in this area of Hammersmith and Fulham that some applications have included swimming pools.

1

Please refer to figure 3, chapter 12 for an example of Bradbourne Street.

61

The graphics on these two pages illustrate the initial statistical analysis made possible by the data collected for this report. The graphics illustrate the number of accepted and refused applications within Hammersmith and Fulham and then go into more detail clarifying the types of subterranean developments taking place. The final graphic offers an indicative depth of subterranean excavation per year within Hammersmith and Fulham which has been compared to the height of the famous London landmark, The Shard, at 310 metres.

20

175

75

75

2009

4

115 2010

2014

202 2014

3 2010

70

25

20 1 13

9 11 11 20

136 2012

08

3

2009 5

125

25

1 20 56 13

2

125

2015 161

1

98

20

175

3

34

6

1 20

08

2015

6

1 20

Accepted Applications

5

11

20

2 2012

Refused Applications

Accepted: 1,193

Refused: 26

Total number of accepted and refused applications between 2008-2016.

200 180

Accepted applications

160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 S

M

2008

L

S

M

L

2009

S

M

2010

L

S

M

2011

L

S

M

2012

L

S

M

2013

L

S

M

2014

L

S

M

2015

L

S

M

L

2016

Total number of accepted applications per year between 2008-2016, categorised by small, medium and large.

62

Medium

Small

Typology 1 Accepted : Refused

Large

Typology 3

Typology 5

Accepted : Refused

Accepted : Refused

34 : 3

1146 : 23

3 :0

Typology 2

Typology 4

Typology 6

Accepted : Refused

Accepted : Refused

Accepted : Refused

2:0

0:0

8:0

Number of accepted/refused applications per typology between 2008-2016

Small Basement (Typology 1 and 2) Medium Basement (Typology 3 and 4) Large Basement (Typology 5 and 6)

Depth of excavation (meters)

310 meters

The Shard

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Combined depth of accepted basement excavations per year.* *This is based a rough estimation of the total depth of excavations per year based on ‘small’ being 3m in depth, ‘medium’ as 6m in depth, and ‘large’ as 9m in depth.

63

Highlighted: Islington

200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Graph: Number of basement applications per year

64

2016

9. Islington

The inner borough of Islington has been classed as the seventh most expensive area in London, with an average house price of £753,673 in 2016.1 This illustrates a drastic increase of 504% over a twenty year period.2 Properties within the borough of Islington therefore, on average, have a higher value than the recorded average for Greater London.3 However, recent statistics from Rightmove,4 suggest that Islington has become the fifth worse annual performer across London for average property price, with a decrease of 3.9% between June 2016 and 2017.5 Home to around 227,692 people, Islington is the fourth largest borough by population included in this study.6 Although Islington is not the smallest by population, the database highlights that Islington has the lowest number of accepted basement applications between 2008 and 2016. There was a peak of 42 accepted applications in 2014, with an overall annual average of 29 accepted subterranean developments over the nine years.

This leads to a total of 261 accepted proposals between 2008 and 2016. The borough of Islington therefore ranks in sixth place of the amount of accepted basement proposals investigated within this report. As a comparison, Haringey holds the second lowest figure of 300 accepted applications, and Hammersmith and Fulham illustrates the greatest amount of accepted proposals with 1,193.7 Much like the other boroughs investigated within this report, the majority of accepted subterranean excavations in Islington, around 85%, are of Typology 1. Within this report, these excavations are classified as ‘small’ basement developments with up to 3m in height under the existing terrace or semi-detached property. The second most likely type of basement construction within Islington is Typology 3 - a ‘medium’ development of 3-6m in height under the existing terrace or semi-detached property. Of the accepted basement applications in Islington, 27 of these were classed as Typology 3, around 9% of the recorded data between 2008 and 2016. The database also indicates that there were not any ‘large’ or ‘iceberg’ subterranean developments accepted throughout the nine year period.

Following the introduction of planning restrictions on subterranean developments within The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea in 2014, the borough of Islington launched a consultation paper based on basement restrictions. The aim of the paper was to then produce a ‘Supplementary Planning Document’ (SPD) for basement applications.

Executive council member for housing and development for Islington, James Murray, spoke out against the trend of basement excavations stating: “We need firmer rules to protect our gardens and trees for the future and to prevent long-term impacts on the character and structure of homes further down the line.”8 The paper included a variety of propositions, from restrictions regarding the scale of development to considerations of the impact of carbon emissions. Correspondingly, the published SPD in July 2015, included design restrictions similar to that of Kensington and Chelsea. The document

1

<https://www.lloydsbank.com/assets/media/pdfs/press-releases/2017/170217-london-boroughs-hackney-leads-the-way-with-the-highest-rise-

press-release.pdf> [Accessed on 06/01/2018] 2

Ibid, [Accessed on 06/01/2018]

3

<http://www.rightmove.co.uk/news/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Rightmove-House-Price-Index-19-June-FINAL.pdf> [Accessed on 06/01/2018]

4

Rightmove are one of the UK’s largest online portals for properties.

5

<http://www.rightmove.co.uk/news/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Rightmove-House-Price-Index-19-June-FINAL.pdf> [Accessed on

06/01/2018] 6

<https://www.ons.gov.uk/help/localstatistics> [Accessed on 20/12/2017]

7

Results from our data, see figure 6, chapter 12.

8

<https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/new-moves-to-curb-mega-basements-as-islington-joins-council-crackdown-9918032.html>

[Accessed on 06/01/2018]

65

includes design considerations of subterranean developments such as:9 - The basement excavation should occupy less than 50% of the original garden footprint, both rear and front - The remainder of the garden to be designed to maximise garden amenity and support biodiversity - A basement should not involve excavation of more than one (1) storey below the lowest original floor level.

- The height of a basement should not exceed 3m floor to ceiling height.

- Light-wells and other external manifestations are to be modest in size, discreetly located, and designed to protect and enhance the character and appearance of the area.

- Where basement comes within proximity to existing trees on the site and/or adjoining sites, trees shall be retained and the basement should be designed to avoid any adverse impacts upon those trees. An Arboricultural Report should be submitted in accordance with BS 5837:2012 for any such application.

- A Sustainable Design and Construction Statement should be submitted with any application for basement development demonstrating maximisation of passive design and operational efficiency at a level of detail commensurate to the scale of the proposal.

In addition to these regulations, the applicant is required to submit a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Structural Method Statementâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, signed by a qualified chartered structural, or civil engineer.

After the appointment of the SPD in 2015, accepted basement applications did drop from 42 proposals in 2014, to 34 in 2015 and then 21 in 2016. Thus a decrease of 50% in accepted subterranean proposals from 2014 to 2016.

9

Islington Council, Draft Supplementary Planning Document, July 2015 <https://www.islington.gov.uk//~/media/sharepoint-lists/public-records/ planningandbuildingcontrol/publicity/publicconsultation/20152016/20150709basementdevelopmentspdconsultationdraftjuly2015> page 13-17 [Accessed on 06/01/2018]

66

67

Map highlighting the granted basement applications in Islington, 2008.

1

3

5

2

4

6

1

3

5

Including pool

68

2

4

6

Including pool

2009

2012

2015

2010

2013

2016

2011

2014

2017

Maps highlighting the granted basement applications in Islington per year.*

*January - September 2017.

69

Map highlighting all granted basement applications in Islington between the period 2008-2017.*

1

3

5

2

4

6

1

3

5

Including pool

70

*January - September 2017.

2

4

6

Including pool

The maps on the previous pages illustrate the boundary for the London borough of Islington, in pink, with the locations of all accepted basement applications between 2008-2017. Each marker placed within the site boundary represents a separate planning application. The maps have been separated by year, indicating each Typology of basement excavation with a different symbol. The final map illustrates a combination of all accepted basement planning applications throughout the period of 2008-2017.

The combined map of 2008-2017 for Islington illustrates a total of 286 accepted basement applications. With the maps split into years, the peak number of accepted applications is visible in the map of 2014, with 42 applications, in contrast to an annual average of 29 between 2008-2016. It must be noted that the map for 2017 only includes data collected from January to September. Although this report was compiled in the January of 2018, not all basement applications from the later months of 2017 had been finalised and thus a number were still pending. As a result it was not possible to record a complete data set for the year of 2017.

The final combined map on the adjacent page offers an analysis of the location of subterranean developments. The street of Highbury Hill, N5 1SU, in particular, has seen a large increase in basement excavations over the ten year period. This street alone is home to around 12 accepted subterranean constructions.1 The majority of these excavations are of Typology 1 - ‘small’ developments under a terrace or semi-detached property. This is representative of the whole borough with the highest number of 224 accepted applications consisting of Typology 1. The second highest number of accepted applications were of Typology 3, ‘medium’ developments under a terrace or semidetached property. These are illustrated by the solid black square symbol. The combined map does not suggest a consistent trend in the location of Typology 3 constructions and instead that they are spaced more broadly throughout the borough of Islington.

1

Please refer to figure 3, chapter 12 for an example of Highbury Hill.

71

The graphics on these two pages illustrate the initial statistical analysis made possible by the data collected for this report. The graphics illustrate the number of accepted and refused applications within Islington and then go into more detail clarifying the types of subterranean developments taking place. The final graphic offers an indicative depth of subterranean excavation per year within Islington which has been compared to the height of the famous London landmark, The Shard, at 310 metres.

20

175

32

5

75

75

2009

25

7

21 2010

2014

20 2 13

31 1 1 20

25

8 2010

26

42 2014 2 20 9 13

08

7

2009 5

125

25

20

175

125

2015 34

21

6

1 20

08

2015 8

6

1 20

8

11

20

2012

9 2012

Accepted Applications

Refused Applications

Accepted: 261

Refused: 59

Total number of accepted and refused applications between 2008-2016.

200 180

Accepted applications

160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 S

M

2008

L

S

M

L

2009

S

M

2010

L

S

M

2011

L

S

M

2012

L

S

M

2013

L

S

M

2014

L

S

M

2015

L

S

M

L

2016

Total number of accepted applications per year between 2008-2016, categorised by small, medium and large.

72

Medium

Small

Typology 1

Large

Typology 3

Typology 5

Accepted : Refused

Accepted : Refused

224 : 43

27 : 14

0 :0

Typology 2

Typology 4

Typology 6

Accepted : Refused

Accepted : Refused

Accepted : Refused

9:2

1:0

Accepted : Refused

0:0

Number of accepted/refused applications per typology between 2008-2016

Small Basement (Typology 1 and 2) Medium Basement (Typology 3 and 4) Large Basement (Typology 5 and 6)

Depth of excavation (meters)

310 meters

The Shard

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Combined depth of accepted basement excavations per year.* *This is based a rough estimation of the total depth of excavations per year based on ‘small’ being 3m in depth, ‘medium’ as 6m in depth, and ‘large’ as 9m in depth.

73

Highlighted: Camden

200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Graph: Number of basement applications per year

74

2016

10. Camden

The inner London borough of Camden has been consistently ranked within the top five most expensive areas in London over the past 20 years.1 Although Camden is not classed as a ‘prime’ borough it has seen the third largest increase in monetary value over the last 20 years across the whole of London. During this period, the average house price has grown by £887,658.2 As one of the most expensive locations in London, Camden holds a strong appeal to the financial elite. The average house price for property in Camden was £1,056,705 in 2016, compared to a figure of £169,047 in 1996. This is an increase of 525%.3 Additionally, according to a report produced by ‘Rightmove’,4 there has been a further increase in property value to £1,177,996, as of June 2017.5 The borough of Camden is home to 241,059 residents, only 0.41% of the population of England and Wales.6 This illustrates a significant concentration of high property value within one inner borough in comparison to the overall average of £634,321, for Greater London.7 With a shortage of land for development and the high value of land within Camden, the development of basements has become an increasingly popular method of gaining additional living space without residents having to relocate. However, such subterranean developments have the potential to cause harm to neighbours properties, affect the stability of buildings, cause drainage and flooding problems, and harm the character of the area. Due to a rise in basement construction, the 2017 Local Plan for Camden introduced ‘Policy A5’ alongside the ‘Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Document’ (SPD).8 These documents were published with the aim to monitor basement applications and provide design restrictions to such projects. The ‘Policy A5’ states that a basement development should:9 - Not comprise of more than one storey - Not be built under an existing basement - Not exceed 50% of each garden within the property - Be less than 1.5 times the footprint of the host building in area - Extend into the garden no further than 50% of the depth of the host building measured from the principal rear elevation - Not extend into or underneath the garden further than 50% of the depth of the garden - Be set back from neighbouring property boundaries where it extends beyond the footprint of the host building - Avoid the loss of garden space or trees of townscape or amenity value.

However the council also states exceptions may be made on “large, comprehensively planned sites.”10 The data collected for this report demonstrates that the amount of accepted basement applications in Camden has been fairly consistent throughout the period of 2008 to 2016,

<https://www.lloydsbank.com/assets/media/pdfs/press-releases/2017/170217-london-boroughs-hackney-leads-the-way-with-the-highest-risepress-release.pdf> [Accessed 07/01/18] 2 Ibid, [Accessed 07/01/18] 3 Ibid, [Accessed 07/01/18] 4 Rightmove are one of the UK’s leading online property portals.

5 <http://www.rightmove.co.uk/news/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Rightmove-House-Price-Index-19-June-FINAL.pdf> [Accessed 07/01/18] 6 <https://www.ons.gov.uk/help/localstatistics> [Accessed on 20/12/2017] 7 <http://www.rightmove.co.uk/news/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Rightmove-House-Price-Index-19-June-FINAL.pdf> [Accessed 07/01/18] 8 Camden Planning Guidance Basements, 2017 <https://www.camden.gov.uk/ccm/cms-service/stream/asset/?asset_id=3653435&> [Accessed 07/01/18] 9 Ibid, page 190 [Accessed 07/01/18] 10 Ibid, page 190 [Accessed 07/01/18] 1

75

with an average of 66 accepted excavations per year.11 This equates to more than double the amount of subterranean developments accepted in the neighbouring borough of Islington, with an average of 29 accepted applications per year. However, the figure of 66, is still significantly lower than the annual average of 117 accepted proposals in The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.12 Within Camden, the majority, 62%, of accepted basement applications fall under Typology 1. Basement developments within this category have been considered as ‘small’, with up to 3m in height under the existing terrace or semi-detached property. Additionally, the borough of Camden has been recorded to hold the highest number of accepted applications of Typology 4 of all the six boroughs in this report. Typology 4 basements are ‘medium’ subterranean developments which consist of 3-6m in height excavated under the existing detached property. Camden was recorded to have 74 accepted Typology 4 proposals, followed by The City of Westminster with 54.13

11

76

Results from our data, see figure 7, chapter 12.

12

Results from our data, see figure 7, chapter 12.

13

Results from our data, see figure 9, chapter 12.

77

Map highlighting the granted basement applications in Camden, 2008.

1

3

5

2

4

6

1

3

5

Including pool

78

2

4

6

Including pool

2009

2012

2015

2010

2013

2016

2011

2014

2017

Maps highlighting the granted basement applications in Camden per year.*

*January - September 2017.

79

Map highlighting all granted basement applications in Camden between the period 2008-2017.*

1

3

5

2

4

6

1

3

5

Including pool

80

*January - September 2017.

2

4

6

Including pool

The maps on the previous pages illustrate the boundary for The London Borough of Camden, in pink, with the locations of all accepted basement applications between 2008-2017. Each marker placed within the site boundary represents a separate planning application. The maps have been separated by year, indicating each Typology of basement excavation with a different symbol. The final map illustrates a combination of all accepted basement planning applications throughout the period of 2008-2017.

The combined map of 2008-2017 for Camden illustrates a total of 645 accepted basement applications. With the maps split into years, the peak number of accepted applications is visible in the map of 2008, with 86 applications. It must be noted that the map for 2017 only includes data collected from January to September. Although this report was compiled in the January of 2018, not all basement applications from the later months of 2017 had been finalised and thus a number were still pending. As a result it was not possible to record a complete data set for the year of 2017.

The final combined map on the adjacent page offers an analysis of the location of subterranean developments. It appears that the north-west of the borough has seen a large increase in basement excavations in comparison to south. Within the north-west however, the basement developments are fairly well spread. There has been a significant rise in the number of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;mediumâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; scale developments in the areas neighbouring The City of Westminster. Just to the north of Primrose Hill, Elsworthy Road, NW3 3BT, and Wadham Gardens, NW3 3DN, have been home to a large number of basement excavations beneath detached properties, mainly Typology 4, of up to 6m in height.1 The majority of these developments include a swimming pool.

1

Please refer to figure 3, chapter 12 for an example of Elsworthy Road.

81

The graphics on these two pages illustrate the initial statistical analysis made possible by the data collected for this report. The graphics illustrate the number of accepted and refused applications within Camden and then go into more detail clarifying the types of subterranean developments taking place. The final graphic offers an indicative depth of subterranean excavation per year within Camden which has been compared to the height of the famous London landmark, The Shard, at 310 metres.

20

175

86

75

2009

63

77 2010

3 2014

2014

6 2010

68

25

20 6 13

61 1 1 20

61

08

2009 6

75

6 20 8 13

7

4 125

25

20

175

125

2015 63

54

6

1 20

08

2015 7

6

1 20

11 1 1 20

2012

6 2012

Accepted Applications

Refused Applications

Accepted: 601

Refused: 56

Total number of accepted and refused applications between 2008-2016.

200 180

Accepted applications

160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 S

M

2008

L

S

M

L

2009

S

M

2010

L

S

M

2011

L

S

M

2012

L

S

M

2013

L

S

M

2014

L

S

M

2015

L

S

M

L

2016

Total number of accepted applications per year between 2008-2016, categorised by small, medium and large.

82

Small

Medium

Large

Typology 1

Typology 3

Typology 5

Accepted : Refused

Accepted : Refused

Accepted : Refused

100 : 8

378 : 36

3 :1

Typology 2

Typology 4

Typology 6

Accepted : Refused

Accepted : Refused

Accepted : Refused

48 : 7

67 : 3

5:1

Number of accepted/refused applications per typology between 2008-2016

Small Basement (Typology 1 and 2) Medium Basement (Typology 3 and 4) Large Basement (Typology 5 and 6)

Depth of excavation (meters)

310 meters

The Shard

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Combined depth of accepted basement excavations per year.* *This is based a rough estimation of the total depth of excavations per year based on ‘small’ being 3m in depth, ‘medium’ as 6m in depth, and ‘large’ as 9m in depth.

83

Highlighted: Haringey

200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Graph: Number of basement applications per year

84

2016

11. Haringey

The London borough of Haringey is the only ‘outer’ borough which has been included within this report. Although it is not considered as a prime, or arguably even sub-prime location, it proves a valuable study to begin to examine the extents of basement excavations across London as a whole. Haringey, located to the north of both inner boroughs Islington and Camden, ranks 12th in the most expensive areas of London.1 Thus the least expensive examined within this report. Despite this, the average house price across the borough has still seen an increase of 508% between the years of 1996-2016, reaching £622,944 in 2016.2 However, ‘Rightmove’,3 have recorded an annual drop of -2.6% in the average house price within the borough, between the June of 2016 and 2017.4 Home to a recorded number of 272,864 people, Haringey is the largest borough by population of the six studied.5 This relates to 0.47% of the population in England and Wales. Haringey, however, demonstrated the second lowest number in accepted basement applications between 2008 and 2016. The amount of accepted applications is fairly consistent throughout this period with an average number of 33 basement excavations per year.6 This is half the amount of subterranean developments accepted in the neighbouring borough of Camden with an average of 66 applications per year, and significantly lower than the golden postcodes of Kensington and Chelsea with an annual average of 117 accepted proposals.7 Likewise to the other boroughs studied, the majority of basement applications accepted within Haringey, around 70%, are of Typology 1. Within this report, these excavations are classified as ‘small’ basement developments with up to 3m in height under the existing terrace or semi-detached property. However, 10% of the accepted applications between 2008 and 2016 fall under Typology 4. Proposals with this code are considered ‘medium’ subterranean developments and therefore consist of 3-6m in height excavated under the existing detached property. The London borough of Haringey ranks third of all the six boroughs for the amount of accepted Typology 4 constructions between 2008 and 2016 with 34 proposals, behind The City of Westminster, with 54 and Camden with the highest amount of 74.

Although the borough of Haringey has not see a drastic increase in subterranean excavation proposals per year, the Council has responded to local protests of such developments by applying “stricter controls” to planning with the aim to “stop unsociable or ugly underground extensions”.8 In the June of 2012, Haringey published a ‘Draft Basement Development Guide Notice’ which stated that the Council “will only permit basements and other underground development where you can demonstrate it will not cause harm to the built and natural environment and local amenity, including to the local water environment, ground conditions and biodiversity.”9 The document also states that basement developments of just 3m in height and that do not extend beyond the footprint of the property are more “modest” and “often the most appropriate way to extend a building below ground.”10 Schemes larger than this therefore are required to provide evidence that the development will not cause harm to the surrounding environment. A document called a ‘Basement Impact Assessment’ is required for planning applications, which includes the appointment of a qualified chartered engineer to inspect, approve and monitor throughout the construction period of a basement development.

1

<https://www.lloydsbank.com/assets/media/pdfs/press-releases/2017/170217-london-boroughs-hackney-leads-the-way-with-the-highest-rise-

press-release.pdf> [Accessed on 07/01/2018] 2

Ibid, [Accessed on 07/01/2018]

3 4

Rightmove are one of the UK’s largest online portals for properties. <http://www.rightmove.co.uk/news/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Rightmove-House-Price-Index-19-June-FINAL.pdf> [Accessed on 07/01/2018]

5

<https://www.ons.gov.uk/help/localstatistics> [Accessed on 20/12/2017]

6

Results from our data, see figure 7, chapter 12.

7

Results from our data, see figure 7, chapter 12.

8

<https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/06/battle-rages-for-soul-of-highgate> [Accessed on 07/01/2018]

9

Haringey Council, Draft Basement Development Guide Notice 2012 <https://www.minutes.haringey.gov.uk/documents/s26669/Basement%20

Guidance%20Note%20June%202012.pdf> page 4 [Accessed on 07/01/2018] 10

Ibid, page 19 [Accessed on 07/01/2018]

85

Map highlighting the granted basement applications in Haringey 2008.

1

3

5

2

4

6

1

3

5

Including pool

86

2

4

6

Including pool

2009

2012

2015

2010

2013

2016

2011

2014

2017

Maps highlighting the granted basement applications in Haringey per year.*

*January - September 2017.

87

Map highlighting all granted basement applications in Haringey between the period 2008-2017.*

1

3

5

2

4

6

1

3

5

Including pool

88

*January - September 2017.

2

4

6

Including pool

The maps on the previous pages illustrate the boundary for the London borough of Haringey, in pink, with the locations of all accepted basement applications between 2008-2017. Each marker placed within the site boundary represents a separate planning application. The maps have been separated by year, indicating each Typology of basement excavation with a different symbol. The final map illustrates a combination of all accepted basement planning applications throughout the period of 2008-2017.

The combined map of 2008-2017 for Haringey illustrates a total of 327 accepted basement applications. With the maps split into years, the peak number of accepted applications is visible in the map of 2014, with 42 applications. The amount of accepted applications is fairly consistent however throughout the period of 2008-2016 with an average of 33. It must be noted that the map for 2017 only includes data collected from January to September. Although this report was compiled in the January of 2018, not all basement applications from the later months of 2017 had been finalised and thus a number were still pending. As a result it was not possible to record a complete data set for the year of 2017.

The final combined map on the adjacent page offers an analysis of the location of subterranean developments. It appears that the west side of the borough has seen a large increase in basement excavations in comparison to the east. Additionally, there has been a significant rise in the number of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;mediumâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; scale developments in the areas neighbouring Camden and Islington. Just to the north of Hampstead Heath, the roads of Courtenay Avenue, N6 4LP, Compton Avenue, N6 4LB, and Sheldon Avenue, N6 4JS, have been home to a large number of basement excavations under detached properties, mainly of Typology 2 and 4.1 This area in particular has seen a notable increase in excavations with swimming pools in comparison with the rest of the borough.

1

Please refer to figure 3, chapter 12 for an example of Sheldon Avenue.

89

The graphics on these two pages illustrate the initial statistical analysis made possible by the data collected for this report. The graphics illustrate the number of accepted and refused applications within Haringey and then go into more detail clarifying the types of subterranean developments taking place. The final graphic offers an indicative depth of subterranean excavation per year within Haringey which has been compared to the height of the famous London landmark, The Shard, at 310 metres.

6

20

175

34

6

1 20

08

42

2

25

27 2010

2

3 2010

42

125 75

2 13

30 1 1 20

29

2

08

2

2014

30 2014 3 20 2 13

20

175

2009 5

25

2009

75

2015

125

25

2015

1 20

2

20

11

20

2012

3 2012

Accepted Applications

Refused Applications

Accepted: 300

Refused: 25

Total number of accepted and refused applications between 2008-2016.

200

Accepted applicatioions

180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 S

M

2008

L

S

M

L

2009

S

M

2010

L

S

M

2011

L

S

M

2012

L

S

M

2013

L

S

M

2014

L

S

M

2015

L

S

M

L

2016

Total number of accepted applications per year between 2008-2016, categorised by small, medium and large.

90

Small

Medium

Large

Typology 1

Typology 3

Typology 5

Accepted : Refused

Accepted : Refused

Accepted : Refused

215 : 20

12 : 1

0 :0

Typology 2

Typology 4

Typology 6

Accepted : Refused

Accepted : Refused

Accepted : Refused

40 : 0

33 : 4

0:0

Number of accepted/refused applications per typology between 2008-2016

Small Basement (Typology 1 and 2) Medium Basement (Typology 3 and 4) Large Basement (Typology 5 and 6)

Depth of excavation (meters)

310 meters

The Shard

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Combined depth of accepted basement excavations per year.* *This is based a rough estimation of the total depth of excavations per year based on ‘small’ being 3m in depth, ‘medium’ as 6m in depth, and ‘large’ as 9m in depth.

91

12. Overall Analysis

472

Accepted Applications

Map highlighting all granted basement applications in the six London boroughs in 2008.

1

3

5

2

4

6

1

3

5

Including pool

92

2

4

6

Including pool

4,140

Accepted Applications

Map highlighting all granted basement applications in the six London boroughs between the period 2008-2017.*

*January - September 2017.

93

16 3 41

20

600

20 0 47 8 2

400

2009 299

2015 475

200

385 2010

596 2014 5 20 62 13

523 2012

5 41 11 20

Overall number of accepted applications across the six boroughs per year between 2008-2016.

20

16

20

38

600

40

08

2009 29

200

64

2015

400

77

37 2010

2014

5 20 3 13

63 2012

49 1 1 20

Overall number of refused applications across the six boroughs per year between 2008-2016.

Accepted: 4,140

Total number of accepted and refused applications between 2008-2016.

94

Refused: 450

16

20

36

175

20

51

08

125

29

2009 37

2015

75 25

60

42 2010

2014

5 20 1 13

52 2012

37 1 1 20

Number of accepted applications with swimming pools per year between 2008-2016.

ge y 39

rin

r te ins 3

125

13

Ha

tm

es W

175

75 25

120 K&C

97 n Camde

Isli 2 ng ton

4 F H&

Number of accepted applications with swimming pools per borough between 2008-2016.

With: 395

Total number of applications with swimming pools between 2008-2016.

Without: 3,745

95

51

Accepted applications with pools.

Map highlighting all granted basement applications which included swimming pools in the six London boroughs in 2008.

1

96

3

5

2

4

6

395

Accepted applications with pools.

Map highlighting all granted basement applications which included swimming pools in the six London boroughs between the period 2008-2017.*

*January - September 2017.

97

The graphic to the right offers an indicative depth of subterranean excavation per borough between the period of 2008-2016. The depth has been compared to the famous London landmark of The Shard, which is 310 metres in height. The graph therefore suggests that the total depth of excavation over the nine year period in Kensington and Chelsea roughly equates to 14 and a half â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;The Shardsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, followed by Hammersmith and Fulham which equates to 12.

98

Small Basement (Typology 1 or 2) Medium Basement (Typology 3 or 4)

Depth of excavation (meters)

Large Basement (Typology 5 or 6)

The Shard 310 meters

Westminster

K&C

H&F

Islington

Camden

Haringey

Combined depth of accepted basement excavations per borough between 2008-2016.* *This is based a rough estimation of the total depth of excavations per year based on ‘small’ being 3m in depth, ‘medium’ as 6m in depth, and ‘large’ as 9m in depth.

99

The graphic to the right offers an indicative depth of subterranean excavation per Typology of small, medium and large developments between the period of 2008-2016.

The graph therefore suggests that the total depth of excavation over the nine year period for â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;smallâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; basement construction equates to approximately 30 of The Shard.

100

30 ‘Shards’

Small Basement (Typology 1 or 2)

25 ‘Shards’

Medium Basement (Typology 3 or 4) Large Basement (Typology 5 or 6)

20 ‘Shards’

15 ‘Shards’

10 ‘Shards’

Depth of excavation (meters)

5 ‘Shards’

The Shard 310 meters

Small

Medium

Large

Combined depth of accepted basement excavations between 2008-2016.* *This is based a rough estimation of the total depth of excavations per year based on ‘small’ being 3m in depth, ‘medium’ as 6m in depth, and ‘large’ as 9m in depth.

101

Figure 3: Inverted 3D extrusion maps to illustrate the scale and location of basement excavations.

The chapters of each borough referenced roads with particular intensities of basement developments.

The drawings below illustrate a segment of one popular road from each borough.

Small Basement (Typology 1 or 2) Medium Basement (Typology 3 or 4) Large Basement (Typology 5 or 6)

Tregunter Street, Kensington and Chelsea

Belgrave Mews, Westminster

Bradbourne Street Hammersmith and Fulham

102

Highbury Hill, Islington

Elsworthy Road, Camden

Sheldon Avenue, Haringey

103

Figure 4: Section through Tregunter Road, Kensington and Chelsea.

An example section through Tregunter Road in The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. The semidetached properties shown are numbers: 2,4,6,8,10,12,14, and 16. Out of the eight properties illustrated, six have received a granted basement application between the period 2008-2017.

104

105

Figure 5: Number of applications accepted and for all six between boroughs 2008-2016 between 2008-2016 Number of applications accected/refused forrefused all six borough

Number of applications accected/refused for all six borough between 2008-2016 Decision

No. of Applications

Percentage (%)

Accepted Decision

4,140 No. of Applications

90.2 (%) Percentage

Accepted Refused

4,140 450

90.2 9.8

Refused Total

450 4,590

9.8 100

Total

4,590

100

Number of applications accected/refused per borough between 2008-2016 Number of applications accected/refused per borough 2008-2016 Figure 6: Number of applications accepted and refused per between borough between 2008-2016: Borough

Accepted

Refused

K&C Borough

1055 (85.9%) Accepted

173 (14.1%) Refused

K&C Westminster

1055 (85.9%) 730 (86.8%)

173 111 (14.1%) (13.2%)

Westminster H&F

730 (86.8%) 1193 (97.9%)

111 (13.2%) 26 (2.1%)

H&F Islington

1193 (97.9%) 261 (81.6%)

26(18.4%) (2.1%) 59

261 (81.6%) 59 Camden 601 for (91.5%) 56(18.4%) (8.5%) Number Islington of applications accected/refused all six borough between 2008-2016 Camden Haringey

601 300 (91.5%) (92.3%)

56 25 (8.5%) (7.7%)

Haringey Total Decision

300 (92.3%) 4140 (90.2%) No. of Applications

25 (7.7%) 450 (9.8%)(%) Percentage

Refused

450

9.8

Total Accepted

4140 (90.2%) 4,140

45090.2 (9.8%)

Number ofTotal accepted applications per typology 4,590 per borough between 2008-2016100 Number of accepted applications per typology per borough between 2008-2016 No. of Accepted Applications Figure 7: Number of accepted applications year split the six boroughs: Number of accepted applications per per borough perinto year No. of between Accepted Applications Small per borough Medium Number Borough of applications accected/refused 2008-2016 Borough

Borough

Typology Small 1 Typology 2

K&C

666 (63.1%) Typology 1 2008 2009

K&& &CCC KK Westminster Westminster Westminster H&F Westminster

666 (54.9%) (63.1%) 147 56 401

Borough

HH&&FF Islington H&F Islington Islington Camden Islington

Camden Camden Haringey

Camden Haringey Haringey Total Haringey Total

Total Total

67 54 401 (54.9%) 1146 (96.1%) 98 70 1146 (96.1%) 224 (85.8%) 32 26 224 (85.8%) 378 (62.9%) 86 68 378 (62.9%) 215 (71.7%) 42 25 215 (71.7%) 3,030 (73.2%)

Typology Large 5 Typology 6

22 (2.1%)2011 257 2012 (24.4%)3 2013 31 (2.9%) Typology 2 Typology Typology 4 2010 2014 Accepted

55 (5.2%)2016 24 Total (2.3%) 6 Typology 5 Typology 2015 Refused

22 (2.1%) 257 (26.7%) (24.4%) 62(5.9%) 173 43 1055 (85.9%)97 195 83 78 89 43 (5.9%) 195 (26.7%) 8 (0.7%) 34 (2.8%) 730 (86.8%) 115 119 27 136 8 34(10.3%) (2.8%) 9 (0.7%) (3.4%) 1193 (97.9%) 21 31 25 9 (3.4%) 27 (10.3%) 48(81.6%) (8.0%) 100 (16.6%) 261 77(13.3%) 61 48 (8.0%) 61 100 40 12 (16.6%) (4.0%) 601 (91.5%) 39 4027(13.3%) 29 12 (4.0%)

31 (6.8%) (2.9%) 15150 123

12650 136 (6.8%) 2 (0.2%) 1561 202 2 (0.4%) (0.2%) 2967 42 1 (0.4%) (11.1%) 6833 63 67 (11.0%) (11.1%)

3233 (11.0%) 30 170(92.3%) (4.1%) 625 (15.1%) 184 (4.4%) 300 385 415 523 562 596 3,030 (73.2%) 4140 170 (90.2%) (4.1%) 625 (15.1%) 184 (4.4%)

472

Large

Medium Typology 3 Typology 4 Year

299

55 (5.2%) 122 16 24 (2.2%) (2.3%) 124 1,055 25 (3.4%) 173 (14.1%) 49 48 730 25 (3.4%) 16 (2.2%) 3 (0.3%) 0 (0.0%) 111 (13.2%) 134 3163 (0.3%) 0 (0.0%) 26 (2.1%) 34 0 (0.0%) (0.5%) 21 593 (18.4%)

1,193 0 (0.0%) 261 0 5 (0.0%) (0.8%)

363 (0.5%) 54 0 (0.0%)

601 5 0 (0.8%) (0.0%) 56 (8.5%) 34 0 (0.0%) 300 042 (0.0%) 86 (2.1%) 45 (1.1%) 25 (7.7%) 475

86 (2.1%) 450 (9.8%)

413

4,140

45 (1.1%)

Number of accepted applications with/without pools per borough between 2008-2016 Number of of accepted applications applications per with/without pools per borough between 2008-2016 Number typology per borough between 2008-2016 Figure 8:Totalaccepted number of accepted applications between 2008-2016 per borough split into typologies: Borough Borough K&C Borough

K&C Westminster Westminster & CF KH & H &F Islington Westminster Islington Camden H&F Camden Haringey Islington

No. of Accepted Applications

No. of of Accepted Accepted Applications ApplicationsWithout Pool With Pool No. 935 (88.6%) 120 (11.4%) Without Pool SmallWith Pool Medium Large Typology 1 666 (63.1%) 401 (54.9%) 1146 (96.1%) 224 (85.8%)

120 (18.2%) (11.4%) 133

Typology 2

133 (18.2%) 4 (0.3%) 22 (2.1%) 4 2 (0.3%) (0.8%) 43 (5.9%) 2 (16.1%) (0.8%) 97 8 (0.7%) 97 399 (16.1%) (13.0%) (3.4%)

Haringey Total Camden

378 (62.9%)

Total Haringey

215 (71.7%)

39 (13.0%) 395 (9.5%) 48 (8.0%) 395 (9.5%) 40 (13.3%)

Total

3,030 (73.2%)

170 (4.1%)

Typology 3

Typology 4

257 (24.4%)

31 (2.9%)

195 (26.7%)

50 (6.8%)

34 (2.8%)

2 (0.2%)

935 (88.6%)

597 (81.8%) Typology 5

597 (81.8%) 1189 (99.7%) 55 (5.2%) 1189 (99.7%) 259 (99.2%) 25 (3.4%) 259 504 (99.2%) (83.9%) 3 (0.3%) 504 (83.9%) 261 (87.0%) 0 (0.0%)

27 (10.3%)

1 (0.4%)

100 (16.6%)

67 (11.1%)

12 (4.0%)

33 (11.0%)

261 (87.0%) 3745 (90.5%) 3 (0.5%) 3745 (90.5%) 0 (0.0%)

625 (15.1%)

184 (4.4%)

86 (2.1%)

Number of accepted applications with/without pools per borough between 2008-2016 106

Borough

No. of Accepted Applications

Typology 6 24 (2.3%) 16 (2.2%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 5 (0.8%) 0 (0.0%) 45 (1.1%)

Figure 9: Total number of accepted applications split into typologies borough each year between 2008-2016.

Number of accepted applications per typology per borough perper year No. of Accepted Applications Year

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Small

Borough K&C Westminster H&F Islington Camden Haringey K&C Westminster H&F Islington Camden Haringey K&C Westminster H&F Islington Camden Haringey K&C Westminster H&F Islington Camden Haringey K&C Westminster H&F Islington Camden Haringey K&C Westminster H&F Islington Camden Haringey K&C Westminster H&F Islington Camden Haringey K&C Westminster H&F Islington Camden Haringey K&C Westminster H&F Islington Camden Haringey

Medium

Large

Typology 1

Typology 2

Typology 3

Typology 4

Typology 5

Typology 6

91 35 83 32 66 30 36 22 68 18 42 17 53 39 109 18 47 15 72 45 113 25 35 21 120 61 131 23 41 30 77 77 153 25 39 23 48 74 196 37 43 22 89 22 160 30 32 31 80 25 133 16 33 26

3 4 1 0 2 7 0 8 0 1 10 3 2 7 2 2 7 6 2 3 3 2 7 6 4 5 0 0 4 3 2 2 0 2 9 4 0 6 0 0 2 3 2 2 2 0 2 7 7 1 0 2 5 1

39 19 13 0 8 0 16 13 2 6 8 1 7 17 3 1 13 3 22 24 3 4 11 0 36 18 4 2 8 1 42 42 3 2 15 2 50 41 4 5 14 4 22 19 1 4 16 1 23 17 1 3 7 1

8 9 0 0 9 5 1 7 0 1 7 4 0 12 0 0 8 4 0 2 0 0 7 2 6 5 1 0 8 5 2 2 0 0 5 3 1 5 1 0 3 1 4 2 0 0 13 3 9 3 0 0 7 6

3 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 5 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 23 23 0 0 0 0 14 7 1 0 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 1 0

3 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 10 3 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

107

Camden

378 (62.9%)

48 (8.0%)

100 (16.6%)

67 (11.1%)

3 (0.5%)

5 (0.8%)

Haringey

215 (71.7%)

40 (13.3%)

12 (4.0%)

33 (11.0%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

Total

3,030 (73.2%)

170 (4.1%)

625 (15.1%)

184 (4.4%)

86 (2.1%)

45 (1.1%)

Figure 10: Total number of applications with and without swimming pools per borough between 2008Number of accepted applications with/without pools per borough between 2008-2016 2016:

Borough

108

No. of Accepted Applications With Pool

Without Pool

K&C

120 (11.4%)

935 (88.6%)

Westminster

133 (18.2%)

597 (81.8%)

H&F

4 (0.3%)

1189 (99.7%)

Islington

2 (0.8%)

259 (99.2%)

Camden

97 (16.1%)

504 (83.9%)

Haringey

39 (13.0%)

261 (87.0%)

Total

395 (9.5%)

3745 (90.5%)

Figure 11: Number of accepted applications with and without swimming pools split per borough each year Number2008-2016: of accepted applications with/without pools per borough per year between

Year

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Borough K&C Westminster H&F Islington Camden Haringey K&C Westminster H&F Islington Camden Haringey K&C Westminster H&F Islington Camden Haringey K&C Westminster H&F Islington Camden Haringey K&C Westminster H&F Islington Camden Haringey K&C Westminster H&F Islington Camden Haringey K&C Westminster H&F Islington Camden Haringey K&C Westminster H&F Islington Camden Haringey K&C Westminster H&F Islington Camden Haringey

No. of Accepted Applications With Pool

Without Pool

24 8 1 0 14 4 8 15 0 1 9 4 3 18 0 0 16 5 8 13 1 1 12 2 18 16 1 0 12 5 22 17 0 0 7 5 19 30 1 0 5 5 9 7 0 0 11 2 9 9 0 0 11 7

123 59 97 32 72 38 48 39 70 25 59 21 59 65 115 21 61 22 89 65 118 30 49 27 155 73 135 25 49 34 129 109 156 29 61 27 104 106 201 42 58 25 115 42 163 34 52 40 113 39 134 21 43 27

109

13. The Effects

“To many they are a plague, to others an opportunity, but whether big or small, they are always controversial.”1

This chapter begins to explore the potential harmful consequences of basement excavations. With the data provided in this report, the following topics can now be investigated in more detail in relation to the urban, social and structural landscape of London.

1. The effects of subterranean construction on neighbours and the local community.

2. The potential structural damage to property and surrounding infrastructure as a result of basement excavations.

3. The potential effect subterranean projects could have on the local water table.

4. The increase of property value as a result of larger areas of living accommodation and the potential “domino effect”2 on property prices across London.

5. The quality of living in London, could unlit bedrooms in a basement become the accepted norm?

The most publicised effect of subterranean development are the problems they cause for the local neighbours. What has been classed as an “underground epidemic”3 in the prime London boroughs, the construction of subterranean developments can cause years of misery for nearby residents. Basement developments are significant structural projects which require vast amounts of earth excavation. This is a costly method in terms of both time and finance. The scale of such projects cause severe disruption in a number of fields; noise pollution, vibration, dust and waste product, and construction traffic to name a few.

The applicant will have to consider the requirements of Section 60 of the Control of Pollution Act, 1974 when planning to construct a subterranean basement. Such Act gives respect to reducing the scale of noise and vibration on construction and demolition sites.

It is suggested that hydraulic piling, auger piling or diaphragm piling are more suitable for the foundations of projects where noise and vibration may affect local residents.4 It is inevitable however, that subterranean developments will cause disruption to neighbouring residents.

A particular case in Kensington, 2012, caused structural damage to neighbouring properties. The basement application was granted in 2011, despite nine objections from the locals consulted by the council.5 The impact of excavation caused the house to subside, with one lady left “stuck in her flat because she couldn’t get the door open from the inside.”6

1

<https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/may/07/basements-digging-down-london-architect-space> [Accessed on 15/01/2018]

2

Anna Minton, ‘Big Capital, Who is London For?’ 2017 pg xii

3

<https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/architects-westminster-crackdown-wont-kill-off-basement-work/8687162.article> [Accessed on

06/01/2018] 4

Richmond Upon Thames, Good Practice Guide on Basement Developments 2015 <http://www.richmond.gov.uk/media/7616/good_practice_

guide_basement_developments_may_2015.pdf> [Accessed on 15/01/2018] 5

<https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/banker-says-sorry-over-basement-work-damage-as-kensington-neighbours-suffer-7978751.html>

[Accessed on 15/01/2018] 6

110

Ibid, [Accessed on 15/01/2018]

Although there have been particular cases of structural damage publicised by several media outlets, like the project aforementioned, there has been little yet written on the overall effect of multiple subterranean excavations on the local infrastructure. If a basement construction includes excavation just above, or below the groundwater table, such development could act as a barrier which diverts the flow of groundwater.

Additionally, if constructed below, the basement could obstruct the natural local flow which consequently could cause the local groundwater level to rise. It has been argued however that for “small isolated basements” the impact of construction would be minimal and localised and “thereby it would not affect the overall groundwater table”.7 With the increasing trend in subterranean development, large basement projects are now common to several houses within a close proximity. This raises questions as to the effect of multiple basement excavations on the overall groundwater table.

London, now home to the highest number of billionaires per city, has seen a large influx of wealth from the transnational elite.8 The construction of ‘iceberg’ basements are now commonplace within the golden postcodes of prime London boroughs. As British writer Minton has argued, “this isn’t gentrification, its another phenomenon entirely”.9 The expansion of living accommodation through a basement extension has become an increasingly popular method to increase property value and therefore strengthen the financial asset. The significant wealth of the financial elite players however distorts the market. Consequently, this has helped lead to a “crisis in affordability [that] is affecting all layers of society.”10 The merely wealthy are displaced by the super-rich, with a ripple effect over the entire city and finally creating pressure on the cost of housing around the country. An additional question which should be raised is the impact of property as a mere ‘safety deposit box’ in the alpha territories of London, and the effect that has on the surrounding community when properties are left empty for most of the year.

Many of the subterranean developments discovered whilst researching for this report included ‘Nanny quarters’ in the new floor area of the basement. Whilst the majority of the rooms labelled with this description included a form of natural light, either roof light or small courtyard, there is potential for rooms which do not include natural light to soon become living accommodation. This causes concerns for the standard of living within London, especially as the cost of living continues to rise.

7

Richmond Upon Thames, Good Practice Guide on Basement Developments 2015 <http://www.richmond.gov.uk/media/7616/good_practice_

guide_basement_developments_may_2015.pdf> page 13 [Accessed on 15/01/2018] 8

The Sunday Times, ‘Rich List 2017, the division of wealth’, <https://nuk-sto-editorial-prod-staticassets.s3.amazonaws.com/

SundayTimesGraphics/Rich-List/2017/rich-list-2017/division-of-wealth/index.html> [Accessed on 20/12/17] 9

Anna Minton, ‘Big Capital, Who is London For?’ 2017. pg xiii

10

Ibid, pg 7

111

14. Reflection

The aim of this report was to expose the proliferation of subterranean development within the alpha territories of London’s elite neighbourhoods. Many comments have been raised about the controversial ‘iceberg’ developments, causing much distress for neighbouring residents, but thus far little has been done to realise the scale and expanse of such developments. Working alongside British newspaper, The Guardian, and following the release of both the Panama and Paradise Papers1 exposing the “secrets of the superrich”,2 the report systematically sets out to investigate the otherwise hidden residential geography of subterranean London.

The data illustrated within this report, covering the six London boroughs of; Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster, Hammersmith and Fulham, Islington, Camden and Haringey between the period of 2008-2016, highlights a total number of 4590 applications for residential basement developments, of which 4140, over 90%, were accepted. What has become clear from conducting this research is the large number of ‘small’, single-storey basements, which have been categorised as up to 3m in height under the existing property.

These ‘small’ developments, (77.3% of all accepted applications) fail to reach any media headlines, yet accumulate to an approximate height of 9,300 metres, equivalent to 30 ‘The Shards’ in height.3 The remaining applications were of a much larger scale; 22.7%, 940 applications, were up to 6 metres in height, typically two-storey developments, and 3.2%, 131 applications, included designs greater than 6 metres in height, often three or more storeys. A trend that has become increasingly popular within the larger subterranean developments is the inclusion of a swimming pool. Around 10% (395) of all accepted subterranean developments across the six London boroughs include a swimming pool, with 120 accepted in Kensington and Chelsea alone.

A limitation of this study so far, mainly due to time and resource restrictions, is the simplified categorisation of basement developments by height of excavation. The Typologies of ‘small’, ‘medium’ and ‘large’ representing 0-3m, 3-6m and 6m+ respectively, offers a generalised estimation of added area per basement development. For more accurate results, each application would have to been measured and studied in great detail. The way that the data has been recorded allows for this addition of accuracy.

Each recorded accepted application can now be identified accordingly on the planning portal by the date and address noted. Additionally, this report has only covered an area of six London boroughs and therefore much more can be done to analyse the spread of subterranean developments across Greater London.

The database included in this report provides the framework for similar studies to be conducted. The record can be improved to include more detail, with variables not only for swimming pools, but to include other amenities such as gyms, cinemas and underground car-parks. Thus, with greater search parameters, the database could provide a significantly detailed landscape of subterranean residential London. It is hoped that future funding can be obtained to carry out this more detailed and geographically expansive study.4

1

Panama Papers were released in May 2016, and Paradise Papers 2017.

The Panama Papers, Secrets of the super-rich <https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/panama-papers-secrets-super-rich/> [Accessed on 17/01/2018] 3 This is an approximate figure based on the height of all accepted ‘small’ basement developments between 2008-2016 across all six boroughs, illustrated on page 101.

4 Further investigations are currently being undertaken with thanks to Joseph Nettleton Burrows, who has helped to extract some of the data 2

included in this report.

112

From the data included in this report an interesting study would be to research, with accuracy, the increase of property value as a result of the basement extension not just due to inflation. To do this, the properties would have to undergo a new price evaluation since adding the subterranean development. The locations of such developments are recorded in this report however and thus the possibility of this extra dataset is fairly realistic. A further research method therefore could be to realise the indicative value added per property as a result of a basement excavation in comparison to the considerable cost of building down.

The introduction of basement development restrictions has only been formalised in recent years, the first being Kensington and Chelsea in January 2015. The continuation of this database therefore in the years to come will provide a more detailed analysis as to whether such design restrictions have been successful in reducing the amount and scale of subterranean development.

Although this report will be submitted to signal the completion of the Linked Research module, the database and research of this enquiry will be beginning to come into fruition.

The data and graphics included within this report will be provided to The Guardian with the intention of publishing the results. In addition to this, an exhibition will be held as a part of the 25th anniversary of the Global Urban Research Unit (GURU) at Newcastle University and hopefully elsewhere in London and Newcastle. Jointly authored academic papers will also be produced in 2018 for journals such as Urban Studies.

113

15. Bibliography

Butler, T. Lees, L. 2006, ‘Super- Gentrification in Barnsbury, London: Globalization and Gentrifying Global Elites at the Neighborhood Level’, Transaction of the Institute of British Geographers, 31(4):467-487.

DeVerteuil, G. and Manley, D. 2017, ‘Overseas investment into London: Imprint, impact and pied-à-terre urbanism’, Environment and Planning A, 49 (6): 1308-1323.

Edwards, M. 2016, ‘The housing crisis and London’, City, 20 (2): 222-237.

Fernandez, R, Hofman, A and Aalbers, M. 2016, ‘London and New York as a Safe Deposit Box for the Transnational Wealth Elite’, Environment and Planning A, 48 (12): 2443-2461.

Forrest, R. Wissink, B. Koh, SY. 2017 (ed), Cities and the Super-Rich Real Estate, Elite Practices, and Urban Political Economies’, London: Palgrave, Forthcoming.

Graham, S. 2016, ‘Vertical’, Verso, London.

Hay, I. (ed) 2013, ‘Geographies of the Super-Rich’, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Hay, I. and Beaverstock, J. 2016 (ed), ‘Handbook on Wealth and the Super-Rich,’ Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Lees, L. Slater, T. Wyly, E. 2013, ‘Gentrification’, London: Routledge.

Minton, A. 2017, ‘Big Capital, Who is London For?’, Penguin Books, UK. Minton, A. 2012, ‘Ground Control’, Penguin Books, UK. Uprichard, E, Burrows, R, and Byrne, D. (2008), ‘SPSS as an ‘Inscription Device’: From Causality to Description?,’ The Sociological Review, 56 (4): pp.606-622.

Websites: Camden Council, <https://www.camden.gov.uk/ccm/cms-service/stream/asset/?asset_id=3653435&> [Accessed 07/01/2018] Croft Structural Engineers,<http://www.croftse.co.uk/hammersmith-and-fulham-basement-construction-method-statement/> [Accessed on 07/01/2018] Evening Standard, <https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/banker-says-sorry-over-basement-work-damage-as-kensington-neighbourssuffer-7978751.html> [Accessed on 15/01/2018] Evening Standard, <https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/new-moves-to-curb-mega-basements-as-islington-joins-councilcrackdown-9918032.html> [Accessed on 06/01/2018] Get West London, <http://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/news/west-london-news/massive-rise-mega-basement-planning-11256937> [07/01/2018] Gov.UK, <https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-information-request> [Accessed on 02/01/2018] Gov.UK, <https://www.gov.uk/guidance/party-wall-etc-act-1996-guidance> [Accessed on 22/12/17] Gov.UK, <https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-information-request> [Accessed on 02/01/2018] IBM, <https://www.ibm.com/analytics/data-science/predictive-analytics/spss-statistical-software> [Accessed on 17/01/2018] Office for national statistics, https://www.ons.gov.uk/help/localstatistics> [Accessed on 20/12/2017] Planning Portal, <https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200126/applications/59/how_to_apply/6> [Accessed on 02/01/2018] Stephanie Gerdes, <https://www.gaystarnews.com/article/london-is-the-city-of-choice-for-millionaires-moving-abroad/#gs.5q6YH2c> [Accessed on 02/01/2018] The Architects Journal, <https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/anger-at-plans-to-ban-mega-basements-in-south-kensington/8673826.article> [Accessed on 08/01/2018] The Architects Journal, <https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/architects-westminster-crackdown-wont-kill-off-basement-work/8687162. article> [Accessed on 08/01/2018] The City of Westminster Council, <https://www.westminster.gov.uk/conservation-areas> [Accessed on 06/01/2018] The City of Westminster Council, <https://www.westminster.gov.uk/basement-extensions> [Accessed on 03/01/2018] The Guardian, <https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/19/inequality-threat-recovery-poverty-pay:> [Accessed on 30/05/2017] The Guardian, <https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/01/london-to-remain-a-magnate-for-global-super-rich-despite-brexit-knightfrank> [Accessed on 30/05/2017] 114

The Guardian, <https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2013/oct/15/mega-basement-extensions-planning-policy> [Accessed on 03/01/2018] The Guardian, <https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/apr/26/recession-rich-britains-wealthiest-double-net-worth-since-crisis> [Accessed on 02/01/2018] The Guardian, <https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2012/nov/09/billionaires-basements-london-houses-architecture> [Accessed on 22/12/2017] The Guardian, <https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/06/battle-rages-for-soul-of-highgate> [Accessed on 07/01/2018] The Guardian, <https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/may/07/basements-digging-down-london-architect-space> [Accessed on 15/01/2018] The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, <https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-applications/planningapplications> [Accessed on 02/01/2018] The Sunday Times, ‘Rich List 2017, the division of wealth’, <https://nuk-sto-editorial-prod-staticassets.s3.amazonaws.com/SundayTimesGraphics/ Rich-List/2017/rich-list-2017/division-of-wealth/index.html> [Accessed on 20/12/17] The Sunday Times, <https://nuk-sto-editorial-prod-staticassets.s3.amazonaws.com/SundayTimesGraphics/Rich-List/2017/rich-list-2017/divisionof-wealth/index.html> [Accessed on 02/01/2018] The Telegraph, <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/25/kensington-palace-mega-basement-plan-angers-neighbours-claim/:> [Accessed on 30/05/2017] The Telegraph, <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/02/uks-first-basement-tax-forces-30k-bills-on-wealthy-homeowners-bu/> [Accessed on 03/01/2018] Reports / PDF Documents: Articled 25, the right for adequate housing. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 <http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_ Translations/eng.pdf> [Accessed on 20/12/2017] Haringey Council: ‘Draft Basement Development Guide Notice’. June 2012. <https://www.minutes.haringey.gov.uk/documents/s26669/ Basement%20Guidance%20Note%20June%202012.pdf> [Accessed on 07/01/2018] Islington Council: ‘Basement Development, Draft Supplementary Planning Document’. July 2015. <https:// www.islington.gov.uk//~/media/sharepoint-lists/public-records/planningandbuildingcontrol/publicity/ publicconsultation/20152016/20150709basementdevelopmentspdconsultationdraftjuly2015> [Accessed on 06/01/2018] Knight Frank, ‘The Wealth Report’ 10th Edition, 2016. pg 36. <http://content.knightfrank.com/research/83/documents/en/wealth-report-2016-3579. pdf> [Accessed on 20/12/2017] Lloyds Bank Press Release, ‘London House Prices’. 17th February 2017. <https://www.lloydsbank.com/assets/media/pdfs/pressreleases/2017/170217-london-boroughs-hackney-leads-the-way-with-the-highest-rise-press-release.pdf> [Accessed on 02/01/2018] The City of Westminster: ‘Westminster City Plan’ November 2016. <https://www.westminster.gov.uk/westminsters-city-plan-strategic-policies> [Accessed on 03/01/2018] The London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames, ‘Good Practice Guide on Basement Developments’. May 2015. <http://www.richmond.gov.uk/ media/7616/good_practice_guide_basement_developments_may_2015.pdf> [Accessed on 15/01/2018] ‘The Rightmove House Price Index’. 19th June 2017. <http://www.rightmove.co.uk/news/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Rightmove-House-PriceIndex-19-June-FINAL.pdf> [Accessed on 02/01/2018] The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea: ‘Planning and Borough Development Monitoring Report 2016’ December 2016. <https://www.rbkc. gov.uk/ sites/default/fles/atoms/fles/17-02-22%202016%20Monitoring%20Report%20FINAL_1.pdf> [Accessed on 20/12/2017] The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea: ‘Basements Planning Policy.’ January 2015. <https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/pdf/Final%20Basements%20 Policy%20Jan%202015%20adopted%20web.pdf> [Accessed on 08/01/2018] Transparency International, ‘Paradise Lost: ending the UK’s role as a safe haven for corrupt individuals, their allies and assets’ April 2016. <http:// www.transparency.org.uk/publications/paradise-lost/#.WjqABbacab8> [Accessed on 20/12/2017] Documentaries: BBC’s ‘Millionaire Basement Wars’ Documentary, 2015 <http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05r86yg> [Accessed on 05/01/2018] The Panama Papers, Secrets of the Super-Rich, 2016 <https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/panama-papers-secrets-super-rich/> [Accessed on 17/01/2018]

115