Basement Flat, 50A Holland Park Avenue, London, W11 3QY

UPRN:217039142Flat/MaisonetteBeds -Built 1900-1929

Tenure: -Council Tax: -EPC: C (72)

Data freshness:Price Paid· freshPlanning· 4mo agoEPC· 6mo agoRisk· 5mo agoConnectivity· 1mo agoSchools· 1mo agoAmenities· 1mo agoArea· Census 2021

Basement Flat, 50A Holland Park Avenue, London, W11 3QY

HP Score

/ 100

Strong

Verdict

3 days ago

Verdict: INVESTIGATE, on a scale of Buy, Investigate, Avoid.
Strong fundamentals; flood risk not assessed

Evidence

19 of 21 sources

Sale Estimate

£942,000

£847k - £1.04MMedium

Estimate

£942k

Range

£847k – £1.04M

Rent Estimate (pcm)

£4,000

£4k - £4k

Monthly

£4,000

Yield

1.60%

Verdict

Derived from HomePortfolio scores

Basement Flat earns an INVESTIGATE rating with HP Score 80/100. Investment score 71/100 reflects strong fundamentals. Crime intensity is moderate. Walkability is excellent (99/100). Flood risk is not assessed: check the Environment Agency long-term flood map before offering. Every figure here comes from the live HomePortfolio API; anything it does not publish is left out.

Key SourcesEPC RegisterPortal listingsOfcom Connected NationsOfcom mobile coverageMarket estimates (third-party AVM)Defra strategic noise mapping, England Round 4 (Contains Defra data © Crown copyright and database right 2023-2024, Open Government Licence v3.0)Walk ScoreONS Census 2021Police.ukHM Land Registry company ownershipHM Land Registry covenantsHM Land Registry leasesHM Land Registry Price PaidPlanIt / council planning portalsOverture Maps PlacesOfsted / DfE GIAS

HP Score

80/ 100

Strong

Investment Score

71/ 100

High

Crime Score

41/ 100

Elevated

Walkability

99/ 100

Excellent

Transit & Bike

Transit 63Bike 77

Walk Score, out of 100

Opportunity

Not scored as an opportunity

We will not put a number on this one.

asking price missing or outside scoring range

Withholding a score is deliberate. A number built on missing or stale inputs would look more certain than the evidence allows.

Economics

What happens to your money

Your assumptions

Purchase price£3,000,000

At the asking price

Monthly rent£4,000/mo

Evidenced range £3,650-£4,350

Interest rate5.4%

Loan to value75%

Cash required: £1,175,050
Net cash flow: -£7,356/mo
Cash on cash: -7.5%
Score at this price: -

After a 8% void allowance, 15% management and 10% maintenance. Lender coverage (rent ÷ interest): 0.40 - below the usual 1.25 test. These are your assumptions, not evidence: only the pre-filled rent and price come from the record.

Risks

What could kill this deal

Score confidence is low
largely a single source - treat the number as a prompt, not a conclusion

Property risk deep-dive →flood, subsidence, crime, environment - the full domain

Plan

Before you offer

1. Commission a full structural survey, not a basic condition report.
The score prices market evidence, not the fabric of the building.

Every step above was generated from a specific gap or flag in the evidence - no generic advice, no invented tasks.

Valuation & Market

Sale Estimate£942,000

Rent Estimate (pcm)£4,000

Gross Yield1.60%

1y Growth-

3y Growth-3.7%

5y Growth-0.9%

10y Growth-0.5%

Last Sold Price-

View Market Details

Risk Overview

Flood RiskUnknown
SubsidenceSignificant
RadonLow
MiningUnknown
LandslideLow
Air QualityLow
NoiseHigh

View Full Risk Report

Planning Activity

Recent Apps

0W11 3QY

Approval Rate

-12mo

Development

low

26/07268/P3JPA
Prior Approval for the conversion of existing ground-floor commercial/business/service space (Use Class E) to Class C3 use, together with internal layout changes, to form 1no. two-bedroom flat under Class MA, Part 3, Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended).
Pending
26/07107/TCA
T1 Pittosporum Fell to ground and grind stump to approx. 300mm below ground level.
Pending
26/06818/TCA
T1: Sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus) Location: Rear garden, approximately 7m from the rear retaining wall and 5m from the lightwell (refer to Fig 1 site sketch in Get Carter Consulting report). Proposed Works: Section fell to ground level using controlled rigging. Treat stump using EcoPlug capsules inserted into stump wood to prevent sucker regrowth. Reason: Mature tree (approx. 14m height) causing significant moisture abstraction in shrinkable London Clay, resulting in foundation subsidence and cracking up to 8mm in external walls and lightwells of this Grade II Listed Building (see Get Carter Consulting report ref: 345). Removal is required to arrest ongoing damage under Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. T3: Plum (Prunus) Location: Rear garden, approximately 2m from the rear lightwell retaining wall (refer to Fig 1 site sketch in Get Carter Consulting report). Proposed Works: Section fell to ground level. Treat stump using EcoPlug capsules inserted into stump wood to prevent sucker regrowth. Reason: Assessed by structural engineer as the most damaging tree due to immediate proximity (2m) to retaining walls and shallow foundations. Required foundation depth exceeds existing footing depth, causing ongoing subsidence and structural distress to the listed property. T2: Elder (Sambucus nigra, 4 stems) Location: Rear garden, adjacent to Sycamore T1, approximately 4m from lightwell retaining wall (refer to Fig 1 site sketch in Get Carter Consulting report). Proposed Works: Fell to ground level / crown reduce to ground level to eliminate soil moisture abstraction. Reason: Recommended by structural engineer to mitigate cumulative moisture demand on underlying London Clay soils adjacent to affected retaining walls. Replacement Planting:Due to the restricted garden dimensions, close proximity to historic retaining walls, and the high volume change potential of the London Clay subsoil, replacement tree p
Pending

View Planning Timeline