Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (10)
Similar to Session 4: You have viability evidence – so what
Similar to Session 4: You have viability evidence – so what (20)
More from PAS_Team
More from PAS_Team (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Session 4: You have viability evidence – so what
- 1. Session 4: You have viability evidence – so what?
- 2. Consultation • Why • Who with • When • So what and what do you do with the results?
- 3. Consultations Engagement • A fundamental part of plan making and a requirement of NPPF, CIL Regs, Harman Guidance • Don’t be afraid to ask the developers – For some evidence to support figures – To explain / for detail • Record process and comments METICULOUSLY • What have you actually asked and is it in the context of delivering the development plan
- 4. Engagement Phases • Delay at your peril • Two or three stages
- 5. Stage 1 Engagement • Background and why – Methodology – Viability test – Appraisal assumptions • Not results • Certainly not policy Stage 1 includes establishing agreement on methodology and assumptions (build costs, sale prices etc.) Does not include workings.
- 6. Stage 2 Engagement • Changes made from first consultation (or not) –Methodology –Viability test –Appraisal assumptions • Draft Results • Emerging conclusions • Still not policy
- 7. Stage 3 Engagement • Results • Factors other than viability to consider • Emerging and developing policy • Changes to existing policy • Approve now or hang on?
- 8. WPV & plans found sound in 2014 Local Authority Developer’s Profit Threshold Land Value Barbergh 17% £370,000/ha Cannock Chase 20% on GDV £100,000-£400,000/ha Christchurch & East Dorset 20% on GDC £308,000/ha (un-serviced) £1,235,000/ha (serviced) East Hampshire 20% market/6% Affordable £450,000/ha Erewash 17% £300,000/ha Fenland 15-20% £1-2m/ha (serviced) GNDP 20% market/17.5% large sites/6% Affordable £370,000-£430,000/ha Reigate & Banstead 17.5% market/6% Affordable £500,000/ha Stafford 20% (comprising 5% for internal overheads). £250,000/ha Staffordshire Moorlands 17.5% market/6% Affordable £1.26-£1.41m/ha (serviced) Warrington 17.5% £100,000-£300,000/ha
- 9. Confidentiality • FOI Act 2000 (Sections 41 and 43(2)) • Environmental Information Regulations 12(5)(e) • R (English) v East Staffordshire Borough Council and Anor (2010 EWHC 2744 • Heygate Decision (2014) • Recent ICO Decisions (2012-2014) • RICS GN – Paragraph 4.3 • “This viability report is provided on a confidential basis to the Council. We therefore request that the report should not be disclosed to any third parties (other than consultants instructed by the Council to review this report) under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (sections 41 and 43(2)) or under the Environmental Information Regulations.” (para 4.3.3) • Planning Performance Agreements
- 10. Case study: South Worcestershire
- 11. Case Study – South Worcestershire Local Plan
- 12. No additional requirements • No affordable housing • Built to Building Regulations (Part L) • Density informed by consultation with officers and developers – lower than policy to reflect current delivery (targets assume high content of flats etc) • Greenfield sites over 1 hectare have 40% open space • No CIL or s106 • All other requirements over high quality and locally distinctive design and safe design remain
- 13. No additional requirements Alternative Land Value Viability Threshold Residual Value Alternative Land Value Viability Threshold Residual Value Alternative Land Value Viability Threshold Residual Value Site 1 25,000 280,000 650,432 0 0 0 25,000 280,000 621,823 Site 2 25,000 280,000 621,867 0 0 0 25,000 280,000 596,858 Site 3 25,000 280,000 995,236 0 0 0 25,000 280,000 932,853 Site 4 25,000 280,000 1,126,237 25,000 280,000 994,779 25,000 280,000 1,060,508 Site 5 0 0 0 25,000 280,000 922,171 25,000 280,000 1,596,523 Site 6 0 0 0 350,000 420,000 757,823 350,000 420,000 2,315,869 Site 7 0 0 0 350,000 420,000 1,347,757 0 0 0 Site 8 350,000 420,000 1,626,764 350,000 420,000 2,639,944 350,000 420,000 3,154,171 Site 9 350,000 420,000 1,453,344 350,000 420,000 1,453,344 350,000 420,000 1,312,746 Site 10 25,000 280,000 2,426,809 25,000 280,000 2,232,961 25,000 280,000 1,145,242 Site 11 50,000 310,000 1,881,763 50,000 310,000 2,236,383 50,000 310,000 1,881,763 Site 12 350,000 420,000 2,237,069 350,000 420,000 2,377,585 350,000 420,000 1,393,974 Site 13 350,000 420,000 1,211,920 350,000 420,000 464,046 350,000 420,000 1,964,321 Site 14 750,000 900,000 2,132,497 750,000 900,000 1,476,716 750,000 900,000 3,728,997 Site 15 50,000 310,000 1,714,651 0 0 0 50,000 310,000 2,651,247 Site 16 50,000 310,000 805,244 0 0 0 50,000 310,000 1,398,921 Urban Flats Viability Appraisals. Alternative / Viability Threshold compared with Residual Values (£/ha) Malvern Hills Worcester Wychavon SUE 1 SUE 2 Greenfield 1 Greenfield 2 Greenfield 3 Brownfield redev. L Town Village Infill Small Village Scheme Village House Brownfield redev. M Medium Brownfield Medium greenfield Urban edge Town centre flats Ex garage site
- 14. Build Standards • Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 from April 2013 – Add 6% to cost of house • SWLP 26 Renewable and Low Carbon Energy (a) All new developments will be required to incorporate the generation of energy…by at least 10%. (b) All new development (as part of the major developments) will be required to incorporate the generation of energy…by at least 20%. – Add 2.5% to cost of house (+/- £2,500 /dwelling) • NOT JUST REDUCING USE – ACTUALLY ABOUT GENERATION • NO EVIDENCE OF ANY PRICE BENEFIT FROM REDUCED ENERGY BILLS
- 15. CfSH Level 4 + Onsite Generation Alternative Land Value Viability Threshold Residual Value Alternative Land Value Viability Threshold Residual Value Alternative Land Value Viability Threshold Residual Value Site 1 25,000 280,000 535,926 0 0 0 25,000 280,000 507,317 Site 2 25,000 280,000 521,654 0 0 0 25,000 280,000 496,645 Site 3 25,000 280,000 872,062 0 0 0 25,000 280,000 809,678 Site 4 25,000 280,000 995,676 25,000 280,000 864,218 25,000 280,000 929,947 Site 5 0 0 0 25,000 280,000 779,958 25,000 280,000 1,454,311 Site 6 0 0 0 350,000 420,000 484,376 350,000 420,000 2,037,874 Site 7 0 0 0 350,000 420,000 524,622 0 0 0 Site 8 350,000 420,000 1,311,267 350,000 420,000 2,349,470 350,000 420,000 2,841,637 Site 9 350,000 420,000 1,199,472 350,000 420,000 1,199,472 350,000 420,000 1,057,528 Site 10 25,000 280,000 1,762,806 25,000 280,000 1,607,728 25,000 280,000 735,859 Site 11 50,000 310,000 1,674,752 50,000 310,000 2,029,372 50,000 310,000 1,674,752 Site 12 350,000 420,000 1,941,730 350,000 420,000 2,082,246 350,000 420,000 1,120,071 Site 13 350,000 420,000 995,333 350,000 420,000 235,519 350,000 420,000 1,738,024 Site 14 750,000 900,000 1,922,648 750,000 900,000 1,266,867 750,000 900,000 3,523,165 Site 15 50,000 310,000 1,512,381 0 0 0 50,000 310,000 2,500,000 Site 16 50,000 310,000 722,386 0 0 0 50,000 310,000 1,316,871 Town Village Infill Small Village Scheme Village House Brownfield redev. M Medium Brownfield Medium greenfield Urban edge Town centre flats Ex garage site Urban Flats Viability Appraisals. Alternative / Viability Threshold compared with Residual Values (£/ha) Malvern Hills Worcester Wychavon SUE 1 SUE 2 Greenfield 1 Greenfield 2 Greenfield 3 Brownfield redev. L
- 16. Affordable Housing • 15 or more 40% • 10 – 14 30% • 5 – 9 20% As social rented, affordable rented and intermediate tenure and provided on site NOT TESTED Less than 5, a financial contribution will be required.
- 17. Affordable Housing Alternative Land Value Viability Threshold Residual Value Alternative Land Value Viability Threshold Residual Value Alternative Land Value Viability Threshold Residual Value Site 1 25,000 280,000 332,757 0 0 0 25,000 280,000 195,205 Site 2 25,000 280,000 324,151 0 0 0 25,000 280,000 203,879 Site 3 25,000 280,000 574,023 0 0 0 25,000 280,000 405,338 Site 4 25,000 280,000 656,141 25,000 280,000 453,169 25,000 280,000 478,409 Site 5 0 0 0 25,000 280,000 379,850 25,000 280,000 769,128 Site 6 0 0 0 350,000 420,000 -448 350,000 420,000 906,356 Site 7 0 0 0 350,000 420,000 -1,163,134 0 0 0 Site 8 350,000 420,000 951,958 350,000 420,000 1,239,168 350,000 420,000 1,513,254 Site 9 350,000 420,000 625,000 350,000 420,000 361,330 350,000 420,000 245,641 Site 10 25,000 280,000 1,464,601 25,000 280,000 1,100,887 25,000 280,000 419,301 Site 11 50,000 310,000 1,259,642 50,000 310,000 1,341,269 50,000 310,000 1,071,326 Site 12 350,000 420,000 1,357,721 350,000 420,000 1,630,041 350,000 420,000 844,132 Site 13 350,000 420,000 872,319 350,000 420,000 144,924 350,000 420,000 1,333,809 Site 14 750,000 900,000 2,132,497 750,000 900,000 1,476,716 750,000 900,000 3,728,997 Site 15 50,000 310,000 1,714,651 0 0 0 50,000 310,000 2,651,247 Site 16 50,000 310,000 805,244 0 0 0 50,000 310,000 1,398,921 Urban Flats Viability Appraisals. Alternative / Viability Threshold compared with Residual Values (£/ha) Malvern Hills Worcester Wychavon SUE 1 SUE 2 Greenfield 1 Greenfield 2 Greenfield 3 Brownfield redev. L Town Village Infill Small Village Scheme Village House Brownfield redev. M Medium Brownfield Medium greenfield Urban edge Town centre flats Ex garage site
- 18. Density • Density informed by consultation – lower than policy • Greenfield sites over 1 hectare have 40% open space • Brownfield sites NO Public Open Space • Greenfield sites less than 1ha but more than 5 units 20% open space
- 19. Affordable Housing, Density, CfSH4, Onsite Generation, ‘No’ CIL Alternative Land Value Viability Threshold Residual Value Alternative Land Value Viability Threshold Residual Value Alternative Land Value Viability Threshold Residual Value Site 1 25,000 280,000 218,251 0 0 0 25,000 280,000 80,699 Site 2 25,000 280,000 223,909 0 0 0 25,000 280,000 103,637 Site 3 25,000 280,000 450,848 0 0 0 25,000 280,000 282,163 Site 4 25,000 280,000 525,581 25,000 280,000 322,609 25,000 280,000 347,849 Site 5 0 0 0 25,000 280,000 239,889 25,000 280,000 626,916 Site 6 0 0 0 350,000 420,000 -292,137 350,000 420,000 634,317 Site 7 0 0 0 350,000 420,000 -2,048,052 0 0 0 Site 8 350,000 420,000 633,442 350,000 420,000 932,511 350,000 420,000 1,197,757 Site 9 350,000 420,000 361,544 350,000 420,000 89,196 350,000 420,000 -30,053 Site 10 25,000 280,000 991,346 25,000 280,000 701,754 25,000 280,000 151,304 Site 11 50,000 310,000 1,050,650 50,000 310,000 1,132,277 50,000 310,000 862,335 Site 12 350,000 420,000 1,083,111 350,000 420,000 1,334,701 350,000 420,000 548,379 Site 13 350,000 420,000 643,792 350,000 420,000 -83,603 350,000 420,000 1,107,512 Site 14 750,000 900,000 1,922,648 750,000 900,000 1,266,867 750,000 900,000 3,523,165 Site 15 50,000 310,000 1,512,381 0 0 0 50,000 310,000 2,500,000 Site 16 50,000 310,000 722,386 0 0 0 50,000 310,000 1,316,871 Urban Flats Viability Appraisals. Alternative / Viability Threshold compared with Residual Values (£/ha) Malvern Hills Worcester Wychavon SUE 1 SUE 2 Greenfield 1 Greenfield 2 Greenfield 3 Brownfield redev. L Town Village Infill Small Village Scheme Village House Brownfield redev. M Medium Brownfield Medium greenfield Urban edge Town centre flats Ex garage site
- 21. Uncertain Market Indexed turn over (from January 2006)
- 22. 5% fall in prices Alternative Land Value Viability Threshold Residual Value Alternative Land Value Viability Threshold Residual Value Alternative Land Value Viability Threshold Residual Value Site 1 25,000 280,000 147,873 0 0 0 25,000 280,000 11,615 Site 2 25,000 280,000 160,872 0 0 0 25,000 280,000 41,742 Site 3 25,000 280,000 368,502 0 0 0 25,000 280,000 201,689 Site 4 25,000 280,000 436,846 25,000 280,000 240,000 25,000 280,000 261,086 Site 5 0 0 0 25,000 280,000 152,118 25,000 280,000 518,310 Site 6 0 0 0 350,000 420,000 -446,987 350,000 420,000 441,647 Site 7 0 0 0 350,000 420,000 -2,437,676 0 0 0 Site 8 350,000 420,000 448,113 350,000 420,000 707,161 350,000 420,000 968,147 Site 9 350,000 420,000 180,971 350,000 420,000 -94,939 350,000 420,000 -209,804 Site 10 25,000 280,000 847,322 25,000 280,000 566,416 25,000 280,000 34,147 Site 11 50,000 310,000 862,693 50,000 310,000 931,789 50,000 310,000 687,536 Site 12 350,000 420,000 842,438 350,000 420,000 1,079,959 350,000 420,000 305,335 Site 13 350,000 420,000 436,110 350,000 420,000 -260,893 350,000 420,000 880,348 Site 14 750,000 900,000 1,648,413 750,000 900,000 1,035,523 750,000 900,000 3,172,312 Site 15 50,000 310,000 1,265,299 0 0 0 50,000 310,000 2,204,210 Site 16 50,000 310,000 611,018 0 0 0 50,000 310,000 1,188,105 Town Village Infill Small Village Scheme Village House Brownfield redev. M Medium Brownfield Medium greenfield Urban edge Town centre flats Ex garage site Urban Flats Viability Appraisals. Alternative / Viability Threshold compared with Residual Values (£/ha) Malvern Hills Worcester Wychavon SUE 1 SUE 2 Greenfield 1 Greenfield 2 Greenfield 3 Brownfield redev. L
- 23. Alternative Land Value Viability Threshold MALVERN HILLS No Requirement CfSH4+2.5% Affordable Target Affordable, CfSH4+2.5% andDensity Affordable, CfSH4+2.5% andDensity Pricesless5% Site 1 SUE 1 25,000 280,000 650,432 535,926 332,757 218,251 147,873 Site 2 SUE 2 25,000 280,000 621,867 521,654 324,151 223,909 160,872 Site 3 Greenfield 1 25,000 280,000 995,236 872,062 574,023 450,848 368,502 Site 4 Greenfield 2 25,000 280,000 1,126,237 995,676 656,141 525,581 436,846 Site 5 Greenfield 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site 6 Brownfield redev. L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site 7 Urban Flats 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site 8 Brownfield redev. M 350,000 420,000 1,626,764 1,311,267 951,958 633,442 448,113 Site 9 Medium Brownfield 350,000 420,000 1,453,344 1,199,472 625,000 361,544 180,971 Site 10 Medium greenfield 25,000 280,000 2,426,809 1,762,806 1,464,601 991,346 847,322 Site 11 Urban edge 50,000 310,000 1,881,763 1,674,752 1,259,642 1,050,650 862,693 Site 12 Town centre flats 350,000 420,000 2,237,069 1,941,730 1,357,721 1,083,111 842,438 Site 13 Ex garage site 350,000 420,000 1,211,920 995,333 872,319 643,792 436,110 Site 14 Town Village Infill 750,000 900,000 2,132,497 1,922,648 2,132,497 1,922,648 1,648,413 Site 15 Small Village Scheme 50,000 310,000 1,714,651 1,512,381 1,714,651 1,512,381 1,265,299 Site 16 Village House 50,000 310,000 805,244 722,386 805,244 722,386 611,018 WORCESTER CITY Site 1 SUE 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site 2 SUE 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site 3 Greenfield 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site 4 Greenfield 2 25,000 280,000 994,779 864,218 453,169 322,609 240,000 Site 5 Greenfield 3 25,000 280,000 922,171 779,958 379,850 239,889 152,118 Site 6 Brownfield redev. L 350,000 420,000 757,823 484,376 -448 -292,137 -446,987 Site 7 Urban Flats 350,000 420,000 1,347,757 524,622 -1,163,134 -2,048,052 -2,437,676 Site 8 Brownfield redev. M 350,000 420,000 2,639,944 2,349,470 1,239,168 932,511 707,161 Site 9 Medium Brownfield 350,000 420,000 1,453,344 1,199,472 361,330 89,196 -94,939 Site 10 Medium greenfield 25,000 280,000 2,232,961 1,607,728 1,100,887 701,754 566,416 Site 11 Urban edge 50,000 310,000 2,236,383 2,029,372 1,341,269 1,132,277 931,789 Site 12 Town centre flats 350,000 420,000 2,377,585 2,082,246 1,630,041 1,334,701 1,079,959 Site 13 Ex garage site 350,000 420,000 464,046 235,519 144,924 -83,603 -260,893 Site 14 Town Village Infill 750,000 900,000 1,476,716 1,266,867 1,476,716 1,266,867 1,035,523 Site 15 Small Village Scheme 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site 16 Village House 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WYCHAVON Site 1 SUE 1 25,000 280,000 621,823 507,317 195,205 80,699 11,615 Site 2 SUE 2 25,000 280,000 596,858 496,645 203,879 103,637 41,742 Site 3 Greenfield 1 25,000 280,000 932,853 809,678 405,338 282,163 201,689 Site 4 Greenfield 2 25,000 280,000 1,060,508 929,947 478,409 347,849 261,086 Site 5 Greenfield 3 25,000 280,000 1,596,523 1,454,311 769,128 626,916 518,310 Site 6 Brownfield redev. L 350,000 420,000 2,315,869 2,037,874 906,356 634,317 441,647 Site 7 Urban Flats 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site 8 Brownfield redev. M 350,000 420,000 3,154,171 2,841,637 1,513,254 1,197,757 968,147 Site 9 Medium Brownfield 350,000 420,000 1,312,746 1,057,528 245,641 -30,053 -209,804 Site 10 Medium greenfield 25,000 280,000 1,145,242 735,859 419,301 151,304 34,147 Site 11 Urban edge 50,000 310,000 1,881,763 1,674,752 1,071,326 862,335 687,536 Site 12 Town centre flats 350,000 420,000 1,393,974 1,120,071 844,132 548,379 305,335 Site 13 Ex garage site 350,000 420,000 1,964,321 1,738,024 1,333,809 1,107,512 880,348 Site 14 Town Village Infill 750,000 900,000 3,728,997 3,523,165 3,728,997 3,523,165 3,172,312 Site 15 Small Village Scheme 50,000 310,000 2,651,247 2,500,000 2,651,247 2,500,000 2,204,210 Site 16 Village House 50,000 310,000 1,398,921 1,316,871 1,398,921 1,316,871 1,188,105 Residual Value Cumulative Impact of Policies Affordable Housing, Density, CfSH4, Onsite Generation
- 24. So what? • You have a residual value – how to assess viability –Competitive returns –Harman (EUV Plus) v RICS (Market Value) –Cushion • EUV Plus – reality checked against the market Set it out – explain what you have done – don’t jump to a conclusion
- 25. • Future considerations and viability over time • Scenario testing • Big impacts of little changes – hypersensitive model • Cumulative impact of policy • Pitfalls and preparing for the EiP Appraisal considerations
- 26. Potential Pitfalls • Out of date Local Plan adopted prior to NPPF • Robust housing target and up to date SHMA • Lack of 5 year supply • 5% or 20% additional buffer on 5 year supply • Onerous discretionary policies • Approach to viability out of sync with RICS/Harman/Draft DCLG guidance website
- 27. Context and Conundrum Informing plan making process v retrofitting evidence to policy • Can you proceed • Goes to the heart of soundness • Cumulative impact Don’t get into endless cycle of consultation, evidence, consultation, doubt, evidence, consultation….
- 28. Preparing for the EiP • Examination Statements • PAS NPPF conformity toolkit • Participation Statement • Duty to Cooperate Memorandum of Understanding • Statement of Common Ground • Evidence Base Technical Note
- 29. Viability checklist • Would the approach to developer contributions/CIL have an unacceptably adverse impact on the economic viability of development, particularly when seen in the context of other future requirements? • Have you worked together with stakeholders to understand existing business needs and likely changes in economic markets operating in and across your area? • Are there enough sufficient sites, that are viable, to deliver the plan’s housing requirements over the plan period?
- 30. Viability checklist • Are your assessments of and strategies for housing, employment and other uses integrated, and do they take full account of relevant market and economic signals? • Have you assessed the likely cumulative impacts on development in your area? • Have you discussed viability with your key stakeholders, under the duty to cooperate, particularly with regard to those strategic priorities set out in paragraph 156 of the NPPF?
- 31. Viability checklist • Are affordable housing targets, thresholds and proportions fully justified and supported by an informed assessment of their economic viability; and will sufficient affordable housing be delivered to meet needs? • Do you have an understanding of changing needs and have you addressed barriers to investment in the Local Plan, including a lack of housing, infrastructure or viability? • Can you demonstrate that district-wide development/infrastructure costs have been considered alongside production of your Local Plan?
Editor's Notes
- Engagement not consultation, you need to be pro-active (positively prepared as per the NPPF) and keep detailed notes of all discussions for audit purposes for when it gets to EiP e.g. record the justification for your methodology. Meticulous record keeping is very important to give sufficient weight in documents Don’t be afraid to ask the developers for information, it can hep mitigate the risk of arguments happening at EiP. Highlight any examples you have where this has occurred. Harman guidance essentially says that if you can’t get your evidence agreed you need to set out why you don’t agree. Need to get developers to think about the bigger strategic picture vs. minute details in the model
- Avoid circular process and agree assumptions upfront (before modelling) to save time and money. Don’t worry about not understanding CIL as there are only 7 charging schedules active nationwide so far, don’t be scared of change. Durham HBF appointed Savills as it is easier to discuss issues professionally.
- You cannot talk about how much a developer will pay in CIL until you agree methodology/assumption/inputs. Therefore sign off methodology and assumptions first.
- What sites/type of sites are viable? At this stage you’re not yet drawing out policy. This stage is all about getting local plan evidence signed off before you get into the political dimension. LPAs should seek to get cross party participation from Cllrs. Possibly highlight a politically informed decision you’re aware of here e.g. lots of market housing due to low AH target.
- Inevitably there will be some retro fitting based on the timing of your local plan formulation. The question is do you hang back if there is unpalatable evidence that you may need re-consult on? Overall scheme viability is hypersensitive to changes in the inputs e.g. prices. An increase of 1% can make a massive difference to viability. LPAs should be engaging with developers on key sites one to one if they go to the heart of the plans deliverability – you’ll need mutual cooperation. You need to ask developers to provide their own data if they disagree with your figures. If you have audit that you requested justifications to assist you through the process and they’re not forthcoming with information and then raise objections at EiP you will have the upper hand. Who will your objectors be? Are they trying to get Green Belt allocated? Are there NIMBYs? Your emphasis has to be on deliverability.
- South Worcestershire Local Plan is a Joint Local Plan (Malvern Hills, Worcester City and Wychavon) This is work produced by HDH Planning and Development in order to demonstrate how the cumulative impacts of policy can impact viability For this case study will shall examine a profile of sites that have been appraised. We shall add cumulative policy costs to ‘no additional requirements’ baseline example to show you what happens once Affordable Housing, Density, Code for Sustainable Home level 4, Onsite Energy Generation are factored in. This example does not include CIL, CIL should be factored into your forthcoming work as the ‘cake’ is not limitless and all costs need to be factored in for your appraisals.
- The next two slides show the average prices and indexed turnover in Worcestershire set against the national average, London average, Birmingham average and West Midlands average
- This slide summarises the cumulative impact of Local Plan policies and includes a column showing a 5% drop in prices It may be useful if your forthcoming study adopts a similar presentation in order to clearly show the impact of your policies on your site allocations and it may be helpful to review your Core Strategy retrospectively
- You’ve done your appraisals, you’ve thought about residuals/competitive retunes, you’ve considered the guidance. You know which sites are viable/unviable. Now what!? NPPF/Guidance provide huge weight to carrying out effective consultation.
- Set out your experiences of plans falling down on viability grounds
- In determining whether or not you need to re-consult you need to judge whether or not a change in circumstances goes to the heart of the plans soundness (deliverability) At some point you need to draw a line under your evidence collection. Do not got too hung up on viability, as long as the majority of sites are broadly deliverable and you have a good audit and explanation of approach with record of good consultation you should be fine. Other factors need to be balanced against viability e.g. building a community, tackling deprivation, encouraging growth over the whole plan period etc. Changes to market conditions/grant funding/phasing should be considered. Monitor costs/values/need. Balance evidence base and market segmentation v schemes.
- Set out how best to approach a memorandum of understanding/statement of common ground. Examination statements are useful tools for bringing all the threads of argument together clearly and in one place. Do not repeat evidence, merely reference where the Inspector can find it.