Affordable Housing & CIL Development Viability Study

September 2012

Important Notice

HDH Planning and Development (HDH) is the trading name of RS Drummond-Hay MRICS ACIH.

HDH and officers from Durham County Council (DCC) have prepared this report for the sole use of DCC. The report is jointly authored by HDH and DCC in accordance with the Agreement under which HDH’s services were performed, HDH has lead on some parts of this project and DCC on others. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this report or any other services provided by HDH. This report may not be relied upon by any other party without the prior and express written agreement of RS Drummond-Hay MRICS ACIH.

Some of the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based upon information provided by others (including Durham County and consultees) and upon the assumption that all relevant information has been provided by those parties from whom it has been requested. Information obtained from third parties has not been independently verified by HDH, unless otherwise stated in the report. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are concerned with policy requirement, guidance and regulations which may be subject to change. They reflect a Chartered Surveyor’s perspective and do not reflect or constitute legal advice and Durham County Council should seek legal advice before implementing any of the recommendations.

No part of this report constitutes a valuation and the report should not be relied on in that regard.

Certain statements made in the report may constitute estimates, projections or other forward-looking statements and even though they are based on reasonable assumptions as of the date of the report, such forward-looking statements by their nature involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from the results predicted. RS Drummond-Hay MRICS ACIH specifically does not guarantee or warrant any estimate or projections contained in this report.

RS Drummond-Hay MRICS ACIH trading as HDH Planning and Development Bellgate, Casterton Kirkby Lonsdale Cumbria. LA6 2LF [email protected] 015242 76202 / 07989 975 977

© This report is the copyright of RS Drummond-Hay MRICS ACIH. Any unauthorised reproduction or usage by any person other than the addressee is strictly prohibited Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

Table of Contents

Appendices – see separate document...... ii

Executive Summary...... iii

1. Introduction ...... 5

Context...... 5 Testing the Affordable Housing Target ...... 5 CIL Economic Viability Assessment ...... 8 Viability Testing...... 9 Viability methodology...... 12 CIL Viability Assessment ...... 13 Alternative Models ...... 14 Differential Rates of CIL...... 14 Limitations of viability testing in the context of CIL and the NPPF ...... 15 Stakeholder Consultation...... 16

2. Residential Development Sites ...... 19

An area of differences...... 19 Identifying a range of sites...... 20 The sites...... 21 Development assumptions...... 22

3. Affordable Housing and Other Developer Contributions ...... 25

Affordable housing assumptions...... 25 Affordable Rent ...... 26 Grant Funding ...... 27 Development Economics of Affordable Rent ...... 28 The Treatment of Re-lets and Other Funding Sources ...... 33 Other developer contributions...... 34

4. The Local Housing Market ...... 35

The residential market ...... 35 New Build Prices...... 40 Price assumptions for financial appraisals...... 42 Newbuild House Prices...... 45 Land values...... 47 Current and Alternative Use Values ...... 48

i Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

5. Residential Cost Assumptions...... 51

Development costs ...... 51 Financial and other appraisal assumptions ...... 56 Site acquisition and disposal costs ...... 60

6. Residential Viability Analysis ...... 61

Financial appraisal approach and assumptions...... 61 Alternative use benchmarks...... 61 Appraisal results ...... 63 Results ...... 63 Different levels of Affordable Housing and the Impact of CIL...... 69 Developer contributions ...... 71 County Durham Zone...... 72 Durham City & Chester-le-Street Zone...... 73 Strategic Zone...... 74 Affordable Housing Target and CIL Rates...... 75 Changes in the Housing Market...... 75

7. Affordable Housing Thresholds ...... 81

8. CIL Contributions – Commercial...... 83

Issues to consider ...... 83 Differential Rates of CIL...... 84 Development typologies...... 84 The commercial property market ...... 89 Employment Market ...... 89 The Retail Market...... 90 Price assumptions for financial appraisals...... 92 Land values...... 93 Cost assumptions for viability analysis ...... 93 Results ...... 95 Conclusions...... 99

9. Conclusions and Recommendation...... 101

Affordable Housing Target ...... 101 Affordable Housing Threshold ...... 103 Community Infrastructure Levy...... 103

Appendices – see separate document

ii Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

Executive Summary

The evidence used in this report has been updated since the CIL Rationale and Preliminary Charging Schedule was taken to the Councils Cabinet in July 2012. The alterations to the evidence were made following representations from consultees. This has led to minor changes in the results and increased viability of residential sites. Due to the cautious approach taken by the Council in ‘striking the balance’ to set CIL rates proposed in the Preliminary Charging Schedule, the rates approved by Cabinet in July 2012 therefore remain sound.

S.1 This report is the Durham County Council evidence on the financial viability implications of introducing Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and alternative affordable housing targets within County Durham. DCC appointed HDH Planning and Development to assist them.

S.2 This report establishes that County Durham has 2 broad areas relating to viability for both residential and non-residential uses;

a. Durham City and Chester-le-Street core area being the higher value and most economically vibrant area of the County.

b. County Durham area being most of the County but excluding Durham and Chester-le-Street.

S.3 Through viability appraisals, It was found that if developers were required to deliver the SHMA ‘affordable option’ targets for affordable housing then many sites would not be viable. In order to assess what may be a reasonable 1 affordable housing target we ran appraisals against a range of lower affordable housing targets that demonstrated that sites were broadly deliverable in the following planning delivery areas with the following targets:

North Durham 15% South Durham 15% West Durham 25% Central Durham 20% East Durham 10%.

1 In the context of Paragraph 173 of the NPPF

iii Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

S.4 We analysed the potential for introducing CIL in conjunction with affordable housing targets. The analysis found that, in the County Durham Area, at the 15% affordable housing target that, of the viable sites, the two poorest performing sites generate an additional profit 2 of just over £50/m 2. Bearing in mind the uncertainty of the market, it was felt that a low flat CIL charge of approximately £20 /m 2 would have little adverse effect on the delivery of housing and would not put the Development Plan at serious risk 3. This CIL rate would equate to about 2% of construction costs and be less than £2,000 per unit.

S.5 When analysing results from the Durham City and Chester-le-Street area at the 20% affordable housing target there is sufficient viability to generate significantly higher levels of CIL. Again, it is prudent to take a cautious view and our recommendation is a rate of £80 /m 2 for residential properties in this area.

S.6 Within this area there is a sub-area that contains the potential strategic urban extensions around the northern sides of Durham City. These sites are located on the County best market area and our evidence supports a much higher CIL rate of over £200 per m 2 in this location because of the considerable uplift in land value that is likely to be generated on these strategic sites.

S.7 When considering CIL on non-residential development it is important to not only consider the results of the viability analysis but also the reality of the development market. Based on the viability evidence we do not believe there is scope to charge CIL on the employment uses (office and industrial) in the current market. Similarly there is not scope to charge CIL on the town centre retail development.

S.8 The viability evidence has shown that there is scope to introduce CIL in relation to large retail development, hotel development and student accommodation. Again considering the ‘test’ as to whether CIL would put the Development Plan at serious risk it is recommended that the following rates are considered.

Large Retail (over 1,000m 2) £200/m 2

Hotels £200/m 2

Student Accommodation £50/m 2

2 Additional Profit explained in Paragraph 1.36 & 1.37 3 The CIL examiner’s task is to assess whether the Development Plan is put at serious risk and not to question how the Council has stuck the balance as required by CIL Regulation 14.

iv Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

1. Introduction

1.1 HDH Planning and Development (HDH) was commissioned by Durham County Council (DCC) to assist with the gathering and preparation of viability evidence in connection with the proposed introduction of a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) in County Durham. The scope of this project has been extended beyond the initial brief to also provide an assessment of the economic viability of the delivery of affordable housing. This further work has been included because of the very substantial degree of overlap in assessing the viability of an affordable housing target and the potential impact of CIL.

1.2 This report has been produced through a collaborative process involving Council officers and public sector and private sector stakeholders. We take this opportunity to thank all those who assisted in the project and gave up their time to attend the stakeholder events (including officers from neighbouring authorities) and to make comments on the emerging results.

1.3 This joint working is in line with paragraph 157 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) that states that Local Plans should:

Plan positively for the development and infrastructure required in the area …… and be based on co-operation with neighbouring authorities, public, voluntary and private sector organisations’

1.4 The consideration of the impact of CIL and the delivery of affordable housing together, as undertaken here is advocated in Paragraph 175 of the NPPF that says:

Where practical, Community Infrastructure Levy charges should be worked up and tested alongside the Local Plan. The Community Infrastructure Levy should support and incentivise new development, particularly by placing control over a meaningful proportion of the funds raised with the neighbourhoods where development takes place.

Context

1.5 The outputs of the study are in two parts; the first being the testing of the affordable housing target and the second being the work in relation to CIL. The assumptions behind each part are broadly the same – but the subsequent analysis is, necessarily, different.

Testing the Affordable Housing Target

1.6 DCC has previously commissioned consultants to undertake a number of key studies: GVA Grimley undertook a Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA), which was completed in October 2008; The Council undertook a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA), which is now available via the Council website. Arc4 have

5 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

recently undertaken an update of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) for the Council, its findings inform the affordable housing targets in this report.

1.7 The SHMA identifies a substantial need for affordable houses. This need has been reflected in the following affordable housing targets that have been recommended for each of the five planning delivery areas (see figure 4.5) in County Durham to meet the need for affordable housing. The purpose of this report is to assess whether these targets are deliverable and if not what lower target would be deliverable. In this report these targets are called the ‘SHMA affordable option’ and they will be basis of the initial assessments. The SHMA affordable option targets are as follows:

• North Durham 25% on sites of 15 dwellings or above or over 0.5 ha. • West Durham 25% on sites of 5 dwellings or above or over 0.2 ha • Central and South Durham 20% on sites of 15 dwellings or above or over 0.5 ha. • East Durham 10% on sites of 15 dwellings or above or over 0.5 ha.

1.8 The 2008 SHMA recommended that 80% of affordable housing should be social rented and 20% intermediate housing, as a starting point for negotiation. The County Durham Plan will contain a policy requiring the provision of affordable housing.

1.9 It is necessary that the affordable housing targets adopted by DCC are deliverable so a primary purpose of this report is to test this. This requirement is set out in the NPPF:

Ensuring viability and deliverability 173. Pursuing sustainable development requires careful attention to viability and costs in plan- making and decision-taking. Plans should be deliverable. Therefore, the sites and the scale of development identified in the plan should not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened. To ensure viability, the costs of any requirements likely to be applied to development, such as requirements for affordable housing, standards, infrastructure contributions or other requirements should, when taking account of the normal cost of development and mitigation, provide competitive returns to a willing land owner and willing developer to enable the development to be deliverable.

174. Local planning authorities should set out their policy on local standards in the Local Plan, including requirements for affordable housing. They should assess the likely cumulative impacts on development in their area of all existing and proposed local standards, supplementary planning documents and policies that support the development plan, when added to nationally required standards. In order to be appropriate, the cumulative impact of these standards and policies should not put implementation of the plan at serious risk, and should facilitate development throughout the economic cycle. Evidence supporting the assessment should be proportionate, using only appropriate available evidence.

175. Where practical, Community Infrastructure Levy charges should be worked up and tested alongside the Local Plan. The Community Infrastructure Levy should support and incentivise new development, particularly by placing control over a meaningful proportion of the funds raised with the neighbourhoods where development takes place.

6 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

1.10 These provisions replace Paragraph 29 of PPS3: Housing (2006) which says that affordable targets should:

‘reflect an assessment of the likely economic viability of land for housing within the area, taking account of the risks to delivery and drawing on informed assessments of the likely levels of finance available for affordable housing, including public subsidy and the level of developer contribution that can reasonably be secured.’ (S29)

1.11 The meaning of paragraph 29 of PPS3 was clarified in the Court of Appeal decision of August 2008 over the Blyth Valley Core Strategy Inspector’s Report. This confirmed the duty on every local authority to ensure that any affordable housing target is broadly deliverable within its area. This requirement is taken forward into the NPPF and is extended to other requirements planning authorities may seek to impose on developers.

1.12 The duty to test is a ‘broad brush’ one saying ‘ plans should be deliverable’. It is not a requirement that every site should be able to bear all of the local authority’s requirements – indeed some sites will be unviable even with no requirements imposed on them by the local authority. The typical site in the local authority should be able to bear whatever target is set. Some sites will not be able to bear the affordable housing target on viability grounds, but developers have scope to make specific viability submissions at the planning applications stage and to agree a lower requirement on a site by site basis. Conversely, some sites will be able to bear considerably more than the policy requirements.

1.13 This assessment will provide a recommendation for affordable housing targets and thresholds (the size of sites to which the targets will apply), which are achievable in terms of development economics, and will form the basis of an affordable housing policy in the Local Plan. The purpose of this study is to enable DCC to set robust, viable, targets. It is important to note that the target is just that – a target. The actual amount of affordable housing required on any site must be assessed and take into account the particular factors of developing that site at that point of the economic cycle.

1.14 Beyond the brief mention of the requirement to test the deliverability of the target in the NPPF there are various sources of guidance. These are not statutory and not entirely consistent but do provide useful guidance. The methodology used in this study is consistent with those sources of guidance. This study is therefore designed to test the target in an informed way. Given the pattern of housing market conditions since late 2007, and more particularly a general expectation that the fall in house prices may not yet have run its full course, it may be necessary for any proposed target to be reviewed regularly so as to reflect the resulting changes in the profitability of development.

7 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

CIL Economic Viability Assessment

1.15 DCC are at a relatively early stage of preparing a CIL Charging Schedule. This study informs the Preliminary Charging Schedule. The CIL Charging Schedule will be referenced in the Developers Contribution Policy within the County Durham Plan, however, it will not form part of the statutory development plan. The CIL Charging Schedule will be subject to a separate examination in public. The guidance says:

Charging authorities must express CIL rates as pounds per square metre, as CIL will be levied on the gross internal floorspace of the net additional liable development. The published rate(s) within an authority’s charging schedule will enable liable parties to anticipate their expected CIL liability (Paragraph 5).

1.16 The Guidance goes on (paragraph 6) to say when preparing the rates of CIL:

The initial stage of preparing a charging schedule focuses on determining the CIL rate(s). When a charging authority submits its draft charging schedule to the CIL examination, it must provide evidence on economic viability and infrastructure planning

…complied with the requirements under Part 11 of the Act, including the requirements governing the setting of CIL rates. Regulation 14 requires that a charging authority, in setting CIL rates, ‘must aim to strike what appears to the charging authority to be an appropriate balance between’ the desirability of funding infrastructure from CIL and ‘the potential effects (taken as a whole) of the imposition of CIL on the economic viability of development across its area’

1.17 On preparing the evidence base on economic viability the Guidance says (paragraph 21):

Charging authorities should use an area-based approach, which involves a broad test of viability across their area as the evidence base to underpin their charge. Charging authorities should take a strategic view across their area and should not focus on the potential implications of setting a CIL for individual development sites within a charging authority’s area. Regulation 14 recognises that the introduction of CIL may put some potential development sites at risk. It is for charging authorities to decide what CIL rate, in their view, sets an appropriate balance between the need to fund infrastructure, and the potential implications for the economic viability of development across their area.

Economic valuation (paragraph 22)

There are a number of valuation models and methodologies available to charging authorities to help them in preparing evidence on the potential effects of CIL on the economic viability of development across their area. There is no requirement to use one of these models, but charging authorities may find it helpful in defending their CIL rates to use one of them.

Appropriate available evidence (paragraphs 23 to 26)

The legislation (section 212 (4) (b)) requires a charging authority to use 'appropriate available evidence' to inform their draft charging schedule. It is recognised that the available data is unlikely to be fully comprehensive or exhaustive . Charging authorities need to

8 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

demonstrate that their proposed CIL rate or rates are informed by ‘appropriate available’ evidence and consistent with that evidence across their area as a whole.

A charging authority should thus draw on existing data wherever it is available. Charging authorities may consider a range of data, including:

• values of land in both existing and planned uses (see, for example, VOA Property Market Reports); and • property prices (e.g. house price indices and rateable values for commercial property).

In addition, a charging authority may want to sample directly a few sites across its area in order to supplement existing data. The focus should only be on a limited number of sites, particularly those sites where the impact of CIL on economic viability is likely to be more significant. Where a charging authority is proposing to set differential rates, they may want to undertake more fine- grained sampling (of a higher percentage of total sites), to identify a few data points to use in estimating the boundaries of particular zones, or different categories of intended use. The focus in regulation 14(1) (b) on an area based approach to viability means that charging authorities need rely only on a limited approach to sampling, whether they are setting a uniform or a differential rate.

In considering the effect of CIL on residential development, charging authorities in England may want to draw on the work done to inform their Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments (SHLAAs) on maintaining a deliverable supply of land for housing, as required by PPS3. The methodology undertaken for the SHLAA and the knowledge it has given of viability in the local area should inform an authority's approach, but a charging authority may need to revisit their SHLAA to update it to reflect more recent changes that have an impact on viability across their area, (usually without changing the methodology). Charging authorities will also need to supplement their SHLAA with information about non-housing sectors, such as the retail and commercial sectors (for example, information on rental yields and property values), depending on the balance of development within their area.

1.18 It is clear from the above that there is much in common with the CIL Guidance and the NPPF requirement to assess the viability of the delivery of affordable housing – hence the extension of the project to include viability work to support and inform the Affordable Housing Target.

Viability Testing

1.19 There is no statutory and little formal guidance on how to actually go about viability testing and assess when a site is or is not viable or whether a policy is deliverable. The availability and cost of land are matters at the core of the viability for any property development. The format of the typical valuation has been standard for as long as land has been traded for development:

9 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

Gross Development Value (The combined value of the complete development)

LESS

Cost of creating the asset, including a profit margin (Construction + fees + finance charges)

RESIDUAL VALUE

1.20 The result of the calculation indicates a land value (the Residual Value), which acts as the top limit of what a bidder could offer for a site and achieve a pre-determined profit margin. This study tests the assumption that:– given the likely land value, will a development including X% target of affordable housing be viable and will it be able to bear paying CIL whilst allowing the developer and landowner to make a reasonable return?

1.21 The ‘likely land value’ is a difficult topic since a landowner is unlikely to be entirely frank about the price that would be acceptable, always seeking a higher one. This is one of the areas where an informed assumption has to be made about the ‘uplift’: the margin above the ‘existing use value’ at which a landowner may sell.

1.22 This study does not attempt to assess the specific price that could or should be paid for each site. The appraisal calculates what a typical site may be worth if a range of scenarios (such as different amounts of affordable housing) were to occur, and then compares that amount with the land’s value in some other use to which it could be put. The methodology used is therefore to consider the residual value of a scheme and then compare it to either the existing use value (EUV) or an alternative use value (AUV) and then add an appropriate uplift to incentivise a landowner to sell. The EUV approach was recently endorsed by the Planning Inspector who approved the London Mayoral CIL Charging Schedule in January 2012. In the report, the Inspector dismissed the theory that using historical market value to assess the value of land was a more appropriate methodology than using EUV plus a margin.

1.23 There is no specific guidance on how to test viability in the CIL Regulations or Guidance. Paragraph 173 of the NPPF says: ‘…… To ensure viability, the costs of any requirements likely to be applied to development, such as requirements for affordable housing, standards, infrastructure contributions or other requirements should, when taking account of the normal cost of development and mitigation, provide competitive returns to a willing land owner and willing developer to enable the development to be deliverable……’ This seems quite straightforward – although ‘ competitive returns’ is not defined. We have given considerable thought to the meaning of ‘ competitive returns ’ as the test of viability will depend, in part, on this.

10 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

1.24 There is, some guidance published by the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) and several appeal decisions that support the methodology we have used. The HCA good practice manual ‘ Investment and Planning Obligations: Responding to the Downturn ’ (2009) has a definition of viability: a viable development will support a residual land value at a level sufficiently above the site’s existing use value (EUV) or alternative use value (AUV) to support a land acquisition price acceptable to the landowner . Several planning appeal decisions provide some guidance on the extent to which the residual land value should exceed existing use value to be considered viable:

Barnet & Chase Farm: APP/Q5300/A/07/2043798/NWF

“the appropriate test is that the value generated by the scheme should exceed the value of the site in its current use. The logic is that, if the converse were the case, then sites would not come forward for development”

Bath Road, Bristol: APP/P0119/A/08/2069226

“The difference between the RLV and the existing site value provides a basis for ascertaining the viability of contributing towards affordable housing.”

Beckenham: APP/G5180/A/08/2084559

“without an affordable housing contribution, the scheme will only yield less than 12% above the existing use value, 8% below the generally accepted margin necessary to induce such development to proceed.” (20% being the generally accepted margin)

Oxford Street, Woodstock: APP/D3125/A/09/2104658

“The main parties’ valuations of the current existing value of the land are not dissimilar but the Appellant has sought to add a 10% premium. Though the site is owned by the Appellants it must be assumed, for valuation purposes, that the land is being acquired now. It is unreasonable to assume that an existing owner and user of the land would not require a premium over the actual value of the land to offset inconvenience and assist with relocation. The Appellants addition of the 10% premium is not unreasonable in these circumstances.”

1.25 Planning appeal decisions and the HCA good practice publication therefore suggest that the most appropriate test of viability for planning policy purposes is to consider the residual value of schemes compared to the existing use value plus a premium. The implementation of this is discussed in Chapter 6.

1.26 More recently (May 2012) the RICS have published an ‘Exposure Draft’ as part of a consultation process with a view to producing a guidance note entitled ‘ Financial Viability in Planning ’. This is currently at a draft stage, and, whilst it is general, it is still useful setting out principles and options. It does not aim to be prescriptive but it intends to embody best practice. The methodology the RICS is proposing are very much in line with that used in this assessment. In June 2012 the LGA and HBF published Viability Testing Local Plans, Advice for planning Practitioners , again this is a general piece of work that is useful to refer to.

11 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

1.27 Chris Hill of Turner Morum also undertook a study research paper for Department for Communities and Local Government titled ‘ Cumulative impacts of regulations on house builders and landowners ’ that was published in 2011 4. This interesting paper provides a useful and highly relevant discussion of the topic and also supports the methodology used.

1.28 As mentioned below engagement with stakeholders has been an important part of this project and whilst there was broad agreement across most areas the ‘viability test’ was a significant area of disagreement. This is discussed further in the report.

Viability methodology

1.29 The basic viability methodology is summarised in Figure 1.1 below. It involves preparing financial development appraisals for a representative range of development sites across the study area. These appraisals calculate the residual value that can then be compared to the EUV to assess viability and then to assess the amount of CIL that can be paid. Sites were modelled, based on a review of recent planning approvals submitted to DCC. This process ensures that the appraisals are representative of typical development.

1.30 The appraisals tested a range of scenarios including different levels of affordable housing provision: in each case the government’s new model for affordable housing, affordable rent, was used being the most likely form of affordable housing to be provided in the future. The likely purchase prices registered providers would pay for units in each category was considered. Assumptions were also required for a (non-affordable housing related) Section 106 5 contribution per dwelling, as were different development requirements such as building to a higher Code for Sustainable Homes (CfSH) level.

1.31 The local housing and commercial markets were surveyed, in order to obtain a picture of sales values. Land values were assessed to calibrate the appraisals and to assess alternative use values. Alongside this local development patterns were considered, in order to arrive at appropriate built form assumptions for those sites where information from a current planning permission or application was not available. These in turn informed the appropriate build cost figures.

4 http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/corporate/pdf/1923450.pdf 5 Section 106 (S106) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows a local planning authority (LPA) to enter into a legally-binding agreement or planning obligation with a landowner in association with the granting of planning permission. The obligation is termed a Section 106 Agreement. These agreements are a way of delivering or addressing matters that are necessary to make a development acceptable in planning terms. They are used to support the provision of services and infrastructure, such as highways, recreational facilities, education, health and affordable housing. The scope of such agreements is laid out in the government’s Circular 05/2005.

12 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

Figure 1.1 Viability methodology

LOCAL MARKET SURVEY SHORT LIST ASSUMPTIONS FOR SURVEY LOCAL & DATA SITES AFFORDABLE & S106 DEVELOPMENT

PATTERNS CONTACT

SELECT ACTUAL LOCAL SITES RSLs BUILT FORM FOR EACH SITE

LAND VALUES MARKET AFFORDABLE PRICES & PRICES BUILD OTHER VALUES COSTS FOR TECHNICAL EACH SITE ASSUMPTIONS

ALTERNATIVE PREPARE MODELLED USE VALUES APPRAISALS FOR EACH SITE ITERATE FOR OTHER AFFORDABLE OPTIONS

IS THE SCHEME VIABLE?

Source: HDH 2012

1.32 A number of other technical assumptions were required before appraisals could be produced. The appraisal results were in the form of £/ha ‘residual’ land values, showing the maximum value a developer could pay for the site and still return a target profit level.

1.33 At the end of this process, the residual value was compared to the alternative use value for each site. Only if the residual value exceeded the alternative figure, and by a satisfactory margin, could the scheme be judged to be viable.

CIL Viability Assessment

1.34 This is divided into two parts – firstly the residential development is examined (the provision of affordable housing is closely related to the ability to pay CIL) before non- residential uses are examined in Chapter 8. The findings are brought together in Chapter 9.

1.35 In order to assess whether or not a contribution to CIL can be made, a calculation needs to be undertaken to establish the ‘additional profit’. Additional profit is the amount of profit over and above the normal profit made by the developers having purchased the land, developed the site and sold the units (including providing any affordable housing that is required). The approach to calculating this is to complete the appraisal using the

13 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

same base cost and price figures, and other financial assumptions, as used in assessing the affordable housing target

1.36 The amount by which the resulting profit exceeds the target level of profit (being the developer’s reasonable profit), represents the ‘additional profit’ and provides a measure of the scope for contributing to CIL without impairing development viability. CIL contributions can viably be paid out of this additional profit. 6

Alternative Models

1.37 Several developers and their representatives have suggested that the HCA’s Development Appraisal Tool should be used. The tool kit is a useful tool for undertaking site specific development appraisals however it is very detailed and quite complicated to use with the requirement to enter data on many worksheets within an Excel file. In this study, to test the variables required by the Council to inform their policy and CIL development process approximately 150 appraisal will be run. It was not practical or resource efficient to use the HCA model for this number of sites in this high level and broad brush study.

1.38 The model used in this study has been developed specifically for broad area viability testing and to allow multiple appraisals to be run on multiple sites.

Differential Rates of CIL

1.39 The CIL Regulations 7 permit Charging Authorities to charge CIL at different rate for different geographical areas and for types of development. The CIL Guidance 8 is clear that if a Charging Authority is deicide to introduce differential rates then that decision must be firmly based in evidence.

34. There is no requirement on charging authorities to set differential rates and some charging authorities may prefer to set uniform rates, because they are simpler. However, charging authorities may want to consider setting differential rates as a way of dealing with different levels of economic viability within the same charging area (see regulation 13), for example a charging authority containing a Growth Area and several regeneration zones, or charging authorities with a mixture of urban and rural land. This is a powerful facility that makes CIL more flexible to local conditions. Differences in rates need to be justified by reference to the economic viability of development. Charging authorities should not set differential rates by reference to the costs of infrastructure, either in different zones or for different classes of development.

1.40 An important part of this study is to establish whether or not there is evidence to support differential rates. There is some uncertainty as to what precisely constitutes a differential

6 This methodology based on Additional Profit was found sound at the Shropshire CIL Examination 7 CIL Regulation 13 8 See paragraphs 34 to 40 of the CIL Guidance

14 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

rate 9. In this study, that is to say during the gathering of the evidence to inform the setting of CIL, we have taken the CIL Regulations and Guidance on face value. The CIL Regulations and Guidance do not specifically permit or prohibit any development types to be divided and differential rates applied. In several areas, differential rates within a sector (such as retail) have been approved by CIL examiners.

1.41 We understand that there have been some attempts to link the CIL Charges to Planning Use Classes 10 . We do not believe that it was ever the intention in the CIL Regulations to make such a rigid link and such a link is not a logical one to make. By way of example, B1 includes both light industrial workshops and high quality offices. These uses are clearly different both in terms of physical characteristics, the way they are used and the development economics behind each. If there is clear evidence that one type of development can bear CIL then it is only right that CIL should be charged so as to ensure that the infrastructure required to support that development is provided. Equally, a town centre or neighbourhood shop is quite different from a large out of town ‘hypermarket’, not just in scale but also in user, configuration, provision of parking and use.

1.42 When it comes to finalising the CIL, we recommend that DCC take a pragmatic view consider the likelihood of development coming forward and the amounts of CIL that may be raised. If the amount is de minimus, there would be a disproportion risk in facing a challenge – even if there is sound viability evidence to justify such a rate, the Council may decide that the costs of defending a challenge may be more than the likely CIL raised.

Limitations of viability testing in the context of CIL and the NPPF

1.43 The high level and broad brush viability testing that is appropriate to be used to set CIL (and required by CIL Regulation 14) and in the context of the NPPF does have limitations. The purpose of the viability testing is to assess the ‘effects’ of CIL 11 . However, viability testing is a largely quantitative process based on financial appraisals – there are types of development where viability is not at the forefront of the developer’s mind and they will proceed even if a ‘loss’ is shown in a conventional appraisal. By way of example an individual may want to fulfil a dream of building a house and may spend more than the finished home is actually worth, a community may extend a village hall even through the value of the facility in financial terms is not significantly enhanced or the end user of an industrial or logistics building may build a new factory or depot that will improve its operational efficiency even if, as a property development, the resulting building may not seem to be viable.

9 This follows the objection made by supermarket operator Sainsbury’s to the Poole Charging Schedule. Poole’s draft charging schedule set a separate charge for retail over 3,000m 2. The supermarket operator Sainsbury’s argued that, while the CIL regulations allow charging authorities to set differential rates for different geographical areas or different uses, they do not permit differential rates within a single use. 10 The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) puts uses of land and buildings into various categories known as 'Use Classes'. 11 CIL Regulation 14 (1)b

15 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

1.44 This sets a Charging Authority a challenge when it needs to determine whether or not the introduction of CIL will have an impact on development coming forward – will introducing CIL on a development type that may appear only to be marginally viable have any material impact on the rates of development or will the developments proceed anyway?

Stakeholder Consultation

1.45 Stakeholder involvement is an important part of this project. Paragraph 180 of the NPPF says:

Local planning authorities should take account of different geographic areas, including travel-to- work areas. In two tier areas, county and district authorities should cooperate with each other on relevant issues. Local planning authorities should work collaboratively on strategic planning priorities to enable delivery of sustainable development in consultation with Local Enterprise Partnerships and Local Nature Partnerships. Local planning authorities should also work collaboratively with private sector bodies, utility and infrastructure providers.

1.46 It is also requirement of the CIL Guidance. Paragraph 1 says.

Section 206 of the Planning Act 2008 (The Act) confers the power to charge CIL on certain bodies known as charging authorities. The charging authority’s responsibilities, if they decide to levy CIL, will be to: ……… This will involve consultation and ………

1.47 The Council have undertaken consultations from the earliest stage of the project to ensure that those stakeholders that will be directly and indirectly affected by the eventual outcomes can influence the report through commenting on the methodology, the inputs, the assumptions and the interpretation of the results.

1.48 DCC have sought to engage stakeholders from the onset of the process of implementing CIL. In particular, DCC have sought a continuous dialogue with the development industry, and specifically the house building industry. Officers from DCC presented initial findings of the CIL work to the county’s ‘Housebuilders Forum’ on the 2 nd Febuary 2012. A summary of the County’s approach to the CIL work was presented and the members of the house building forum were invited to attend a more in depth stakeholder event the following month.

1.49 A wider stakeholder event was held on 2nd March 2012. The invitation list comprised of:

16 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

• SHLAA technical advisory panel; • Planning consultants with backgrounds in housing, retail and employment land, • Infrastructure provider’s from work on the Infrastructure Delivery Plan • Members from the North East Chamber of Commerce • Housebuilders from the house building forum and; • Local Housing associations

1.50 Approximately 70 people attended and at the event the methodology was discussed in detail and the various data sources and assumptions for the viability appraisals were presented. Finally the first emerging results were presented. After the presentation, the delegates took part in workshop discussions on each table which were based upon some of the issues that had been presented to the stakeholders. The questions discussed were the same on each table and focused on affordable housing, the assumptions for viability appraisals, defining County Durham market areas and infrastructure delivery.

1.51 A lively debate took place on all tables and all comments were recorded. DCC then analysed the minutes from each table and arranged the comments into a digestible format so attendees and non-attendees could see the wide range of comments. The attendees and a summary of comments are included in Appendix 1. Additionally, the comments have been incorporated at the appropriate place in this report. As would be expected in a study of this type, agreement was not reached in all matters. Where this was the case, an explanation as to why the assumptions and methodologies used has been included in the report.

1.52 Not all stakeholders were able to attend the event. The presentation and feedback were therefore circulated by email and comments were invited and received.

1.53 Shortly after this event, a further presentation was given to the North East House Builders Federation (HBF) on CIL and the approach to viability appraisals was again discussed. DCC then wrote to the HBF and invited formal comments regarding the County Durham methodology. The HBF in turn then responded on the 2 nd April with a formal response to the County Durham CIL approach and methodology. This formal response was taken into consideration before the viability appraisals were undertaken.

1.54 DCC also made a presentation to the County Durham House Builders Forum on the 17 th May 2012 on the progress of this work and feedback from the stakeholder day. DCC has also met with members of the HBF since to discuss the detail of the viability work.

1.55 We take this opportunity to thank those organisations and individuals that have contributed to the consultation process.

Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

2. Residential Development Sites

2.1 This chapter sets out the residential sites modelled for the Study, first outlining the key characteristics of each site and then considering the assumptions made about proposed development upon each site for the purpose of producing a set of financial appraisal that are representative of the type of development that is likely to come forward in County Durham in the future.

An area of differences

2.2 County Durham is the largest local authority in North East England, lying at the heart of the region, with Tees Valley to the south and Tyne and Wear and Northumberland to the north. The County includes the North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty in the west and the Heritage Coast in the East and also borders Cumbria and North Yorkshire. The County’s rural setting and sparse settlement pattern was largely determined by mining and other extraction and processing industries, which means there are a number of challenges to which the County Durham Plan must respond.

2.3 The area has a complex pattern of mining, industrial and agricultural settlements – some being very prosperous and in high demand, others with failing housing markets and high levels of deprivation.

19 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

Figure 2.1 Index of Multiple Depravation

Source: DCC 2012

2.4 As can be seen these differences occur over very short geographical distances with high and low areas abutting each other, a fact that presents policy makers with particular challenges. Broad area policies are often not appropriate with interventions being required for more discrete areas.

2.5 The area has excellent transport links with the A1 (M) bisecting the County north / south, the East Coast Main line providing good connections to London and Newcastle and Durham Tees Valley Airport being situated to the south of the County. These all serve to make the County attractive to residents and businesses.

Identifying a range of sites

2.6 This study is based on modelling typical sites. It was decided that a total of 16 representative sites should be modelled, and this would provide the scope for exploring viability on sites below the pre NPPF national guidance size threshold for affordable housing of 15 dwellings.

2.7 At the consultation event some concern was raised by developers that modelling could not be representative and that the only way to assess viability was to look at actual sites. To some extent we agree, however the aim of this work is to test the County wide and sub-area

20 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

affordable housing targets and to inform the CIL Charging Schedule rather assess the viability of particular schemes. The work is broad brush, there will be sites that will not be able to deliver the affordable housing target and CIL, but there will also be sites that can afford more. Once CIL has been adopted there is little scope for exemptions to be granted, however, where the affordable housing target cannot be met the developer will continue to be able to negotiate with the planning authority. When contemplating planning applications the planning authority will have to weigh up the factors for and against a scheme and the ability to deliver affordable housing will be an important factor. We do believe that the appraisals are reflective of development sites in the study area that are likely to come forward during the plan period.

2.8 The details of 40 or so recent planning approvals were reviewed. Of these 13 were selected as being representative. They were chosen to reflect a range of typical development situations: an appropriate balance between previous uses, a range of site sizes, and to give coverage across the range of the main towns within the County. These actual sites were used to model the development we appraised.

2.9 In spite of a thorough investigation we were unable to find representative small sites so three small sites were modelled based on the information gathered in relation to larger sites and wider experience of development management officers.

2.10 The modelled sites range in size from 2 to 288 dwellings. The larger sites tended to be on greenfield sites but several sites are on previously developed land. All are based on approved schemes and most of the modelled sites used have actually been built out within the last 5 years. Information available from the various planning applications was available in considering the appropriate development forms to use in the appraisals.

The sites

2.11 Summary details of the sites identified are set out in the table below.

21 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

Table 2.1 Site details

Density Scheme Average Area Dwellings Density unit size ha Units /ha m2/ha m2 1 North Durham 1 Green 11.00 288 26.2 2,422 93 2 North Durham 2 Green 9.00 243 27.0 2,936 109 3 South Durham 1 Green 4.98 149 29.9 2,740 92 4 Central Durham 1 Brown 5.29 121 22.9 2,306 101 5 South Durham 2 Brown 2.35 70 29.8 3,138 105 6 East Durham 1 Brown 1.25 68 54.4 4,189 77 7 Central Durham 2 Brown 0.44 42 95.8 12,835 134 8 East Durham 2 Brown 0.71 30 42.3 3,178 75 9 East Durham 3 Brown 1.14 26 22.8 3,196 140 10 Central Durham 3 Brown 0.36 18 50.7 4,381 86 11 South Durham 4 Brown 0.68 12 17.7 4,856 274 12 Central Durham 4 Brown 0.79 10 12.7 1,545 121 13 North Durham 3 Green 0.11 5 45.5 4,720 104 14 Modelled 1st Green 0.10 3 30.0 3,300 110 15 Modelled 2nd Green 0.05 2 40.0 3,800 95 16 Modelled 3rd Green 0.10 2 20.0 2,800 140 38.34 1089 28.4 2,881 101 Source: HDH 2012

2.12 The sites total just over 1,000 dwellings on a net area of just under 38.34 ha, at an average density of 28 dwellings per ha. The majority of the units are on the four largest sites however there are a selection of medium sized sites. Six are below the pre NPPF national affordable housing threshold of 15 dwellings. All of the sites are 100% residential use.

Development assumptions

2.13 In arriving at appropriate assumptions for residential development on each site the approved planning application is an important consideration. We have ensured that the built form used in our appraisals is appropriate to the current development practices by choosing sites that have been recently approved or developed. Unfortunately we could not find good examples of recently approved/developed applications in West Durham (land to the west of the A68).

2.14 We have developed a typology which corresponds to a variety of densities, which are used to inform development assumptions for sites (actual or potential allocations). That typology enables us to form a view about floorspace density – the amount of development, measured in net floorspace per hectare, to be accommodated upon the site. This is a key variable because the amount of floorspace which can be accommodated on a site relates directly to the residual value, and is an amount which developers will normally seek to maximise (within the constraints set by the market).

22 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

2.15 The typology uses as a base or benchmark a typical post-PPG3/PPS3 built form which would provide development at around 3,550 m 2/ha on a substantial site, or sensibly shaped smaller site. In County Durham a representative housing density might be 20 -30 dwellings per ha. This has become a common development format. It provides for the majority of houses in a mixture of two storeys and two and a half to three storey form, with some rectangular emphasis to the layout. In County Durham, a good deal of the development taking place is at a comparatively low density, with most houses on two storeys and two and a half storeys, and relatively few flatted developments.

Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

3. Affordable Housing and Other Developer Contributions

3.1 This chapter considers the assumptions used to test a range of affordable housing scenarios for the individual sites and similarly the developer contributions assumed for each site. These were presented to the stakeholders at the main consultation event.

Affordable housing assumptions

3.2 As set out in Chapter 1 the SHMA sets out the affordable housing needs requirements for County Durham. The SHMA affordable option that will form the basis of the viability testing in this study is summarised:

3.3 The starting point for the appraisals was to assume the above requirements for affordable housing across all areas and on all sites 3 units or more. We then undertook appraisals for a number of development scenarios involving varying proportions of affordable housing. The assumptions in respect of proportions, and the financial terms on which they are to be provided, are considered below.

(i) Affordable proportion

3.4 The following options were tested.

i. NO affordable housing iv. 15% affordable ii. 5% affordable v. 20% affordable iii. 10% affordable vi. 25% affordable

(ii) Tenure split

3.5 The definition of affordable housing includes social rent, affordable rent and shared ownership housing 12 . The Council currently seeks a mixture of social rented and intermediate housing; however Registered Provider (RP) stakeholders reported that most affordable housing, in the future, would be affordable rent. To reflect the new affordable rent tenure it has been assumed that all new affordable housing that is delivered by developers in

12 The definition is found in Annex 2 of the NPPF.

25 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

the appraisals is affordable rent where the rent is set at 80% of Open Market Rent. Affordable rents are discussed further below.

(iii) Size profile

3.6 We have assumed that the mix of affordable housing on each site should broadly follow the market housing, achieving an average dwelling size (i.e. m2) in line with that of the market housing, which provides the maximum integration between market and affordable provision. Whilst this assumption is a simplification of reality, it is a convenient one which ensures that as the affordable housing proportion varies between the options being tested, the floorspace density remains constant. This is a desirable aim if the appraisals are to constitute a realistic development scenario, consistently, across the range of affordable options tested.

3.7 This approach is consistent with the findings of the 2012 SHMA 13 which found that the need for affordable housing was split, more or less equally between smaller and larger units.

(iv) Financial terms

3.8 An assumption based on a default position of zero Social Housing Grant has become a common starting point for studies of this type. The zero grant assumption also has the incidental advantage of allowing the requirement for subsidy in individual cases to be calculated more simply than if a set level were already allowed for. In fact, the norm has been that the development of affordable housing has been subsidised for many years and it only recently has the grant not been available.

3.9 We are in a time of considerable change. The need to cut Government expenditure as part of the efforts to balance the national budget has resulted in the HCA’s budget being cut to about one quarter of what it was. As part of the measures to mitigate the impact of these cuts, the Government is introducing Flexible Tenancies and Affordable Rents.

3.10 We have assumed no grant is available. This is a cautious assumption as if grant is available the results of the appraisal will be improved.

Affordable Rent

3.11 Affordable Rent is a new affordable housing tenure (with Flexible Tenancies) where the rent is no more than 80% of the open market rent for that unit – in most cases this will be substantially higher than the Social Rent. One of the key aims of the Coalition Government’s policy on affordable housing is to make the much reduced HCA budget go further. The affordable rent that is over and above the social rent will be used by Registered Providers (RPs) to raise capital funding through borrowing or securitisation. This can then be used to build more affordable units – the extra borrowing replacing the grant. We have reflected the higher rents in our viability appraisals.

13 See table 4.17 of the County Durham 2012 Strategic Housing Market Assessment (arc 4).

26 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

3.12 When Grant Shapps, the Housing Minister, announced the introduction of Flexible Tenancies and Affordable Rents on the 12 th December 2010 he said:

Housing associations will be able to let an Affordable Rent property (whether a converted ‘void’ or newbuild) at up to 80 per cent of market rent for an equivalent property for that size and location.

3.13 The objective of affordable rent is that by charging higher rents for the affordable housing, developers would require less grant and subsidy. The theory being that if the developer could charge a higher rent then it can borrow more money to finance the construction and contribute to the development process.

3.14 This report does not address whether affordable rent has a place in meeting the housing requirements of those households in housing need and on the Housing Register in County Durham. It should be noted that flexible tenancies will be able to be granted for more than just newbuild properties. Some of the relets of existing social rented stock will be able to be at affordable rent rather than social rents. The extra income (i.e. that income over and above the social rent) from the relets must also be used to fund further development of new affordable housing.

Grant Funding

3.15 For many years the HCA and Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) have aspired to ensure that affordable housing is delivered without grant. When LPAs have negotiated with developers during the planning process, about the number and type of affordable housing to be provided through s106 agreements and planning conditions, the initial basis of those discussions has usually been that the affordable units would be made available without any grant.

3.16 The reality was rather different, the RP purchasing the completed units from the developer with grant assistance from the HCA. The amount of grant paid by the HCA was assessed project by project depending on a site’s financial characteristics and typically, RPs received grant of about £58,000 per social rent unit and £25,000 per shared ownership unit. This was confirmed by the housing association representatives at the main stakeholder event.

3.17 The aim of affordable rents (new build and re-lets) is that the extra income can be used to borrow and thus to replace the grant. The RP will be able to service new borrowings to make up the gap in grant. Some grant will continue to be available, but it will be restricted to those high priority sites where affordable rent does not improve the viability (such as in low rent areas); where there is still a funding gap after the extra affordable rent has been allowed for or where sites are planned for development for 100% affordable housing and there is no cross subsidy from other development.

3.18 At this early stage of the new funding regime it is expected that grant of about £25,000 per affordable unit will be available in County Durham. There is some uncertainty around this and (just like under the previous grant system) grant payment cannot be guaranteed for every scheme, so we have assumed that no grant will be available in the development appraisals.

27 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

Development Economics of Affordable Rent

3.19 In the development of affordable housing for rent, the value of the units is the worth of the income that the completed let unit will produce. This is the amount an investor or another RP would pay for the completed unit. This will depend on the amount of the rent, the cost of managing the property (letting, voids, rent collection, repairs etc.) and other uses to which it may be able to be put to at some time in the future. If, for example, the unit could be sold on the open market in the future then a buyer may be willing to pay more to take into account the long term value (known by valuers as the reversion).

3.20 The HCA’s 2011-15 Affordable Homes Programme – Framework contains the ‘rules’ and guidance around Flexible Tenancies and Affordable Rents. It says:

3.24 There will be a presumption that new Affordable Rent properties which receive funding under the new programme will be permanently available for letting . Flexible tenancies have been introduced to meet the differing needs of prospective tenants – but the homes themselves are expected to be available to meet need over the long-term, and it is on that basis that funding will be made available. We recognise that circumstances may change over time and any future disposal of properties will require TSA 14 consent in the usual way, including consultation with the relevant local authority.

3.21 Based on this we know that the reversionary period is worth no more as the new property can only be used for Affordable Rent. What is the rental stream worth – either to the RP or to somebody else? There are two aspects to this:

i. How much additional borrowing the additional income from the Affordable Rent income will support; and ii. What a unit let on Affordable Rent is actually worth.

3.22 This figure depends, in a large part, on the level at which Affordable Rent is set, the terms of the lease and the tenant (are they reliable and will they pay their rent?). Currently financially sound RPs can borrow at between 5% and 6% (depending on the details of the proposal). On this basis to make up for £35,000 of lost grant, a little under £35 per week of extra rent needs to be collected. The current social rent in County Durham is shown in the table below. To make up the lost grant on a 2 bedroom home the rent well need to be increased by about 60%.

Table 3.1 DCC Social Rents per week (per month)

1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed £56.26 £63.85 £68.32 (£243.79) (£276.68) (£296.05) Source: The COntinuous REcording of Letting and Sales in Social Housing in England (CORE) April 2012

14 The HCA are now the consenting authority

28 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

3.23 It is interesting to note that social rents have increased considerably over recent years:

Figure 3.1 Co Durham Social Rents (£/week)

Source: The Continuous Recording of Letting and Sales in Social Housing in England (CORE) April 2012

3.24 The amount of the affordable rent is the principal factor determining the value of the units. Initially we have assumed that it will be set at 80% of the full open market rent of the properties in question. We have assumed that because a typical affordable rent unit will be new, it will command a premium rent that is a little higher than equivalent older private sector accommodation. In estimating the level of affordable rent we have undertaken a survey of rents across Durham. As can be seen in the table below these vary across the County. 15

3.25 In this work we calculate the Affordable Rent at 80% of the median rent. We have based the calculation on median rents as this assessment is concerned with new property. There is relatively little new property in the rental market so this is a conservative and safe assumption.

15 The Council will continue to be able to negotiate over the precise amount and type of affordable housing on a site by site basis and acknowledge that if a different and perhaps less valuable type of affordable housing is required then that may impact on the amount that can be provided.

29 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

Table 3.2 County Durham – Rental Survey. £/month Lower Q Median Durham 1 Bedroom 400 430 2 Bedrooms 400 450 3 Bedrooms 450 500 4+ Bedrooms 725 900 Chester-le Street 1 Bedroom 320 450 2 Bedrooms 400 450 3 Bedrooms 475 525 4+ Bedrooms 800 1400 Wolsingham 5 miles 1 Bedroom 342 474 2 Bedrooms 350 375 3 Bedrooms 425 450 4+ Bedrooms 825 850 Consett 1 Bedroom 375 2 Bedrooms 395 400 3 Bedrooms 450 500 4+ Bedrooms 600 700 Seaham 1 Bedroom 370 375 2 Bedrooms 400 450 3 Bedrooms 425 495 4+ Bedrooms 550 600 Peterlee 1 Bedroom 325 395 2 Bedrooms 390 433 3 Bedrooms 450 475 4+ Bedrooms 495 550 Newton Aycliffe 1 Bedroom 2 Bedrooms 420 475 3 Bedrooms 425 450 4+ Bedrooms 650 795 Barnard Castle 3 miles 1 Bedroom 380 2 Bedrooms 450 520 3 Bedrooms 500 625 4+ Bedrooms Sedgefield 1 Bedroom 375 400 2 Bedrooms 395 410 3 Bedrooms 495 550 4+ Bedrooms 700 825 Source: HDH Rental Survey. April 2012

3.26 As part of the reforms to the social security system housing benefit / local housing allowance is capped at the 3 rd decile. The cap is set by the Valuation Office Agency by Broad Housing Market Area (BHMA) however these BHMAs do not follow local authority boundaries. County Durham falls into 3 different BHMAs – see the table below.

30 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

Table 3.3 Local Housing Allowance Rates (£/week)

Durham BRMA Sunderland BRMA Darlington BRMA Shared £65.00 £45.00 £55.50 1 Bedroom £75.00 £86.54 £75.00 2 Bedrooms £88.85 £99.92 £91.15 3 Bedrooms £98.08 £109.62 £105.00 4+ Bedrooms £137.31 £144.23 £150.00 Source: VOA. April 2012

3.27 The prevailing rents in the main settlements (i.e. where the development will take place) can be summarised as follows and form the basis of the appraisals:

Table 3.4 Rents by Tenure. 3 Bedrooms. £/month Durham Chester- Wolsingham Consett Seaham Peterlee Newton Barnard Sedgefield le Street +5 miles Aycliffe Castle 3 miles Private £500 £525 £450 £500 £495 £475 £450 £625 £550 Rent Affordable £400 £420 £360 £400 £396 £380 £360 £500 £440 Rent (80%) LHA Cap £425 £425 £425 £425 £475 £475 £455 £455 £455 Social Rent £296 £296 £296 £296 £296 £296 £296 £296 £296 Source: HDH Rental Survey. April 2012

3.28 We have assumed that the affordable rents would not be more than the LHA cap. There was consensus at the consultation event that the housing associations would not be charging rents above the cap. Across the County, for 3 bedroom homes, Affordable Rent at 80% of the median open market rent will be less than the LHA cap – except around Barnard Castle where the cap is a little lower.

31 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

Figure 3.2 Rents by Tenure. 3 Bedrooms. £/month

Source: HDH Market Survey, VOA and CORE. April 2012

3.29 In calculating the value of affordable rents we have allowed for 10% management costs, 4% voids and bad debts and 5.6% repairs and capitalised the income at 5.5% as summarised by main settlement in the table below.

Table 3.5 Worth of Affordable Rents (£) Durham Chester-le Wolsingham Consett Seaham Street +5 miles Affordable Rent 400 420 360 400 396 Net Rent pa 3,840 4,032 3,456 3,840 3,802 Worth 69,818 73,309 62,836 69,818 69,120 £/m 2 821 862 739 821 813 Peterlee Newton Barnard Sedgefield Aycliffe Castle +3 miles Affordable Rent 380 360 500 440 Net Rent pa 3,648 3,456 4,800 4,224 Worth 66,327 62,836 87,273 76,800 £/m 2 780 739 1,027 904 Source: HDH. April 2012

3.30 Some RP Stakeholders have indicated that they typically pay between 60% and 70% of market value when purchasing housing to be used as affordable housing from developers which produces rather higher values, conversely other stakeholders have indicated that they pay between £60,000 and £70,000 per unit – which would equate to between £800/m 2 and £850/m 2 (although we believe that there may be some confusion here and that this actually relates to the old Social Rented Tenure). The feedback from the stakeholder event was that developers received more for the intermediate product over the social rent tenure of

32 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

affordable housing. Stakeholders said there was a slight premium for intermediate properties but that its delivery was viewed as more risky by banks. The important point is that affordable rent will mean developers will receive significantly more return for affordable rent than they ever received for social rent. Having considered the above and discussed this with the Council’s housing officers we have used the rate of £925/m2 for affordable rent in the appraisals across the whole of County Durham. This figure is higher than those in Table 3.5 above, this is as the properties will be new build and are likely to be amongst the best available (in terms of accommodation and condition) to rent when compared to the existing stock.

3.31 At this stage DCC do not have a position in relation to what level affordable rents should be set. The actual level is likely to vary from site to site and even within sites. DCC will shortly be preparing a Tenancy Strategy and an Affordable Housing and Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document. The balance between the need for different types of tenure and the practicalities and viability of delivery will be included in these documents.

The Treatment of Re-lets and Other Funding Sources

3.32 Before the current reforms were introduced funding a 3 bedroom / 4 person home was receiving up to about £58,000 of grant. The additional affordable rent over and above the social rent will make up a contribution towards leveraging finance to replace the affordable housing grant. It may not make up the shortfall.

3.33 Registered Providers are permitted to convert some of the existing Social Rented units to Flexible Tenancies and charge Affordable Rent – but only if the increased rent is used to leverage extra finance to enable the delivery of more affordable homes. It is difficult to estimate with any accuracy how many units this may apply to however we have made assumptions.

3.34 We estimate that over the past year there have been 3,750 re-lets and that this rate of re-lets is considered normal. It is likely that Registered Providers in the area are looking at up to 30% of relets to be Affordable Rent in future. If we assume that, on average, the rent for a typical social rented unit will increase from, say, £296 per month (£68.30/week) to £395 per month, that is to say an increase of £22.85/week, when it is let under affordable rent then that, say, 1,000 are converted per year then £1,188,000 of additional rent would be generated (£395 - £296 = £99, £99 x 12 x 1,000 = £1,188,000). This extra rent could generate borrowing of up to £20,000,000 per year, to fund new affordable rent units.

3.35 We cannot require the RPs to spend this money within the area but given our good relationships with the RPs we expect that, on balance, this will be the case.

3.36 The current housing target is about 1,200 per year. If we assume for the sake of simplicity that one quarter of these are affordable (accepting it will actually vary) then we will hope to deliver about 300 affordable units per year. This extra borrowing would fund about £60,000 per new unit – a figure that is not dissimilar to the amounts of grant received historically under the pre affordable rent regime. These figures need to be treated with great caution

33 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

however as the HCA regulate how this money is to be spent although they do indicate that there will be some grant in the system in future.

3.37 The other source of funding that will be available to subsidise new units coming forward will be from sales (Right to buy into the market and shared ownership staircasing) and from recycled grant being returned to new schemes.

3.38 With this in mind we believe that approximately £25,000 per unit (about £290/m 2) of ‘external’ funding from re-lets, sales, recycled grant and fresh grant may be available in the future. Due to the uncertainty about this it has been assumed that no external funding will be available in the viability appraisals and analysis in this report.

Other developer contributions

3.39 Aside from affordable housing, developer contributions via a Section 106 Agreement could potentially be sought for site specific mitigation to make a planning proposal acceptable. They might be either made in kind or as financial payments. In either case it is necessary to allow for the additional financial cost of such contributions in preparing appraisals for each site.

3.40 Guidance on the Council’s current policy on contributions from developers is set out in the existing Local Plans (ex-districts) and in the main, sought developer’s contributions for off- site play space. The amounts varied depending on the former district. For example, Derwentside, asked for £300 pounds per dwelling, where as Easington asked for £500 per dwelling. Four of the authorities requested £1,000 per dwelling, usually for green space or leisure provision. In addition, Durham and Chester-le-Street asked for 1% of construction cost on sites to be provided for public art. This roughly worked out an about £1,000 per dwelling for art provision.

3.41 Historically, the ex-districts had a mixed record of collecting s106 contribution payments from developers and these are summarised in Appendix 2. Over the last few years these have ranged from less than £100 per unit to over £5,000 per unit. Having considered the schedule and the amounts actually collected from developers we have assumed a contribution of £500 per unit in the future for on-site mitigation. This modest sum assumes that some of the infrastructure paid for through S106 in the past will now be funded through a CIL charge. We have applied this to all units (market and affordable) across the area. When considering the impact of CIL we have made an adjustment to reflect this and to ensure that there is no double counting.

3.42 It must be emphasised that this approach is simply intended to treat the 16 sites consistently and equitably in order to allow financial appraisals to be produced which provide a strategic overview. They do not purport to represent necessarily what would be sought, offered or negotiated on specific sites.

34 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

4. The Local Housing Market

4.1 This chapter sets out an assessment of the County Durham housing market, providing a basis for the assumptions on house prices and costs to be used in financial appraisals for the sites tested in the study. As well as house prices, land values are also considered as they are required in order to form a view of likely alternative use values – it is such values which will represent a minimum viability threshold when the appraisals are prepared.

4.2 We are concerned not just with the prices but the variations across different areas as the pattern of price differences would also be used to inform different zones for different affordable housing targets and CIL.

4.3 Although development schemes do have similarities, every scheme is unique to some degree, even schemes on neighbouring sites. Market conditions will broadly reflect a combination of national and economic circumstances and local supply and demand factors, however even within a town there will be particular localities, and ultimately site specific factors, that generate different values and costs.

The residential market

4.4 The housing market in the DCC area reflects national trends, but there are local factors that underpin the market including:

i. Attractive landscape across virtually the whole of the County but particularly in the West; vii. Many attractive settlements in a range of sizes containing buildings of character and heritage; viii. Many ex-mining / ex-industrial settlements with real problems and areas of failing housing markets; ix. Extreme differences in the housing market over short geographical distances; x. Durham City, providing a high quality visitor offer based on the historic cathedral and a range of leisure, cultural and education facilities; xi. Settled and attractive residential areas, providing housing within commuting distance of the Tyne and Wear and Tees Valley conurbations; xii. North/south routes providing good transportation links to London and Tyneside (and beyond); and xiii. A varied pattern of unemployment and deprivation.

4.5 The current housing market is unclear. Whilst there are various commentators suggesting a recovery in house prices, generally there is very little actual evidence to support such a view outside very discrete areas of central London and the South East. The figure 4.1 shows the various different average prices and whilst we can see average house prices have stabilised, it is safe to say that there is no clear sign of recovery in County Durham and that it is

35 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

appropriate to take a cautious view. It is possible however that by the time the CDP is adopted in 2014 house prices could rise, mortgage availability could increase and the general viability of sites will have improved.

Figure 4.1 Average House Prices

Source: Land Registry April 2012

4.6 Discussions with estate agents suggest that prices in most areas may have stabilised and are no longer falling and there is now a little more confidence in the market with a return of first time buyers. However, the number of sales taking place remains way below the 2007 peak:

36 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

Figure 4.2 Sales per month – Indexed to January 2006

Source: Land Registry April 2012

4.7 This uncertainty in the market gives rise to particular challenges in setting an affordable housing target and CIL. The Council will need to take a cautious approach to allow for changes in the market and build in a review mechanism into the eventual policies.

4.8 From the start of the Study it was clear that the principal challenge would be capturing the complexity of the housing market. The pattern of high values and low values over short geographical distances was known. Over recent years we have given considerable thought to how housing markets could and should be defined. The current Arc4 SHMA includes some work on this and has defined the following:

37 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

Figure 4.3 DCC SHMA Housing Market Area

Source: Arc4 2012

4.9 However, the SHMA market areas are not solely based on sales prices, but also based on other variables such as travel to work patterns and how households move within the market. We require market areas that reflect the delivery of housing and that are appropriate for different affordable housing targets or CIL charging zones. We analysed various sources of market information from both secondary data and primary survey.

4.10 The starting point was Land Registry house price data by ward. However, it was felt that wards were too large as in many cases include both high value and low value settlements or areas. In addition, these provided no detail with regards to the size of the home the average price related to. This is a particular problem in an area such as County Durham which has both rural and urban areas as historically rural homes have tended to be larger than urban dwellings thus pushing up average prices but not allowing like for like comparisons.

4.11 We therefore carried out a survey of asking prices by house size by settlement. Through using online tools such as rightmove.com, zoopla.co.uk and other resources we estimated the lower quartile and median asking prices for the main settlements. We mapped these variations (see figure 4.4), however the picture was confusing and did not show a pattern. The results of the survey are contained in Appendix 3.

38 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

Figure 4.4 DCC Average Prices for 3 bedroomed Houses by Settlement

Source: Rightmove 2011

4.12 The five DCC geographical planning delivery areas are mapped in Figure 4.5. When embarking on this project we were keen to produce a simple charging structure and affordable housing targets that followed these delivery areas. However, prices and viability do not relate to these areas exactly and for CIL charging zones a different approach will need to be taken.

39 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

Figure 4.5 County Durham Planning Delivery Aras

Source: DCC 2011

New Build Prices

4.13 This part of this study is concerned with the viability of new build residential property so the key input for the appraisals are the prices of units on new developments. Analysis of these and other schemes in the study area shows that prices for newbuild homes vary, very considerably, ranging between less than £1,100/m2 to over £2,500/m2 .

4.14 The figures below are based on recent market data but have also been supplemented by information provided by local house builders. The new build prices are summarised below:

40 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

Table 4.1 County Durham – New Build Schemes £/m 2 Durham City & Chester le Street Miller The Meadows 1 Durham City 1,950 Miller The Meadows 2 Durham City 2,000 Taylor Wimpey Durham Park Durham City 2,042 Barratt Dryburn Durham City 16 2,533 Barratt Birch View CLS 1,991 Central Durham (excluding Durham City) Taylor Wimpey Langley View Langley Park 1,289 Barratt Beechwood Sacriston 1,450 Barratt The Limes Coxhoe 1,900 Dunelm The Grange Bowburn 1,650 Taylor Wimpey NM Melrose Bowburn 1,473 Keepmoat Cavell Drive Bowburn 1,625 North Durham Taylor Wimpey The Green Consett 1260 Keepmoat The Croft Consett 1,300 Barratt Berry Edge Consett 1,614 Yuill Dales View Consett 1,527 Dunelm Orchard Mews Stanley 1,875 Bett Homes Derwent Rise Stanley 1,753 Bett Homes Tyne Vale Stanley 1,716 Bett Homes Beldon Drive Stanley 1,258 Taylor Wimpey Derwen View Dipton 1,258 Bryant Sunset View Dipton 1,460 South Durham Miller Cobblers Hall Newton Aycliffe 1,700 Taylor Wimpey Moorcroft Spennymoor 1,389 Barratt Burton Woods Spennymoor 1,722 Persimmon Thinford Gardens Spennymoor 1,500 David Wilson Burton Woods Spennymoor 1,900 Persimmon St Andrews Bishops Auckland 1,500 Taylor Wimpey Highlea Gardens Bishop Auckland 1,298 Dunelm Central Grange Bishops Auckland 1,000 Persimmon Dearness Heights Crook 1,550 Miller Heather Lee Green Crook 1,700 East Durham Taylor Wimpey Fairfield Park Murton 1,195 Dunelm Glebe Court Murton 1,475 Barratt The Sidings Blackhall Rocks 1,539 Dunelm Heritage Way Seaham 1,975 Barratt Wingate 1,270

16 We have some concern about this figure so have not used it in the appraisals

41 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

Source: Market Survey & Housebuilders data 2012

4.15 Table 4.2 shows average prices in the study for the latest month from Land Registry, February 2012. Although the Land Registry data covers both second-hand and newbuild prices, the former predominate.

Table 4.2 Average house prices February 2012

Detached Semi Terrace Flat All County Durham 154,519 81,596 52,502 63,481 84,398 England and Wales 253,678 152,720 123,314 151,942 161,588 Source: Land Registry data

4.16 The house prices are lower than the England and Wales average. The relatively high number of less expensive terraced homes may be part of the reason that the terraced homes are just one third of the price of detached homes. This is in contrast to detached prices being some 180% of the average. Data from the VOA demonstrates that new housing built between 2000 and 2009 in County Durham has tended to be detached (35% increase) rather than terraced housing (1.5% increase).17

Price assumptions for financial appraisals

4.17 It is necessary to form a view about the appropriate prices for the schemes to be appraised in the Study. The preceding analysis does not reveal simple and clear patterns across County Durham. This was discussed at some length with the stakeholders at the March 2012 consultation event and then subsequently. There was a consensus that County Durham has a varied housing market and that it is difficult to define with high and low value areas being geographically close. Six areas, based on price and perceived demand were however identified for discussion:

A. Durham and Chester le Street being the highest value area centred on Durham City and Chester le Street; B. South East including Newton Aycliffe and Sedgefield and associated with Darlington to the south; C. West being to the rural areas to the west of and including: the A68, the Derwent Valley, Wolsingham, Staindrop; D. Remaining rural areas being the areas outside settlements. The rural areas (detached from existing settlements) are attractive across the whole County and in high demand; and

17 Trends in House Type by Delivery Area data obtained from Valuation Office Agency in 2010.

42 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

E. Unviable Settlements being the settlements including some of the ex-coalfield settlements with the lowest values and failing housing markets F. Remaining Settlements being the settlements that do not fall into the above categories. 4.18 There was a recognition amongst officers and stakeholders that this pattern was generally correct but some concern that whilst this could be mapped in a very general way these areas may be difficult to define on a map that was not overly detailed and complicated – and ultimately required the detailed mapping of individual sites. It was decided that this was an overly complicated approach and that when it came to considering CIL could potentially be contrary to the CIL Guidance.

Figure 4.6 DCC First Draft Housing Markets

Source: Land Registry 2011

4.19 Based on these areas, the new build house prices we accumulated and the extensive stakeholder feedback we received, we understood that these areas were not suitable for separate value areas to be used in our appraisals. In fact, it became evident that only Durham City and Chester-le-Street could be classed as high value area based on new build sales prices. The values were too erratic elsewhere in the County. House prices varied greatly from settlement to settlement and even from site to site.

4.20 After much discussion and internal consultation (and external advice) it was decided that it was not practical to attempt to try to map viability across the whole of County Durham as this would require the appraisal of every potential development site. There was a clear

43 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

consensus that there should be no more than 4 CIL Charging Zones (subject to confirmation through the viability appraisals):

• The Housing Market Renewal Areas have been clearly defined on maps. Regardless of viability the council will not want to deter or put at risk in any way development in these areas where the housing market has failed. In any event it is well known to DCC that development is not viable in these areas as it requires an element of subsidy. • Chester-le-Street and Durham City form a high value area and the boundary can be practically defined – within this area there is likely to be a difference in the viability of greenfield when compared to brownfield sites. • Within this higher Durham City and Chester-le-Street zone, there is a further distinction to be made between proposed housing sites across the Durham City and Chester-Le- Street core area and the Strategic Housing Sites on the edge of Durham City. These Strategic Sites are central to the Plan and can support the delivery of strategic infrastructure. • The remainder (and the majority) of the County . Prices vary over very short geographical distances that cannot be practically mapped. The Council needs to take a cautious view when setting the affordable housing target and preparing CIL rates in this area because of the great variations in market conditions. These areas are shown in figure 4.7.

Figure 4.7 DCC Potential Viability Zones

Source: DCC 2012

44 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

4.21 Based on this research, stakeholders’ comments and the wish to establish a relatively simple approach, it was decided to proceed using these areas. Earlier in this report we set out how residential sites had been modeled to be representative of the type of development that is likely to come forward in the future. In order to establish appropriate sales prices for the appraisals, two sets of prices were prepared. Firstly for all the model sites using a range of new build prices from around County Durham. Subsequently, after the first appraisals were run, another set of appraisals were set up to reflect higher new build revenues in the Durham City and Chester-le-Street zone.

4.22 Appraisals have not been carried out in the housing market renewal areas – if development was viable in these areas then they would not have this designation.

4.23 The Strategic Zone that forms an arc around the northern edge of Durham City has been considered in further detail. This is for two particular reasons. Firstly there are several strategic greenfield sites within this area whereas most sites within the Durham City area are within urban areas and as such they are likely to have a different level of viability. Secondly, if development is to come forward in this area there are some very large infrastructure projects (two relief roads) that will have to be built to open up the land. If a financial mechanism to build this infrastructure is not put in place then planning consent could not be granted as the highway system could not bear the extra pressure that would arise directly from this development. Development in this area is a vital part of the Council’s strategy for providing the housing that is required in the City in the future.

4.24 In recognition of the challenges associated with bringing forward the Strategic Sites within the Durham City Strategic Zone more detailed work has been undertaken as part of the ‘Durham Housing and Infrastructure Delivery Strategy’ including specific financial appraisals on the Strategic Zone.

Newbuild House Prices

4.25 When considering the newbuild prices for the development appraisals, we have carefully selected values that reflect the wide variation of new build prices across the County Durham area. Table 4.3 represents the huge variation in house prices, ranging from £1,270/m 2 to £2,300/m 2 (118/ft 2 to £214/ft 2). The high end of the range reflects the fact that there is a price premium for sites with only 2 or 3 detached properties. When selecting new build prices for the County Durham area appraisals we have used prices given to us by local house builders and supplemented this information with data we collected ourselves using online tools such as zoopla.co.uk which enabled us to fully reflect the huge variations of prices around the County. Sites and new build prices in this area are referred to by the delivery area in which they are located, North Durham 1, South Durham 1 etc.

4.26 When selecting new build prices for Chester-le-Street and Durham City, we have mainly used figures provided to us by local house builders through the stakeholder process. These figures used in the financial appraisals are rather lower than those presented to stakeholders at the March 2012 event following the helpful input from members of the HBF who advised

45 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

that the figure used should be approximately per £1,937/m 2 (£180/ft 2). We have also added some new build prices from outside the Durham City and Chester-le-Street area to reflect concerns that the values should be lower. Sites outside of Durham City & Chester-le-Street are referred to as County Durham 1 etc. The new build prices in the Durham City and Chester-le-Street area are generally much more stable, ranging from £1,875/m 2 to £2,348/m 2 (£174/ft 2 to £218/ft 2).

4.27 It is acknowledged that there was a real lack of up to date new build sites and house prices data for West Durham. We therefore did not model any sites based on West Durham planning applications and we could not find any recent new build prices for the area. At the March 2012 stakeholder event we asked for examples of recent developments in West Durham but this did not bring forward any further information. Therefore, a larger degree of professional judgment has been used in West Durham. We are comfortable with this approach due to the small amount of development that is likely to come forward in this area.

Table 4.3 New Build Prices Uses in County Durham (County Wide) Appraisals

New Build Prices per £/m2 Ref Site

1 North Durham 1 1,875 2 North Durham 2 1,550 3 South Durham 1 1,440 4 Central Durham 1 1,900 5 South Durham 2 1,722 6 East Durham 1 1,406 7 Central Durham 2 2,042 8 East Durham 2 1,270 9 East Durham 3 1,539 10 Central Durham 3 1,650 11 South Durham 4 1,700 12 Central Durham 4 1,450 13 North Durham 3 1,753 14 South Durham 5 2,185 15 East Durham 4 2,271 16 Central Durham 5 2,300 Source: DCC 2012

46 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

Table 4.4 New Build Prices Uses in Durham City & Chester-le-Street Appraisals

New Build Prices per £/m2 Ref Site

1 Durham City 1 2,042 2 Durham City 2 2,042 3 Durham City 3 1,950 4 Durham City 4 2,000 5 Chester-le-Street 1 1,991 6 County Durham 1 1,900 7 County Durham 2 1,875 8 Chester-le-Street 2 1,991 9 Durham City 5 2,000 10 County Durham 3 1,900 11 Durham City 6 2,042 12 Durham City 7 1,950 13 County Durham 4 1,875 14 Durham City 8 2,348 15 Chester-le-Street 3 2,289 16 County Durham 5 2,185 Source: DCC 2012

4.28 It is clear from the land registry data in table 4.2 that small detached properties have the highest values. We have estimated that those schemes in the smaller villages have a price premium of about 15%. 15% has therefore been added to the new build prices of sites containing 3 dwellings or less.

4.29 It is necessary to consider whether the presence of affordable housing would have a discernible impact on sales prices. Affordable housing will have been present on many of the sites whose selling prices have informed our analysis. Our view is that it will make little difference and any impact can and should be minimised through an appropriate quality design solution.

4.30 We have endeavored to keep the approach to CIL and the appraisals as simple as possible to aid understanding and avoid unnecessary complexities. We believe that by using these two sets of new build prices we are capturing the market variations across County Durham without drilling down to an unmanageable level that would have no discernible difference on the way we set affordable housing targets or CIL rates.

Land values

4.31 The value of land is an important consideration when assessing viability.

47 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

4.32 We have considered general figures from the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) relating to residential land values. Land values vary dramatically depending upon the development characteristics (size and nature of the site, density permitted etc.) and any affordable or other development contribution. The VOA publishes figures for residential land in the Property Market Report. These cover areas which generate sufficient activity to discern a market pattern. That means locally we have figures for the North East as a whole and major locations within the North East – but no information for individual locations within County Durham.

4.33 These values can, in any case, only provide broad guidance because it is likely that the figures will, to some degree, be net of allowances for developer contributions and/or affordable housing requirements.

Table 4.5 Residential Land Values half year at January 2011

Bulk Land £/ha £ / habitable Room £/m 2 of completed GIA Newcastle 1,280,000 8,170 355 Leeds 1,360,000 8,575 375 Source: VOA Property Market Report 2011

4.34 We also sought information about values from residential land currently on sale in County Durham and discussed this with stakeholders. There are very few small sites for residential development currently available but those that there were pointed to a price of around £500,000/ha although there is a considerable variance with the development industry reporting values of up to £1.85m (although we could find no evidence for this). A schedule of land available at the time of the study in the County and surrounding area is set out in Appendix 4. In preparing this list we have looked up to 60 miles from Durham to ensure that we had a meaningful selection of properties.

Current and Alternative Use Values

4.35 In order to assess development viability it is necessary to analyse current and alternative use values. Current use value refers to the value of the land in its current use before planning consent is granted, for example, as agricultural land. Alternative use value refers to any potential use for the site. For example, a brownfield site may have an alternative use as industrial land.

4.36 To assess viability, the value of the land for the particular residential scheme adopted needs to be compared to the alternative use value to determine if there is another use which would derive more revenue for the landowner. If the assessed value (the Residual Value) does not exceed the alternative use value then the development is not viable.

4.37 For the purpose of the present Study, it is necessary to take a comparatively simplistic approach to determining the alternative use value. In practice, a wide range of

48 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

considerations could influence the precise value that should apply in each case, and at the end of extensive analysis the outcome might still be contentious.

4.38 Our ‘model’ approach is outlined below:

i. For sites previously in agricultural use, then agricultural land represents the existing use value. ii. For paddock and garden land on the edge of or in a smaller settlement, the value of the exiting use value is double that of agricultural land. iii. Where the development is on former industrial, warehousing or similar land, then the alternative use value is considered to be industrial, and an average value of industrial land for the area is adopted as the alternative use value.

4.39 The VOA’s typical industrial land values for the region and nearby locations are set out in the table below.

Table 4.6 Industrial land values per hectare

Newcastle £235,000 Leeds £600,000 Source: VOA Property Market Report 2011

4.40 The figures in the above table reflect the downturn in values from 2008. There is little market evidence, though, to suggest what current values might be although the sites listed in Appendix 4 do provide a useful indication. Stakeholders suggested values of between £250,000/ha and £370,000/ha might be an appropriate benchmark figure for small/medium sites in County Durham. We have therefore used a figure of £300,000/ha in the assessments.

4.41 Agricultural values rose for a time several years ago after a long historic period of stability. They are around £15,000-£25,000/ha depending upon the specific use. A benchmark of £25,000/ha is therefore assumed.

4.42 The value for each individual site that results from this analysis is summarised in the table below.

49 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

Table 4.7 Alternative Use Value bases

Site Alternative Use £/ha 1 North Durham 1 Agricultural 25,000 2 North Durham 2 Farm 25,000 3 South Durham 1 Grazing land 25,000 4 Central Durham 1 Service Yard 300,000 5 South Durham 2 Cleared Industrial 300,000 6 East Durham 1 Closed Colliery Welfare Buildings/Cleared site 300,000 7 Central Durham 2 Bus Station 500,000 8 East Durham 2 Vacant 300,000 9 East Durham 3 Cleared Hotel and Carpark 300,000 10 Central Durham 3 Social Club 300,000 11 South Durham 4 Residential 500,000 12 Central Durham 4 Private garden / Wood yard 50,000 13 North Durham 3 Infill 300,000 14 South Durham 5 Paddock 50,000 15 East Durham 4 Garden 50,000 16 Central Durham 5 Paddock 50,000 Source: HDH 2012

4.43 It was noted earlier that brownfield sites may face ‘abnormal costs’ if they are to be redeveloped for residential use. Some of those costs, but not necessarily all, might also arise if the site were redeveloped for the alternative use. The alternative use value would need to be reduced to allow for such costs that may arise in that situation.

4.44 The costs arising from development or redevelopment of the site are considered in the next chapter along with the other financial and technical assumptions required to prepare financial appraisals for each of the sites.

4.45 It is important to note that there was a very ‘lively’ discussion concerning alternative land uses in the context of testing viability at the March 2012 consultation event. The debate centred on the appropriate way of assessing viability, the assumptions we used in our appraisals and also on land values. The aforementioned figures were not contentious in themselves – although their direct relevance to assessing viability was. This is discussed further in Chapter 6 with the viability results.

50 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

5. Residential Cost Assumptions

5.1 This chapter considers the costs and other assumptions required to produce financial appraisals for the modelled residential sites. These figures were presented to stakeholders at the first consultation event and were, on the whole, un-contentious although several useful suggestions were made.

Development costs

(i) Construction costs: baseline costs

5.2 Drawing upon our own experience, and taking into account published Building Cost Information Service (BCIS) data, we have over the years developed a set of base £/m 2 construction costs for different forms of residential development. The costs are specific to different built forms (flats or houses etc.). We have assumed all projects are built to Building Regulation Standards.

5.3 The Council does not have a policy with a specific requirement for renewable energy so no allowance for such a policy is included in the base appraisals.

5.4 Appendix 5 contains the April 2012 BCIS build costs for Durham – broken into a number of key development types. The median costs for the different residential development types that occur on the appraisal sites varies from £630/m 2 to over £1,272/m 2. The majority of the housing on the sites under consideration falls in the types with costs falling around £742/m 2. For each of the development types in the modelled sites we have allocated the appropriate BCIS cost to derive an average cost per m 2 across each site however where the actual form of the unit is unclear we have used the costs of £753/m 2 as this is the higher of the median costs for 2 storey construction – being the most common form. This is a cautious approach as 2.5 and 3 storey construction is less expensive. For small sites of 3 units or under we have assumed the BCIS lower quartile figure for one-off detached housing of 906/m2 and made further assumptions to reflect small site specifics which can be viewed in table 5.1.

5.5 We acknowledge that this is a relatively simplistic approach however by making site by site adjustments we are comfortable that this approach is appropriate in this high level and broad brush Study.

(ii) Construction costs: site specific adjustments

5.6 It is also necessary to consider whether any site specific factors would suggest adjustments to these baseline cost figures. Two factors need to be considered in particular: small sites and high specification.

5.7 Since the mid-1990s planning guidance on affordable housing has been based on a view that construction costs were appreciably higher for smaller sites with the consequence that, as site size declined, an unchanging affordable percentage requirement would eventually

51 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

render the development uneconomic. Economies of scale mean that build costs are lower on larger sites belonging to volume house builders hence the need for a ‘site size threshold’, below which the requirement for affordable housing would not be sought.

5.8 It is not clear to us that this view is completely justified. Whilst, other things being equal, build costs would increase for smaller sites, other things are not normally equal and there are other factors which may offset the increase. The nature of the development will change. The nature of the developer will also change as small local firms with lower central overheads replace the regional and national house builders. Furthermore, very small sites may be able to secure a ‘non-estate’ price premium.

5.9 In the present study six of the sites are considered to fall into the ‘small site’ category. It is felt necessary to make some allowance for the economics of these sites in preparing financial appraisals. A range of cost premiums has been estimated for each specific site size, ranging from 5% for the sites above 10 dwellings to 10% for the four smallest sites.

52 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

A summary of the build costs used in the site appraisals is contained below

Table 5.1: Summary of Build Costs

Site BCIS Base Adjustments Base cost before Costs abnormals Small Site High Quality Infrastructure 1 North Durham 1 751 20% 900.71 2 North Durham 2 753 20% 903.60 3 South Durham 1 754 20% 904.80 4 Central Durham 1 753 20% 903.60 5 South Durham 2 753 15% 865.95 6 East Durham 1 744 15% 856.08 7 Central Durham 2 860 2.5% 15% 1,010.10 8 East Durham 2 753 15% 865.95 9 East Durham 3 754 15% 867.10 10 Central Durham 3 753 15% 865.95 11 South Durham 4 753 5% 15% 903.60 12 Central Durham 4 753 5% 15% 903.60 13 North Durham 3 753 10% 15% 941.25 14 Modelled 1 st 906 10% 2.5% 15% 1155.15 15 Modelled 2 nd 906 10% 2.5% 10% 1109.00 16 Modelled 3 rd 906 10% 2.5% 10% 1109.00 Source: HDH 2012

53 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

5.10 In addition, we considered that some smaller sites of detached properties would be built to a slightly higher specification than other sites. An allowance of an additional 2.5% added to the build cost was assumed in order to cover this.

(iii) Construction costs: affordable dwellings

5.11 The procurement route for affordable housing is assumed to be through construction by the developer and then disposal to a registered provider on completion. In the past, when considering the build cost of affordable housing provided through this route we took the view that it should be possible to make a small saving on the market housing cost figure, on the basis that one might expect the affordable housing to be built to a slightly different specification than market housing. However, the pressures of increasingly demanding standards these properties have meant that for conventional schemes, of houses at least, it is no longer appropriate to use a reduced build cost; the assumption is of parity.

(iv) Other normal development costs

5.12 In addition to the £/m 2 build cost figures described above, allowance needs to be made for a range of on-site infrastructure costs (roads, drainage and services within the site, parking, footpaths, landscaping and other external costs), and other off site costs such as highway improvements and utility upgrades where required. Many of these items will depend on individual site circumstances and can only properly be estimated following a detailed assessment of each site. This is not practical within this, broad brush Study.

5.13 Nevertheless it is possible to generalise. Drawing on experience it is possible to determine an allowance related to total build costs. This is normally lower for higher density than for lower density schemes since there is a smaller area of external works, and services can be used more efficiently. Large greenfield sites would also be more likely to require substantial expenditure on bringing mains services to the site.

5.14 In the light of these considerations we have developed a scale of allowances, ranging from 10% of build costs for the smallest sites, to 20% for the larger greenfield schemes.

(v) Abnormal development costs

5.15 In some cases where the site involves redevelopment of land which was previously developed there is the potential for abnormal costs to be incurred. Abnormal development costs might include demolition of substantial existing structures, piling or flood prevention measures at waterside locations, remediation of contamination, remodelling of land levels etc.

5.16 Several of the sites are all or partly, previously developed land. On some of these, from the information made available to us and through visits to the sites, it appears that exceptional or abnormal development costs would need to be taken into account in preparing appraisals. As pointed out in the previous chapter, some abnormal costs could also arise in the event of the site’s redevelopment for an alternative use.

54 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

5.17 The schedule below sets out the abnormal costs considered to apply in each case where they arise:

Table 5.2 Abnormal development costs

Site Item(s) Total £k or %

£k per site 1 North Durham 1 2 North Durham 2 3 South Durham 1 4 Central Durham 1 Grouting 100,000 5 South Durham 2 Highways works – paid for by RDA and Council 6 East Durham 1 Site Clearance 150,000 7 Central Durham 2 Spilt oils and clean up 250,000 8 East Durham 2 Part hard standing buildings 75,000 9 East Durham 3 Remove existing buildings 150,000 10 Central Durham 3 Site clearance 150,000 11 South Durham 4 12 Central Durham 4 Spilt chemicals 400,000 13 North Durham 3 14 South Durham 5 15 East Durham 4 16 Central Durham 5 Source: HDH 2012

(vi) Fees

5.18 We have assumed professional fees amount to 10% of build costs in each case. This is made up as follows:

a. Architects 6% c. Planning Consultants 1% b. QS and Costs 0.5% d. Others 2.5%

(vii) Contingencies

5.19 For previously undeveloped and otherwise straightforward sites we would normally allow a contingency of 2.5% with a higher figure of 5% on more risky types of development, e.g. previously developed land. So the 5% figure was used on the brownfield sites and the 2.5% figure on the remainder.

55 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

Financial and other appraisal assumptions

(i) VAT

5.20 For simplicity it has been assumed throughout, that either VAT does not arise, or it can be recovered in full.

(ii) Interest rate

5.21 Our appraisals assume 7% per annum for debit balances. This may seem high given the very low base rate figure (MLR 0.5% September 2011), but reflects the banks’ current view of risk for housing developers.

(iii) Developers’ profit

5.22 We have assumed a developer’s profit of 20% on total costs to reflect the risk of undertaking the development. This assumption caused some discussion and disagreement at the consultation event where some developers made a representation that the profit should be calculated on the Gross Development Value (the total income if arising from a project). We have given this further thought however have not altered the assumption for a number of reasons.

5.23 CIL Regulations and CIL Guidance do not provide useful guidance in this regard so in reaching this decision we have considered the RICS’s ‘Exposure Draft’ ‘Financial Viability in Planning’ (May 2012), the LGA/HBF’s Viability Testing Local Plans, Advice for planning practitioners (June 2012), and referred to the HCA’s Economic Appraisal Tool. These documents are prescriptive, but they do set out some different approaches.

5.24 RICS’s ‘ Exposure Draft’ ‘Financial Viability in Planning’ (May 2012) says:

3.3.2 The benchmark return, which is reflected in a developer’s profit allowance, should be at a level reflective of the market at the time of the assessment being undertaken. It will include the risks attached to the specific scheme. This will include both property-specific risk, i.e. the direct development risks within the scheme being considered, and also broader market risk issues, such as the strength of the economy and occupational demand, the level of rents and capital values, the level of interest rates and availability of finance. The level of profit required will vary from scheme to scheme, given different risk profiles as well as the stage in the economic cycle. For example, a small scheme constructed over a shorter timeframe may be considered relatively less risky and therefore attract a lower profit margin, given the exit position is more certain, than a large redevelopment spanning a number of years where the outturn is considerably more uncertain. ……..

5.25 The LGA/HBF’s Viability Testing Local Plans, Advice for planning practitioners (June 2012) which says:

Return on development and overhead

The viability assessment will require assumptions to be made about the average level of developer overhead and profit (before interest and tax).

56 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

The level of overhead will differ according to the size of developer and the nature and scale of the development. A ‘normal’ level of developer’s profit margin, adjusted for development risk, can be determined from market evidence and having regard to the profit requirements of the providers of development finance. The return on capital employed (ROCE) is a measure of the level of profit relative to level of capital required to deliver a project, including build costs, land purchase, infrastructure, etc.

As with other elements of the assessment, the figures used for developer return should also be considered in light of the type of sites likely to come forward within the plan period. This is because the required developer return varies with the risk associated with a given development and the level of capital employed.

Smaller scale, urban infill sites will generally be regarded as lower risk investments when compared with complex urban regeneration schemes or large scale urban extensions.

Appraisal methodologies frequently apply a standard assumed developer margin based upon either a percentage of Gross Development Value (GDV) or a percentage of development cost. The great majority of housing developers base their business models on a return expressed as a percentage of anticipated gross development value, together with an assessment of anticipated return on capital employed. Schemes with high upfront capital costs generally require a higher gross margin in order to improve the return on capital employed. Conversely, small scale schemes with low infrastructure and servicing costs provide a better return on capital employed and are generally lower risk investments. Accordingly, lower gross margins may be acceptable.

This sort of modelling – with residential developer margin expressed as a percentage of GDV – should be the default methodology, with alternative modelling techniques used as the exception. Such an exception might be, for example, a complex mixed use development with only small scale specialist housing such as affordable rent, sheltered housing or student accommodation.

5.26 The HCA’s Economic Appraisal Tool – the accompanying guidance for the tool kit says:

Developer's Return for Risk and Profit (including developer’s overheads)

Open Market Housing

The developer 'profit' (before taxation) on the open market housing as a percentage of the value of the open market housing. A typical figure currently may be in the region of 17.5-20% and overheads being deducted, but this is only a guide as it will depend on the state of the market and the size and complexity of the scheme. Flatted schemes may carry a higher risk due to the high capital employed before income is received.

Affordable Housing

The developer 'profit' (before taxation) on the affordable housing as a percentage of the value of the affordable housing (excluding SHG). A typical figure may be in the region of 6% (the profit is less than that for the open market element of the scheme, as risks are reduced), but this is only a guide.

5.27 It is unfortunate that the above is not really consistent but it is clear that the purpose of including a developers profit figure is not to mirror a particular business model but to reflect the risk a developer is taking in buying a piece of land and then expending the costs of

57 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

construction before selling the property. The use of developers profit in the context of area wide viability testing of the type required by CIL Regulation 14 is to reflect that level of risk.

5.28 We do not agree that linking the developer’s profit to the GDV is reflective of risk as the risk relates to the cost of a scheme – the cost being the money put at risk as the scheme is developed. As an example (albeit an extreme one to illustrate the point) if we take two schemes, A and B, each with a GDV £1,000,000 but scheme A has a development cost of £750,000 and scheme B a lesser cost of say £500,000. All other things being equal in scheme the developer stands to lose £750,000 in scheme A but in B stands to lose £500,000. A is therefore more risky and it therefore follows that the developer will wish (and need) a higher return. By calculating profit on costs the developer’s return in scheme A would be £150,000 and scheme B would be £100,000 and so reflect the risk – whereas when calculated on GDV would be £200,000 in both.

5.29 This is a high level study so it is necessary and proportionate to take a relatively simplistic approach so rather than apply a differential return as suggested by the HCA we have simply applied a return of 20% across all development types, affordable and market housing and non-residential development.

5.30 This approach is consistent with that taken by financial institutions in their decisions behind providing development finance where they require the developer to demonstrate a sufficient margin to protect them in the case of changes in prices or development costs.

5.31 An important consideration in deciding to take this approach has been to ensure consistency with the various councils other viability evidence. We have reviewed the numerous development appraisals provided to us by the Councils and were surprised by the range of profit assumptions made. Where an assumption had been made (rather than the figure being derived from a calculation) the profit was, most often, calculated as 20% of cost on market housing and 6% of cost on Affordable Housing. In none of the appraisals was a profit over 20% assumed or expected. The majority of appraisals had profit assumptions of between 15% and 20%.

5.32 It is of course frustrating not to be able to reach agreement with stakeholders on all aspects of a study of this type however based on the above reasoning believe this to be the most appropriate assumption to make in a study of this type.

5.33 It should be noted that the HCA Toolkit requires a lower rate of return to be applied to affordable housing so the approach taken above is a very cautious and should be taken into account when considering the affordable housing targets and CIL Charging Schedule.18

(iv) Voids

5.34 On a scheme comprising mainly of individual houses one would normally assume only a nominal void period as the housing would not be progressed if there was no demand. In the

18 This approach is supported by the decision in AAP/P0119/A/08/2069226 where 17% on GDV was found reasonable. 17% on GDV is approximately equal to 20% on costs.

58 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

case of apartments in blocks this flexibility is reduced. Whilst these may provide scope for early marketing, the ability to tailor construction pace to market demand is more limited.

5.35 For the purpose of the present Study a three month void period is assumed for all sites.

5.36 There was some concern, at the first stakeholder event that voids may not have been taken into account, we believe that they have – particularly when considered with our phasing assumptions (see below).

(v) Phasing and timetable

5.37 The appraisals are assumed to have been prepared using prices and costs at a base date of April 2012. A pre-construction period of six months is assumed for all of the sites. Each dwelling is assumed to be built over a nine month period.

5.38 The phasing programme for an individual site will reflect market take-up and would in practice be carefully estimated taking into account the site characteristics and, in particular, size and the expected level of market demand. We have developed a suite of modelled assumptions to reflect site size and development type, as set out in Table 5.4 below. We believe that these are conservative and do properly reflect the current difficult market (it should be noted that we have assumed that the larger sites will be built out by more than one developer which are likely to be working simultaneously on different phases and elements of the project).

59 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

Table 5.4 Market pace assumptions

Units Site Ceiling rate per Total qtr. 1 North Durham 1 288 12 2 North Durham 2 243 12 3 South Durham 1 149 10 4 Central Durham 1 121 10 5 South Durham 2 70 8 6 East Durham 1 68 12 7 Central Durham 2 42 11 8 East Durham 2 30 10 9 East Durham 3 26 6 10 Central Durham 3 18 12 11 South Durham 4 12 3 12 Central Durham 4 10 3 13 North Durham 3 5 2 14 South Durham 5 3 1 15 East Durham 4 2 1 16 Central Durham 5 2 1 Source: HDH 2012

Site acquisition and disposal costs

(i) Site holding costs and receipts

5.39 Each site is assumed to proceed immediately and so, other than interest on the site cost during construction, there is no allowance for holding costs, or indeed income, arising from ownership of the site.

(ii) Acquisition costs

5.40 We have taken a simplistic approach and assumed an allowance 1.5% for acquisition agents’ and legal fees.

(iii) Disposal costs

5.41 For the market and the affordable housing, sales and promotion and legal fees are assumed to amount to some 2.5% of receipts. For disposals of affordable housing these figures can be reduced significantly depending on the category. In fact the marketing and disposal of the affordable element is probably less expensive than this.

60 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

6. Residential Viability Analysis

6.1 This chapter presents the results of financial appraisals carried out for the residential development sites and the first phase of the assessment of viability and the calculation of what CIL the different development sites could bear.

Financial appraisal approach and assumptions

6.2 On the basis of the assumptions set out in Chapter 5 we prepared financial appraisals for each of the modelled residential sites using a bespoke spreadsheet-based financial analysis package.

6.3 The appraisals use the residual valuation approach – that is, they are designed to assess the value of the site after taking into account the costs of development, the likely income from sales and/or rents and an appropriate amount of developers’ profit. The payment would represent the sum paid in a single tranche on the acquisition of a site. In order for the proposed development to be described as viable, it is necessary for this value to exceed the value from an alternative use. We have already seen that, for a greenfield site where the only alternative use is likely to be agricultural, this figure may be very modest. However, some of the sites have been previously developed and therefore have a more substantial existing or competing alternative use value.

6.4 As outlined in Chapter 3, our appraisals considered various options for the amount and type of affordable housing and funding options.

Alternative use benchmarks

6.5 The results of the appraisals will be compared with the alternative use values set out in Table 4.7 in order to form a view about the likely viability of the different affordable housing requirements for each site. However, it does not automatically follow that, if the residual value produces a surplus over the alternative use value benchmark, the site is viable. The surplus needs to be sufficiently large to provide an incentive to the landowner to release the site and cover any other appropriate cost required to bring the site forward for development. We therefore have to consider how large such an ‘uplift’ should be for each site.

6.6 In practice the size of the uplift will vary from case to case depending on how many landowners are involved, each landowner’s attitude and their degree of involvement in the current property market, the location of the site and so on. An ‘uplift’ of, say, 5% or £25,000/ha might be sufficient in some cases, whilst in other cases it might need to be five times that figure, or even more.

6.7 Initially we took the view a 10% uplift would be sufficient. This is supported by work we have done elsewhere and is supported by a number of appeal decisions. This was discussed at

61 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

length at the stakeholder events where the development industry made strong representations that this was not sufficient. After consideration we have amended this upward and are now assuming that a figure of 20% over and above the existing use / alternative use value should be sufficient to provide an incentive to the landowner to dispose of their site and make them available for development.

6.8 The treatment of greenfield sites has been given considered separately. Based on our knowledge of rural development and from working with farmers, landowners and their agents together with the representations of developers, we have made a further adjustment for those sites coming forward on greenfield sites. We have added a further £250,000 /ha (£100,000 /acre) to reflect this premium. We have also added this amount to sites that were previously paddocks.

Table 6.1 Viability cushion & threshold values

£/ha Ref Site Alternative use Viability threshold value 20% Additional value 1 North Durham 1 25,000 5,000 250,000 280,000 2 North Durham 2 25,000 5,000 250,000 280,000 3 South Durham 1 25,000 5,000 250,000 280,000 4 Central Durham 1 300,000 60,000 360,000 5 South Durham 2 300,000 60,000 360,000 6 East Durham 1 300,000 60,000 360,000 7 Central Durham 2 500,000 100,000 600,000 8 East Durham 2 300,000 60,000 360,000 9 East Durham 3 300,000 60,000 360,000 10 Central Durham 3 300,000 60,000 360,000 11 South Durham 4 500,000 100,000 600,000 12 Central Durham 4 50,000 10,000 250,000 310,000 13 North Durham 3 300,000 60,000 360,000 14 South Durham 5 50,000 10,000 250,000 310,000 15 East Durham 4 50,000 10,000 250,000 310,000 16 Central Durham 5 50,000 10,000 250,000 310,000 Source: HDH 2012

6.9 The issue of uplift caused strong disagreement at the consultation event with developers who argued that this approach was flawed and did not reflect the realities of the market. It was strongly argued that such an approach would result in landowners’ expectations not being met and would ultimately result in land not coming forward for development.

6.10 We have, therefore, given this further thought and considered if this approach was the correct approach in this area. We reviewed this methodology in the context of the RICS and

62 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

LGA/HBF guidance and appeal decisions mentioned in Chapter 1 of this report. We also invited suggestions of an alternative methodology. Representations were received suggesting that the landowners returns should be based on a proportion of the Gross Development Value. In this case we did not think this method is appropriate because this does not reflect the way the market is currently operating nor our understanding of sales and costs of schemes currently being built out in the County.

6.11 The methodology used reflects considerable uplift for a landowner selling a greenfield site for development. In the event of the grant of planning consent the landowner would receive over ten times the previous value of the land. Using existing use value plus a premium has been widely accepted elsewhere including the recent Inspector’s report for the London Mayor’s CIL. It has been used in similar studies in 40 authority areas, carried out by the professionals undertaking this Study and numerous other studies carried out by other firms.

6.12 This approach is also strongly advocated in the recent paper ‘Viability Testing Local Plans’ 19 which states that consideration of an appropriate Threshold Land Value needs to take account of the fact that future plan policy requirements will have an impact on land values and landowner expectations.

6.13 Therefore in spite of the strong representations received we have decided not to make further changes to this aspect of the Study and believe that it makes sufficient allowance for ‘competitive returns’ (as required under paragraph 173 of the NPPF). This approach is consistent with that taken when undertaking separate viability appraisals for strategic sites located in the Strategic Zone.

Appraisal results

6.14 We produced financial appraisals based on the build costs, abnormal costs, and infrastructure costs and financial assumptions for the different options. Detailed appraisal printouts for all the sites are provided in the appendices to this report. To keep it to a manageable size only the base option with the ‘SHMA affordable options’ has been provided.

6.15 The resulting residual land values for the mix of affordable housing as recommended in the SHMA are set out in Table 6.2. We highlight that these are based on the assumption that the affordable housing for rent is affordable rent rather than social rent and that we have assumed no grant or other external funding has been received (although it may be). We have also assumed that the homes are built to the Building Regulation standards rather than a higher standard under the Code for Sustainable Homes.

Results

6.16 The initial appraisals have been run for two of the areas (County Durham and the Durham City and Chester Le Street Core) to establish the residual values. We have used affordable

19 Viability Testing Local Plans – Advice for planning practitioners. Local Housing Delivery Group. Chaired by John Harman (June 2012) – supported by LGA, HBF and NHBC.

63 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

targets that are specific to the planning delivery areas (as set out in figure 4.5) where our modelled sites are located. If a site is located in North Durham, we have used the North Durham SHMA affordable housing target of 25% to see whether that target is viable. If the site is in East Durham we have assessed it using the SHMA an affordable housing target for that planning deliver area of 10%. While we accept that the sample of sites from each area is relatively small, we feel this adds value to the viability appraisals when considering affordable housing targets.

Table 6.2 Appraisal results for SHMA – affordable option. County Durham Area

Site Affordable Units Site size (ha) Residual Residual Mix Value (£/site) Value (£/ha) 1 North Durham 1 25% 288 11.00 5,355,201 486,836 2 North Durham 2 25% 243 9.00 1,159,548 128,839 3 South Durham 1 20% 149 4.98 -217,856 -43,571 4 Central Durham 1 20% 121 5.29 2,636,314 497,418 5 South Durham 2 20% 70 2.35 1,156,430 481,846 6 East Durham 1 10% 68 1.25 79,837 61,413 7 Central Durham 2 20% 42 0.44 1,025,111 2,562,778 8 East Durham 2 10% 30 0.71 -222,395 -317,707 9 East Durham 3 10% 26 1.14 265,813 241,648 10 Central Durham 3 20% 18 0.36 41,954 104,886 11 South Durham 4 20% 12 0.68 489,856 699,795 12 Central Durham 4 20% 10 0.79 -426,651 -533,314 13 North Durham 3 25% 5 0.11 25,314 253,144

14 South Durham 5 20% 3 0.10 32,683 343,660

15 East Durham 4 10% 2 0.05 37,299 475,597

16 Central Durham 5 20% 2 0.10 43,586 587,077 Source: DCC Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study 2012

64 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

Table 6.3 Appraisal results for SHMA affordable option. Durham City and Chester Le Street Core Area

Site Affordable Units ha Residual Residual Mix Value (£/site) Value (£/ha) 1 Durham City 1 20% 288 11.00 8,439,331 767,212 2 Durham City 2 20% 243 9.00 8,416,062 935,118 3 Durham City 3 20% 149 4.98 3,616,359 723,272 4 Durham City 4 20% 121 5.29 3,266,957 616,407 5 Chester-le-Street 1 25% 70 2.35 1,940,310 808,462 6 County Durham 1 20% 68 1.25 1,296,355 997,196 7 County Durham 2 25% 42 0.44 338,741 846,854 8 Chester-le-Street 2 25% 30 0.71 551,780 788,257 9 Durham City 5 20% 26 1.14 1,016,447 924,042 10 County Durham 3 20% 18 0.36 258,235 645,589 11 Durham City 6 20% 12 0.68 1,095,143 1,564,490 12 Durham City 7 20% 10 0.79 -69,168 -86,460 13 County Durham 4 20% 5 0.11 77,248 772,476 14 Durham City 8 20% 3 0.10 63,710 653,930 15 Chester-le-Street 3 25% 2 0.05 11,334 215,953 16 County Durham 5 20% 2 0.10 24,901 400,229 Source: DCC Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study 2012

6.17 The residual values generated by the modelled sites varies greatly across County Durham, as we would expect, but less so across the Durham City / Chester Le Street area. It is clear that the need for affordable housing targets, set out at the start of this report as the SHMA affordable option cannot be met on all sites in all locations, in particular the sites in the east of the County show lower amounts and some negative results indicating that the sites would not be viable even if the land was provided for free.

6.18 These results in themselves do not provide a good indication of site viability as they are simply an indication of the amount a developer may pay for the land. To test the viability of these sites we have compared the residual value with the Viability Thresholds as shown in the following tables. We have indicated viable sites (where the residual value is above the viability threshold) with green, marginal sites (were the residual value exceeds the alternative use value but not the viability threshold) with amber and unviable sites (where the residual value is below the alternative use value) with red.

65 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

Table 6.4 Residual Value compared with Viability Thresholds for Base/SHMA affordable option. County Durham Site Affor Units Alternative Use Viability Residual Value dable Value per ha Threshold Per ha Mix 1 North Durham 1 25% 288 25,000 280,000 486,836 2 North Durham 2 25% 243 25,000 280,000 128,839 3 South Durham 1 20% 149 25,000 280,000 -43,571 4 Central Durham 1 20% 121 300,000 360,000 497,418 5 South Durham 2 20% 70 300,000 360,000 481,846 6 East Durham 1 10% 68 300,000 360,000 61,413 7 Central Durham 2 20% 42 500,000 600,000 2,562,778 8 East Durham 2 10% 30 300,000 360,000 -317,707 9 East Durham 3 10% 26 300,000 360,000 241,648 10 Central Durham 3 20% 18 300,000 360,000 104,886 11 South Durham 4 20% 12 500,000 600,000 699,795 12 Central Durham 4 20% 10 50,000 310,000 -533,314 13 North Durham 3 25% 5 300,000 360,000 253,144 14 South Durham 5 20% 5 50,000 310,000 343,660

15 East Durham 4 10% 3 50,000 310,000 475,597

16 Central Durham 5 20% 2 50,000 310,000 587,077 Source: DCC Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study 2012

6.19 As expected viability varies widely across the county. When tested against the SHMA affordable housing targets, of the 16 sites, 8 are viable, one is marginal and the remainder unviable. It is noticeable that the sites in the eastern part of County Durham perform rather worse than the remainder. This is no surprise, and certainly a pattern endorsed by the stakeholders, as the Council does not normally achieve the affordable housing targets in this area.

6.20 The provision of affordable housing is a priority for the Council but we can see from the results above that the SHMA affordable option targets have mixed viability on the test sites. In order to establish the possibility of setting a lower and viable target rather than a higher unviable target we have run appraisals for a range of lower and generally affordable housing targets. The results are summarized in the table below:

66 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

Table 6.5 Residual Value (£/ha) at lower affordable housing targets in County Durham. Alternative Viability County County County County County County County Use Value Threshold Durham SHMA Durham 0% Durham 5% Durham 10% Durham 15% Durham 20% Durham 25% Options Affordable Affordable Affordable Affordable Affordable Affordable

£/ha £/ha £/ha £/ha £/ha £/ha £/ha £/ha £/ha 1 North Durham 1 25,000 280,000 486,836 854,529 780,991 707,452 633,914 560,375 486,836 2 North Durham 2 25,000 280,000 128,839 425,370 366,063 306,757 247,451 188,145 128,839 3 South Durham 1 25,000 280,000 -43,571 124,773 83,895 42,639 -256 -43,571 -86,886 4 Central Durham 1 300,000 360,000 497,418 787,454 714,945 642,436 569,927 497,418 424,909 5 South Durham 2 300,000 360,000 481,846 803,419 723,026 642,632 562,239 481,846 405,258 6 East Durham 1 300,000 360,000 61,413 192,308 128,391 61,413 -6,829 -75,072 -143,315 7 Central Durham 2 500,000 600,000 2,562,778 4,699,113 4,165,029 3,630,945 3,096,861 2,562,778 2,047,923 8 East Durham 2 300,000 360,000 -317,707 -235,359 -276,533 -317,707 -358,881 -400,055 -441,229 9 East Durham 3 300,000 360,000 241,648 381,482 311,565 241,648 175,082 104,824 32,841 10 Central Durham 3 300,000 360,000 104,886 505,747 405,276 307,808 206,347 104,886 3,425 11 South Durham 4 500,000 600,000 699,795 1,195,188 1,069,682 944,175 818,668 699,795 573,087 12 Central Durham 4 50,000 310,000 -533,314 -414,964 -444,552 -474,139 -503,727 -533,314 -563,270 13 North Durham 3 300,000 360,000 253,144 1,026,538 871,859 717,180 562,502 407,823 253,144 14 South Durham 5 50,000 310,000 343,660 943,262 793,362 643,461 493,561 343,660 193,760 15 East Durham 4 50,000 310,000 475,597 661,097 568,347 475,597 382,848 290,098 197,348 16 Central Durham 5 50,000 310,000 587,077 1,145,592 1,005,963 866,335 726,706 587,077 447,449 Source: DCC Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study 2012

6.21 As would be expected the residual value improves as the amount of affordable housing decreases. More sites are viable and less sites are unviable when we lower affordable housing targets compared to the SHMA recommendations in Table 6.4. What we can see from Table 6.5 is that the number of viable sites does not change significantly between the 15% and 20% affordable housing targets however the moves from 10% to 15% and from 20% to 25% both result in more sites failing the viability test. At 25% affordable housing, only 5 of the 16 sites are affordable.

67 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

6.22 If the target is lowered to 10% there is a considerable improvement in the viability of sites compared to the SHMA Options. At the 10% affordable target, well over half the sites are viable with a further two being marginal and four being unviable. At 15% two of the sites turns from viable to marginal with the extra affordable housing provision.

6.23 There is no major change between 10% and 15% but that the viability of the sites increases considerably from the base/SHMA affordable housing requirements in Table 6.4. This would be an indication that to set a target at 10% or 15% for the County Durham area would be reasonable when considered against the requirements of the NPPF.

6.24 Within the Durham and Chester Le Street area the results are more positive:

Table 6.6 Residual Value compared with Viability Thresholds for SHMA affordable option. Durham City and Chester-le-Street Core Area Durham City and Chester Le Street Site Affor Units Alternative Use Viability Residual Value dable Value Per ha Threshold Per Per ha Mix ha 1 Durham City 1 20% 288 25,000 280,000 767,212 2 Durham City 2 20% 243 25,000 280,000 935,118 3 Durham City 3 20% 149 25,000 280,000 723,272 4 Durham City 4 20% 121 300,000 360,000 616,407 5 Chester-le-Street 1 25% 70 300,000 360,000 808,462 6 County Durham 1 20% 68 300,000 360,000 997,196 7 County Durham 2 25% 42 500,000 600,000 846,854 8 Chester-le-Street 2 25% 30 300,000 360,000 788,257 9 Durham City 5 20% 26 300,000 360,000 924,042 10 County Durham 3 20% 18 300,000 360,000 645,589 11 Durham City 6 20% 12 500,000 600,000 1,564,490 12 Durham City 7 20% 10 50,000 310,000 -86,460 13 County Durham 4 20% 5 300,000 360,000 772,476 14 Durham City 8 20% 5 50,000 310,000 653,930 15 Chester-le-Street 3 25% 3 50,000 310,000 215,953 16 County Durham 5 20% 2 50,000 310,000 400,229 Source: DCC Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study 2012

6.25 The Durham / Chester-le-Street area is covered by two SHMA affordable option targets - 20% and 25%. In this area the results are considerably better with only 1 marginal site and 1 unviable site. In the absence of CIL we can conclude that the 25% target is deliverable across this area and it would be safe to put this forward into the Local Plan. However, when setting affordable housing targets in this area, we must take into consideration that the majority of sites in this zone will be delivered in the Durham City area where the SHMA

68 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

affordable option is 20%. Therefore, a target of 20% is a more reasonable target for the Durham City and Chester-le-Street zone or the Central Durham delivery area.

6.26 CIL and affordable housing are both a cost to the developer but necessary to meet the needs of County Durham’s communities. We need to understand the relationship between these two costs so we can set CIL at a level that will not put delivery of the County Durham Plan at serious risk. To inform the process of striking the balance between affordable housing and CIL further appraisals have been undertaken at a variety of affordable housing targets.

Different levels of Affordable Housing and the Impact of CIL

6.27 It is clear from the above that the SHMA affordable targets are, in the County Durham Zone, above a level that is deliverable by developers. Therefore, to comply with the requirements of the NPPF a lower target should be set. However, in the Durham City and Chester-le- Street area a 20% affordable housing target can be set. There is a need for affordable housing across all of the County so further appraisals have been run at range of lower affordable housing targets in the wider County Durham area.

6.28 The provision of affordable housing and the payment of CIL are both a cost to the developer, if more of one is sought less of the other can be provided and vice versa. Below we have explored how they relate and how much CIL the sites could bear with different affordable housing targets.

6.29 As set out above we undertook appraisals, for a number of development scenarios, to establish the Residual Value for each site. We then compared this Residual Value with the Existing Use or Alternative Use Value to assess the viability of development coming forward. In order to assess whether or not a contribution to CIL can be made, a calculation needs to be undertaken to establish the ‘ additional profit’ .

6.30 Additional Profit is the amount of profit over and above the normal profit made by the developers having purchased the land, developed the site and sold the units (including providing any affordable housing that is required). In this case ‘ normal profit ’ is the 20% (as discussed above) we used in the appraisals. The additional profit is the maximum available from which any financial contribution can be made. The additional profit will vary from site to site but this study works out how much additional profit is available in all the test sites. The concept of additional profit is best understood by viewing the diagram below which sets out the key components making up the Gross Development Value of a site. The additional profit is the final box making up the Gross Development Value.

69 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

Figure 6.1 Additional Profit and Relationship to Gross Development Value

6.31 Our approach to calculating Additional Profit was to complete the appraisal using the same base cost and price figures, and other financial assumptions, as used in the preceding chapters concerning the affordable housing target. However, instead of calculating the Residual Value as normal, we incorporated the viability threshold value (alternative use value plus uplift) into the cost side of the appraisal to show the resulting profit (or loss).

6.32 The amount by which the resulting profit exceeds the target level of profit (previously established as part of the RV calculation), represents the additional profit and provides a measure of the scope for contributing to CIL without impairing development viability. CIL contributions can viably be paid out of this additional profit (See figure 6.1).

6.33 The starting point of these calculations is to base them on the affordable housing target. The following formula was used:

70 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

Gross Development Value (The combined value of the complete development Including X% affordable housing)

LESS

Cost of creating the asset, including a profit margin (land* + construction + fees + finance charges + developers’ profit)

Additional Profit

* Where ‘land’ is the Alternative Use Value and uplift’

Developer contributions

6.34 In preparing appraisals it was necessary to make assumptions about the level of developer contributions under s106, across the range of sites. The assumptions we made were based upon the levels of contributions that may be expected once the CIL is in place in County Durham.

6.35 In moving forward to CIL there will remain scope for further contributions specific to the development of the site, but the scope will be considerably limited, to minimise overlap and avoid the possibility that developers would have to pay twice. We assumed all units were subject to a contribution of £500. In assessing the potential to pay CIL we have added this back into the equation so it is no longer a development cost. It should be noted that there may be scope for DCC to Levy CIL and collect contributions under s106 agreements. This relatively low contribution (£500) takes account of the fact that infrastructure that was historically provided via S106 agreements will now be delivered via CIL. This will depend on the infrastructure requirements and the actual items listed on the Regulation 123 List.

6.36 As reported above the residual value was calculated for each site for the different affordable housing targets and then the additional profit was calculated for each site for both the Affordable Housing targets tested at the start of this chapter and for lower targets (where the affordable rent is let at 80% of market rent). All SHMA/base appraisals can be found in Appendix 9.

6.37 CIL is chargeable on net new floor area and expressed as £/m 2. This is shown in the following tables. The results are shown in the following two tables and again we have indicated viable sites (that can bear CIL) with green and unviable sites (that cannot bear CIL) with red. As well as £m2, the additional profit is also expressed per hectare, per site and per unit.

71 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

County Durham Zone

6.38 The results of the analysis show that in many parts of County Durham, even at low levels of affordable housing there is little additional profit from which CIL can be paid on many of the sites. However, four of the sites are unviable without any affordable housing or CIL so are not going to come forward in any event and the additional costs of CIL will not make a difference beyond increasing a theoretical loss of developing the site.

Table 6.7 Maximum Additional Profit by Affordable Housing Targets - Durham County Area

County Durham 0% Affordable County Durham 5% Affordable County Durham 10% Affordable County Durham 15% Affordable County Durham 20% Affordable County Durham 25% Affordable £/ha £ site £/unit £/m2 £/ha £ site £/unit £/m2 £/ha £ site £/unit £/m2 £/ha £ site £/unit £/m2 £/ha £ site £/unit £/m2 £/ha £ site £/unit £/m2 1 North Durham 1 643,725 7,080,974 24,587 264 563,005 6,193,056 21,504 243 482,285 5,305,137 18,421 220 401,565 4,417,219 15,338 194 320,846 3,529,301 12,255 165 240,126 2,641,383 9,171 131 2 North Durham 2 173,043 1,557,391 6,409 59 107,955 971,593 3,998 39 42,866 385,795 1,588 16 -22,223 -200,003 -823 -9 -87,311 -785,801 -3,234 -37 -152,400 -1,371,599 -5,644 -69 3 South Durham 1 -153,886 -769,430 -5,164 -56 -196,313 -981,565 -6,588 -75 -235,854 -1,179,272 -7,915 -96 -278,281 -1,391,407 -9,338 -119 -323,594 -1,617,972 -10,859 -148 -368,907 -1,844,537 -12,379 -179 4 Central Durham 1 480,547 2,546,898 21,049 208 400,968 2,125,130 17,563 183 321,389 1,703,362 14,077 155 241,810 1,281,595 10,592 123 162,231 859,827 7,106 88 82,653 438,059 3,620 48 5 South Durham 2 501,133 1,202,719 17,182 164 412,920 991,008 14,157 142 324,707 779,297 11,133 118 236,494 567,585 8,108 91 148,281 355,874 5,084 61 63,777 153,065 2,187 28 6 East Durham 1 -154,466 -200,805 -2,953 -38 -218,403 -283,924 -4,175 -57 -286,049 -371,863 -5,469 -79 -357,403 -464,624 -6,833 -104 -428,758 -557,385 -8,197 -133 -500,112 -650,146 -9,561 -166 7 Central Durham 2 4,548,993 1,819,597 43,324 323 3,963,134 1,585,254 37,744 296 3,377,274 1,350,910 32,165 267 2,791,415 1,116,566 26,585 233 2,205,555 882,222 21,005 196 1,625,876 650,350 15,485 154 8 East Durham 2 -599,532 -419,673 -13,989 -187 -641,324 -448,927 -14,964 -210 -683,116 -478,181 -15,939 -236 -724,907 -507,435 -16,915 -265 -766,699 -536,689 -17,890 -298 -808,491 -565,943 -18,865 -335 9 East Durham 3 34,942 38,436 1,478 11 -40,318 -44,350 -1,706 -13 -115,579 -127,136 -4,890 -39 -183,422 -201,764 -7,760 -65 -254,974 -280,472 -10,787 -96 -330,234 -363,258 -13,971 -133 10 Central Durham 3 176,347 70,539 3,919 46 70,292 28,117 1,562 19 -32,056 -12,822 -712 -9 -138,111 -55,244 -3,069 -42 -244,166 -97,667 -5,426 -79 -350,222 -140,089 -7,783 -121 11 South Durham 4 655,329 458,730 38,228 140 518,948 363,263 30,272 116 382,567 267,797 22,316 90 246,186 172,330 14,361 62 115,985 81,189 6,766 31 -20,396 -14,277 -1,190 -6 12 Central Durham 4 -742,634 -594,107 -59,411 -491 -772,665 -618,132 -61,813 -538 -802,696 -642,157 -64,216 -590 -832,728 -666,182 -66,618 -648 -862,759 -690,207 -69,021 -713 -893,129 -714,503 -71,450 -787 13 North Durham 3 721,774 72,177 14,435 139 560,079 56,008 11,202 113 398,383 39,838 7,968 85 236,688 23,669 4,734 54 74,992 7,499 1,500 18 -86,703 -8,670 -1,734 -22 14 South Durham 5 676,989 67,699 22,566 205 520,289 52,029 17,343 166 363,588 36,359 12,120 122 206,888 20,689 6,896 74 50,187 5,019 1,673 19 -106,513 -10,651 -3,550 -43 15 East Durham 4 376,995 37,700 18,850 198 280,046 28,005 14,002 155 183,096 18,310 9,155 107 86,146 8,615 4,307 53 -10,803 -1,080 -540 -7 -107,753 -10,775 -5,388 -76 16 Central Durham 5 883,430 88,343 44,171 316 737,478 73,748 36,874 277 591,527 59,153 29,576 235 445,575 44,558 22,279 187 299,624 29,962 14,981 134 153,673 15,367 7,684 73 Source: DCC Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study 2012

6.39 It is important that the sites which are currently viable (shown in green in the table above) are not made unviable by the introduction of CIL or affordable housing targets. When assessing levels of CIL it is important that we focus on the viable sites where policy implications may impact on future viability.

6.40 We have therefore considered the impact of CIL on the sites that are viable at 15% affordable housing. Of the viable sites the amount of additional profit varies from over £233/m 2 down to £53/m 2 with two of the viable sites being able to bear up to £74/m 2 and £91/m 2. Based on this information alone there is considerable scope to set a low, county wide CIL on residential development.

72 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

Durham City & Chester-le-Street Zone

6.41 Earlier in this chapter we established that we could set an affordable housing target of 20% in the Durham City and Chester-le-Street area as the viability of sites is much greater in this zone compared to rest of County Durham. The delivery of the strategic sites within this part of County Durham are at the core of the County Durham Plan and their delivery is essential so the future requirement for housing can be met. For the Strategic Sites to come forward several very substantial items of infrastructure need to be delivered and without these the overall Plan will be at risk. The Council requires sufficient CIL to pay for this infrastructure – the final sentence of paragraph 10 of the CIL Guidance is particularly important in this regard. This says: It may be that the Development Plan and its targets would be at serious risk in the absence of CIL . This would certainly be the case here as without CIL to fund the infrastructure the Council will not be able to grant planning consent for the development of the strategic sites 20 .

6.42 In order to inform the process of setting CIL in the Durham City and Chester-le-Street area a further set of appraisals have been run to establish the additional profit at the 25% affordable housing target and at lower targets. This will enable the Council to balance the delivery of affordable housing with the collection of CIL. These are shown below.

Table 6.8 Maximum Additional Profit by Affordable Housing Targets - Durham City and Chester Le Street Area

Durham and Chester le Street 0% Affordable Durham and Chester le Street 5% Affordable Durham and Chester le Street 10% Affordable Durham and Chester le Street 15% Affordable Durham and Chester le Street 20% Affordable Durham and Chester le Street 25% Affordable £/ha £ site £/unit £/m2 £/ha £ site £/unit £/m2 £/ha £ site £/unit £/m2 £/ha £ site £/unit £/m2 £/ha £ site £/unit £/m2 £/ha £ site £/unit £/m2 1 Durham City 1 927,519 10,202,707 35,426 381 832,609 9,158,703 31,801 360 737,700 8,114,698 28,176 337 642,790 7,070,693 24,551 311 547,881 6,026,688 20,926 281 452,971 4,982,683 17,301 248 2 Durham City 2 1,197,800 10,780,196 44,363 407 1,081,473 9,733,257 40,055 387 965,147 8,686,319 35,746 364 848,820 7,639,381 31,438 339 732,494 6,592,442 27,129 311 616,167 5,545,504 22,821 279 3 Durham City 3 892,581 4,462,907 29,952 326 794,801 3,974,004 26,671 305 697,020 3,485,101 23,390 282 599,239 2,996,197 20,109 257 501,459 2,507,294 16,827 229 403,678 2,018,391 13,546 196 4 Durham City 4 643,785 3,412,063 28,199 279 556,045 2,947,037 24,356 254 468,304 2,482,011 20,512 226 380,563 2,016,985 16,669 194 292,822 1,551,959 12,826 159 205,082 1,086,933 8,983 119 5 Chester-le-Street 1 1,096,598 2,631,836 37,598 358 978,612 2,348,669 33,552 336 860,626 2,065,502 29,507 312 742,640 1,782,335 25,462 285 624,653 1,499,168 21,417 255 506,667 1,216,001 17,371 221 6 County Durham 1 1,303,776 1,694,909 24,925 324 1,159,139 1,506,880 22,160 303 1,014,501 1,318,852 19,395 280 869,864 1,130,823 16,630 254 725,227 942,795 13,865 225 580,589 754,766 11,099 192 7 County Durham 2 2,797,184 1,118,874 26,640 199 2,298,915 919,566 21,894 172 1,806,826 722,731 17,208 143 1,308,557 523,423 12,462 109 810,288 324,115 7,717 72 318,199 127,280 3,030 30 8 Chester-le-Street 2 1,132,406 792,684 26,423 352 1,003,276 702,293 23,410 329 874,146 611,902 20,397 302 745,016 521,511 17,384 273 615,886 431,120 14,371 240 486,756 340,729 11,358 202 9 Durham City 5 1,157,654 1,273,419 48,978 350 1,025,887 1,128,476 43,403 326 894,121 983,533 37,828 300 762,354 838,589 32,253 271 630,587 693,646 26,679 238 502,529 552,782 21,261 202 10 County Durham 3 900,349 360,139 20,008 233 757,723 303,089 16,838 206 615,096 246,039 13,669 177 472,470 188,988 10,499 144 329,844 131,938 7,330 107 194,633 77,853 4,325 67 11 Durham City 6 1,852,820 1,296,974 108,081 394 1,656,256 1,159,379 96,615 371 1,459,691 1,021,784 85,149 345 1,263,127 884,189 73,682 316 1,066,562 746,594 62,216 284 876,178 613,324 51,110 249 12 Durham City 7 -177,122 -141,698 -14,170 -117 -234,898 -187,919 -18,792 -163 -292,674 -234,139 -23,414 -215 -350,450 -280,360 -28,036 -273 -408,226 -326,581 -32,658 -337 -466,002 -372,802 -37,280 -411 13 County Durham 4 1,194,561 119,456 23,891 230 1,009,040 100,904 20,181 204 827,228 82,723 16,545 177 641,708 64,171 12,834 145 456,187 45,619 9,124 110 270,667 27,067 5,413 69 14 Durham City 8 1,079,228 107,923 35,974 327 905,448 90,545 30,182 289 728,476 72,848 24,283 245 551,504 55,150 18,383 197 374,532 37,453 12,484 142 197,560 19,756 6,585 80 15 Chester-le-Street 3 402,925 40,293 20,146 212 304,679 30,468 15,234 169 206,433 20,643 10,322 121 108,187 10,819 5,409 67 9,941 994 497 7 -88,305 -8,831 -4,415 -62 16 County Durham 5 639,293 63,929 31,965 228 505,548 50,555 25,277 190 371,804 37,180 18,590 148 238,059 23,806 11,903 100 104,315 10,431 5,216 47 -29,430 -2,943 -1,471 -14 Source: DCC Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study 2012

20 The limitations on the pooling of s106 payments mean that these items of infrastructure may be difficult to deliver through the traditional s106 route.

73 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

6.43 The first two sites assessed (Durham City 1 & Durham City 2) have new build prices as if they are in the Strategic Sites around Durham City. This is because they are the largest sites in our viability appraisals and can provide a useful guide to potential CIL on the Strategic Sites. However, further detailed site specific viability appraisals will need to be undertaken as the sites delivery and the infrastructure required is fundamental to the delivery of the Plan.

6.44 As is expected the amounts of additional profit increase as the affordable target decreases. Based on these results alone (and when striking the balance and setting the CIL the Council will need to consider more than just this viability evidence) there is scope to set rates at over £200/m 2 in the Strategic Zone with a 20% affordable target. Rates in the remaining area should be lower. The actual setting of rates is discussed in further detail in the CIL Rationale and Preliminary Charging Schedule (July 2012).

6.45 It is important to note that the ability of the smaller sites to bear CIL in this area is substantially less than the larger sites. However, the Council may not require any affordable housing on smaller sites so a CIL requirement may be deliverable on smaller sites. With Chester-le-Street having such a limited land supply for affordable housing, it would seem prudent to spend more time considering the level of CIL in the Durham City (Central Durham) area and for 20% affordable housing target.

6.46 Only 1 of the 16 sites in the Durham City & Chester-le-Street core area could not support a CIL charge and this was on a small site with large abnormal costs. With the exception of the ‘abnormal’ site, most sites in this area could comfortably bear a CIL charge in addition to the affordable housing requirement of 20%. Of the 15 sites that could bear CIL at 20% affordable provision, the amount of CIL the sites could bear ranged from £7/m2 to £311/m2. 8 of these 16 sites demonstrated additional profit for CIL of £200/m2 or over.

Strategic Zone

6.47 With regard to a potential Strategic Zone around Durham City, sites 1 and 2 provide the best guide when considering what an optimum CIL levy could be in the Strategic Sites. Sites 1 and 2 are Greenfield sites with 243 and 288 units respectively. These are the largest sized sites we used but considerably smaller than the proposed Strategic Sites that could potentially deliver yield 2,500 units at Sniperley Park and 1,225 units at North of Arnison. Notwithstanding this, sites 1 and 2 in the Durham City and Chester-le-Street Core area show that maximum levels of CIL of £281/m 2 and £311/m 2 could be achieved. As set out above, this leaves scope to set CIL rates at over £200/m 2.

6.48 As specific infrastructure associated with the Strategic Zone is required in order to deliver the sites in this Zone, the Council have commissioned real estate consultants to undertake a Durham City Housing and Delivery Strategy which includes a more detailed viability appraisal specific to the urban extensions, to assess the potential levels of CIL. This strategy will not only include detailed site viability appraisals but will also include an assessment of other financial mechanisms that will enable delivery of key infrastructure in Durham City.

74 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

6.49 Clearly, these findings support an affordable housing target of 20% in the Durham City and Chester-Le-Street core area.

6.50 The additional profit figures are set for the different affordable housing targets as totals but with dwelling figures to aid comparison. It is important to stress that these figures are the amounts of CIL that these schemes could bear whilst maintaining 20% affordable housing and a considerable developer profit (20% on costs).

Affordable Housing Target and CIL Rates

6.51 It can be seen that the amount of CIL that the modelled sites can bear increases as the affordable housing requirement decreases. We take this opportunity to stress that we are not suggesting that CIL is set at these rates. The above analysis shows the maximum amount of CIL that these modelled developments can bear. The information on potential CIL rates is an is an important element of the evidence for setting CIL but is only one part of the evidence the wider context needs to be considered – this can only be done in the context of the preferred (and viable) affordable housing target. We do this in Chapter 9

Changes in the Housing Market

6.52 In order to understand the impact of changes in the housing market, we ran more appraisals for both the County Durham Area and the Durham City & Chester-le-Street Area to future proof our work on the basis that market improves or declines by 5%.

6.53 Table 6.9 sets out changes to our model sites in County Durham if the market in County Durham improves or declines by 5%. The appraisals were ran at an assumption of 15% delivery of affordable housing on sites across County Durham.

75 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

Table 6.9 Residual Value Per ha for Market Changes at 15% Affordable Housing. County Durham Area Alternative Viability Use Value Threshold -5% Base Price 5% 1 North Durham 1 25,000 280,000 510,543 633,914 757,284 2 North Durham 2 25,000 280,000 122,434 247,451 372,468 3 South Durham 1 25,000 280,000 -108,772 -256 104,156 4 Central Durham 1 300,000 360,000 449,822 569,927 690,032 5 South Durham 2 300,000 360,000 416,667 562,239 709,882 6 East Durham 1 300,000 360,000 -176,386 -6,829 161,139 7 Central Durham 2 500,000 600,000 2,288,439 3,096,861 3,926,771 8 East Durham 2 300,000 360,000 -487,714 -358,881 -230,048 9 East Durham 3 300,000 360,000 23,444 175,082 320,692 10 Central Durham 3 300,000 360,000 10,072 206,347 398,693 11 South Durham 4 500,000 600,000 590,254 818,668 1,052,677 12 Central Durham 4 50,000 310,000 -573,707 -503,727 -434,267 13 North Durham 3 300,000 360,000 284,145 562,502 840,858 14 South Durham 5 50,000 310,000 272,606 493,561 714,515 15 East Durham 4 50,000 310,000 249,832 382,848 515,863 16 Central Durham 5 50,000 310,000 528,179 726,706 925,232

6.54 The table above shows that a downturn in the market of 5% will have the most significant impact on our smaller sites. Four of our smaller sites change from viable to marginal or unviable. This evidence would suggest that lowering the affordable housing threshold on smaller sites would be vulnerable to market changes. There is no significant change to the viability of larger sites.

76 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

6.55 Table 6.10 shows the impact of changes to the market on the Additional Profit of the Sites in the County Durham Area.

Table 6.10 Additional Profit Per m2 for Market Changes at 15% Affordable Housing. County Durham Area Base -5% Price 5% 1 North Durham 1 129 194 259 2 North Durham 2 -64 -9 46 3 South Durham 1 -168 -119 -76 4 Central Durham 1 56 123 191 5 South Durham 2 29 91 153 6 East Durham 1 -156 -104 -54 7 Central Durham 2 158 233 310 8 East Durham 2 -313 -265 -217 9 East Durham 3 -121 -65 -11 10 Central Durham 3 -104 -42 19 11 South Durham 4 0 62 125 12 Central Durham 4 -703 -648 -593 13 North Durham 3 -12 54 119 14 South Durham 5 -9 74 156 15 East Durham 4 -33 53 139 16 Central Durham 5 100 187 274

6.56 Table 6.10 shows that the ability to pay CIL will be limited on smaller sites in County Durham if the market dipped. Of the larger sites, one of the sites would become marginal with a CIL charge of £20m 2. If the market improved by 5%, there would be significant scope to set a higher CIL rate around the County.

77 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

6.57 Table 6.11 shows the impact of changes to the market of the residual values of sites in the Durham City and Chester-le-Street area at 20% affordable housing provision.

Table 6.11 Residual Value Per ha for Market Changes at 20% Affordable Housing. Durham City & Chester-le-Street Area -5% Base Price 5% 1 Durham City 1 25,000 280,000 640,757 767,212 893,667 2 Durham City 2 25,000 280,000 780,106 935,118 1,090,130 3 Durham City 3 25,000 280,000 587,694 723,272 858,850 4 Durham City 4 300,000 360,000 497,418 616,407 735,396 5 Chester-le-Street 1 300,000 360,000 755,324 915,990 1,076,655 6 County Durham 1 300,000 360,000 791,668 997,196 1,202,724 7 County Durham 2 500,000 600,000 590,137 1,297,366 2,021,376 8 Chester-le-Street 2 300,000 360,000 729,527 907,100 1,084,674 9 Durham City 5 300,000 360,000 752,334 924,042 1,102,815 10 County Durham 3 300,000 360,000 447,543 645,589 852,200 11 Durham City 6 500,000 600,000 1,314,768 1,564,490 1,826,558 12 Durham City 7 50,000 310,000 -172,097 -86,460 -2,350 13 County Durham 4 300,000 360,000 492,261 772,476 1,052,691 14 Durham City 8 50,000 310,000 430,460 653,930 877,401 15 Chester-le-Street 3 50,000 310,000 183,760 309,943 436,127 16 County Durham 5 50,000 310,000 222,723 400,229 577,735

6.58 We can see from the above that is there is very little difference. The majority of the sites in Durham City and Chester-le-Street remain viable if the market prices drop by 5%. Two sites will become marginal whereas if the market improves, one of the small sites will become viable.

78 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

6.59 Table 6.12 shows the impact of changes to the Additional Profit of the Sites in the Durham City and Chester-le-Street area at 20% affordable housing.

Table 6.12 Additional Profit Per m2 for Market Changes at 15% Affordable Housing. Chester-le-Street and Durham Area. Base -5% Price 5% 1 Durham City 1 210 281 353 2 Durham City 2 239 311 383 3 Durham City 3 161 229 296 4 Durham City 4 88 159 230 5 Chester-le-Street 1 183 255 327 6 County Durham 1 155 225 295 7 County Durham 2 4 72 142 8 Chester-le-Street 2 164 240 315 9 Durham City 5 166 238 312 10 County Durham 3 37 107 178 11 Durham City 6 209 284 360 12 Durham City 7 -410 -337 -265 13 County Durham 4 39 110 180 14 Durham City 8 53 142 230 15 Chester-le-Street 3 -80 7 93 16 County Durham 5 -36 47 129

6.60 There is very little difference in the ability to pay CIL in this area if the market had a dip of 5%. However, none of the smaller sites would be able to pay CIL and provide 15% affordable housing.

Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

7. Affordable Housing Thresholds

7.1 The Council is investigating reducing the size thresholds in the County Durham and West Durham delivery area specifically over which affordable housing is required. PPS3 encouraged local authorised to do this and there is no suggestion that that situation should change. A significant amount of development is on smaller sites, particularly in the rural areas so the Council is keen to explore whether these can contribute to the delivery of affordable housing:

‘Local Planning Authorities can set lower minimum thresholds, where viable and practicable, including in rural areas. This could include setting different proportions of affordable housing to be sought for a series of site-side thresholds over the plan area. Local Planning Authorities will need to make an informed assessment of the economic viability of [this]’ (PPS3: Housing (2006) Para 29) .

7.2 There is no equivalent provision in the NPPF. The two sets of appraisals included six sites in each of 12 units and below (all being below the old national guidance threshold of 15 dwellings).

7.3 Firstly considering the results of the Durham County Sites set out in Table 6.5 there is a discernible difference in the pattern of viable sites between the smaller and larger sites. Small sites become less viable with the introduction of affordable housing. A target of 15% is viable on most of the small sites and only one (being in central Durham) being unviable. The situation is similar at 20% with a further site becoming marginal. The number of viable sites declines markedly where there is a 25% affordable requirement.

7.4 The affordable target does however need to be considered against the ability to pay CIL. Only one of the small sites is able to pay CIL at 25%. At 20%, 4 of the small sites are viable but can afford a limited amount of CIL – three being able to afford up to an absolute maximum of £31/m 2. At a 15% affordable target four of the five sites can bear up to an maximum of £74/m2 CIL. If CIL is introduced across the Durham County Area then it would not be appropriate, on viability grounds to set a target of more than 15% on smaller sites.

7.5 However, one of the advantages of CIL is that small sites contribute proportionately to CIL so the Council may choose not to lower the affordable housing threshold across the rest of County Durham. We can see from table 6.7 that smaller sites have less potential than sites above 15 dwellings to contribute to both affordable housing and CIL. When we assessed the impact of market changes on our model sites at the end of Chapter 6, it was apparent that smaller sites would be more vulnerable to changes in the market and affordable housing targets on small sites would become unviable if the market dipped by 5%.

7.6 The threshold in West Durham of 5 houses is recommended on the basis that the sites that come forward are very small in nature so the Council require smaller sites in West Durham to deliver affordable housing. There is also an acute need for affordable housing in West Durham according to the SHMA.

81 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

7.7 There may be situations in which it is agreed (particularly in West Durham) that, whilst an affordable contribution should arise in respect of a particular development, it is appropriate that all or some of the contribution should be made off site. Where this is the case, and where replacement affordable units are not going to be provided by the developer on another site agreed with the Council, it will be necessary to secure the due affordable contribution in the form of a commuted payment.

7.8 The Council has developed a policy for the calculation of ‘Off-site’ Contributions where the ‘cost’ of providing affordable housing is assessed and a monetary contribution is made.

82 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

8. CIL Contributions – Commercial

8.1 CIL applies to all development types and not just residential development, therefore, this chapter considers the impact of such a charge may have on the viability of non-residential development.

8.2 Economic development is the priority for the Council so the County Durham Plan provides a comprehensive suite of policies to enable business to thrive in the County and to attract new inward investment. Historically the Council have supported investment by the now defunct Regional Development Agency and are supportive of the LEP providing direct assistance (financial and other) to allow the development of employment space.

8.3 In order to develop policies around the payment of CIL the Council needs to gather an evidence base to assess the requirements for the Levy. At this stage we are not considering the amount at which CIL should be set, we are however looking at what amounts of CIL may be afforded by developers whilst still allowing a scheme to make a profit. This is an important point to make as the guidance is clear, stating that it is for the Council to strike the balance between raising money for infrastructure and deterring development – bearing in mind that the lack of infrastructure may, in itself, prevent development coming forward.

8.4 In the previous chapters the price and cost data were used to test the affordable housing target and were used to calculate the Additional Profit for each of the modelled residential developments. Very little similar viability work has been carried out in relation to commercial property in the County Durham area in the past so in much of this work we have started at first principals.

Issues to consider

8.5 Just as for residential development, the viability of commercial development can be calculated from the value of the product (rental or capital) set against the cost of delivery (land, construction, fees, interest and developers’ reasonable profit). It is therefore necessary to assess property market conditions to provide a reasonable guide as to likely values to use in evaluating different development proposals.

8.6 Having considered the guidance, the Council’s requirements and the local market, we believe that the most appropriate way forward is through developing a limited number of modelled site typologies that are representative of the commercial development in the area, and then assessing whether or not the development of those sites generates an ‘additional profit’.

8.7 As in the previous chapters, Additional Profit is the amount of profit over and above the normal profit made by the developers having purchased the land, developed the site and sold the units. This is calculated through completing an appraisal. CIL can be paid out of this additional profit.

83 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

8.8 Although development schemes do have similarities, every scheme is unique, even schemes on neighbouring sites. While market conditions in general will broadly reflect a combination of national economic circumstances and local supply/demand factors, even within a town there will be particular localities, and ultimately site specific factors that generate different values and costs. There are indeed quite significant value variations in different parts of the study area – however the values of commercial property across County Durham are remarkably consistent.

Differential Rates of CIL

8.9 As set out in Chapter 1 the CIL Regulations permit Charging Authorities to charge CIL at different rate for different geographical areas and for types of development. The CIL Guidance is clear that if a Charging Authority is deicide to introduce differential rates then that decision must be firmly based in evidence so an important part of this study is to establish whether or not there is evidence to support differential rates. There is some uncertainty as to what precisely constitutes a differential rate. In this study we have taken the CIL Regulations and Guidance on face value. The CIL Regulations and Guidance do not specifically permit or prohibit any development types to be divided and differential rates applied. In several areas, differential rates within a sector (such as retail) have been approved by CIL examiners.

8.10 There have been some attempts to link the CIL Charges to Planning Use Classes. We do not believe that it was ever the intention in the CIL Regulations to make such a rigid link and such a link is not a logical one to make. By way of example, B1 includes both light industrial workshops and high quality offices. These uses are clearly different both in terms of physical characteristics, the way they are used and the development economics behind each. If there is clear evidence that one type of development can bear CIL then it is only right that CIL should be charged so as to ensure that the infrastructure required to support that development is provided. Equally, a town centre or neighbourhood shop is quite different from a large out of town ‘hypermarket’, not just in scale but also in user, configuration, provision of parking and use.

Development typologies

8.11 For the purpose of this Study we have assessed a number of development types. In considering the types of development to assess we have sought to include those types of development that are likely to come forward in the short to medium term. The predominant type of development will be residential development; the County Durham Plan is seeking to deliver about 1,110 units per year which equates very approximately to about 100,000 m 2 of new residential space per year. By comparison little non-residential development is being undertaken at the moment, it is clear from the amounts of planning applications being received that residential development is, currently, the main type of development coming forward in the County.

84 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

8.12 This is important as the legislation requires the charging authority to use 'appropriate available evidence '. This is stressed in the guidance. It is not necessary to test every type of development that may occur in the district for every situation. This was confirmed by the Examiner who conducted the Shropshire CIL Examination. It is important to remember that this assessment is looking at the ability of new projects to bear an element of CIL – it is only therefore necessary to look at the main types of development likely to come forward in the future.

Employment uses

8.13 For the purpose of this study we have assessed the following types of space:

i. Large offices . These are more than 250 m 2, will be of steel frame construction, be over several floors and will be located on larger business parks. Larger offices are the more common office development in County Durham. Specific examples include Mandale at Belmont (close to Durham City), built out in 2008, or at Seaham on the Spectrum Park, built on designated Enterprise Zones in the 2000s. Little development is happening in this sector at present. ii. Small offices . Modern offices of less than 250 m 2. These will normally be built of block and brick, will be of an open design and be on a market town edge or in a more rural situation. There are no recent examples of this type of office in County Durham. However, the County Durham Employment Land Review completed in (2012) states that there may be a requirement in the future for smaller office space, the ELR states that it is understood that there may be some demand for a more localised level of demand. iii. Large industrial . Modern industrial units of over 500 m 2. Typical larger units in the County are around 1,500 m 2 – we will use this as the basis of our modelling. We have included logistics ‘sheds’ under this heading due to their relatively similar built form. There is relatively little new space being constructed. iv. Small industrial . Modern industrial units of less than 500 m 2. These will normally be on a small business park and be of simple steel frame construction, the walls will be of block work and insulated cladding and there will be a small office area. There are very few examples of small industrial units being built in County Durham. However, typical small units elsewhere in the country are around 200 m 2. We will use this as the basis of our modelling.

8.14 In developing these typologies we have made assumptions about the site coverage and density of development on the sites. We have assumed 66% coverage on the large industrial sites and 60% coverage on the small industrial and large offices, and on the small offices we have assumed 50% coverage. On the offices we have assumed two story construction.

8.15 Rural commercial conversions . Over the last 15 or so years there have some schemes of high quality conversions in the countryside such as Lambton Park near Chester-le-Street.

85 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

Many of these schemes have been of high quality offices and workshops in traditional farm buildings that are no longer required for agricultural purposes. The buildings are often of high historical value and of high importance to the landscape. Having said this there has also been a trend in the increasing number of ‘modern’ farm buildings being converted to non-agricultural uses. These ‘modern’ buildings are typically steel or concrete portal framed and were built in the second half of the twentieth century.

8.16 We have not included rural commercial conversions into employment space in this appraisal, as these schemes are rare. In addition, historically, they have often been subsidised and on the whole we do not believe that they are viable, when measured against the conventional criteria, without subsidy. Therefore they would not be able to bear an element of CIL.

Agricultural

8.17 County Durham is largely rural (by land use area). Agriculture is a significant land use in the area. We are advised by the Council officers that relatively few agricultural applications have come forward recently and there is no current reason to believe that this should change in the short to medium term. Agriculture has, for many years been treated as a special case in planning terms, with much development being outside the planning system. Those agricultural schemes that do go ahead tend to be minor and under the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) which allows buildings of up to 465 m 2 but subject to various conditions.

8.18 There has been a general move towards farm diversification. These are for a wide variety of uses in both the agricultural and non-agricultural sectors. This is strongly encouraged in policy. We recommend that applications that are submitted for diversification projects that fall outside strict agricultural use permitted by the GPDO should be assessed for CIL under the appropriate schedule – i.e. industrial, office or leisure etc.

8.19 We do not believe that it is necessary to carry out further viability testing of agricultural development at this stage. However if there is a change in the pattern of development or policy this should be coved in a future review of the charging schedule.

Hotels and Leisure

8.20 The visitor economy is an important part of the County Durham economy, worth over £659m a year and consistently sustains around 10,682 Full Time Equivalent jobs. But there remains a great deal of untapped potential. There are approximately 70 regionally, nationally and internationally recognisable visitor attractions in the County. The most visited are Durham Cathedral and Beamish Museum and other attractions with significant visitor numbers include Locomotion, Hamsterley Forest, World Heritage Visitor Centre, Durham County Cricket Club, Adventure Valley, The Bowes Museum, High Force, Tweddle Farm, the DLI, Raby Castle, Botanic Gardens and Barnard Castle. The County also boasts a number of historic townscapes as well as local and national walking, cycling and riding routes which link beyond County Durham's borders.

86 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

8.21 However, there is very little activity in this sector at the moment, either at the planning stage or the construction stage. This is an indication that development in this sector is at the margins of viability at the moment. New tourist attractions will be directed to accessible and sustainable locations such as Durham City in the first instance in order to address the need to develop the tourism offer in the County and encourage visitors to stay longer. Where appropriate tourism development is outside accessible locations it will be focused on the conversion of existing buildings and developments that contribute to rural diversification, enjoyment of the countryside and access to heritage. Officers anticipate that where new development for accommodation will come forward it will be as a result of change of use applications rather than new build and therefore not liable for CIL in most instances.

8.22 Having considered this further, we have assessed tourist accommodation only. Specifically, we have assessed a new build modern ‘roadside’ hotel (i.e. Travelodge, Premier Inn etc.) on a town edge site. CIL is only chargeable on additional net floorspace of development. We have assumed that this is a 60 bedroom product with ample car parking on a 0.4 ha (1 acre) site.

Residential Institution/Community/Institutional

8.23 We have debated with the Council whether to examine residential institutions in detail. This sector includes residential care homes and residential schools. We do not believe that it is viable to levy CIL on this sector at the moment. We have undertaken some market research that has revealed values of less than £1,000/m 2. Generally we do not believe that these are sufficient to sustain the additional costs of CIL – bearing in mind construction costs of in excess of £1,000 /m 2 (plus fees, contingency, developers profit, finance and land).

8.24 We recommend that this is kept under review and revisited when the charging schedule is reviewed.

8.25 We have considered the development of student halls as specific development type as the council has seen a number of such applications due to the continued success of Durham University. We have modelled a scheme on a brownfield site in Durham City, being the most likely situation for projects to be proposed. We have assumed a 175 student letting rooms at 20m 2 each with 35% circulation space on a 0.3ha site.

8.26 Under this heading we have also considered village halls. These can be considered as community as well as leisure buildings. We do not believe that there is scope to charge CIL on this type of development as whilst they are often over 100 m 2 they are rarely viable in purely commercial terms. The development of village halls is normally subject to grant funding – from a wide variety of sources. The Council has undertaken a major community buildings review and it has found that it is impossible for the Council to continue investing in all community buildings. The Council have acknowledged funding gaps in their community building programme in their Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

8.27 This use includes development used for the provision of any medical or health services and development used wholly or mainly for the provision of education as a school or college

87 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

under the Education Acts or as an institution of higher education. The majority of development in this sector is mainly brought forward by the public sector or by not-for profit organisations – many of which have charitable status (thus making then potentially exempt from CIL). The Council is keen to promote and encourage these uses and so has decided not to levy CIL on these types of development.

Retail

8.28 For the purpose of this study we have assessed the following types of space. It is important to remember that this assessment is looking at the ability of new projects to bear an element of CIL – it is only therefore necessary to look at the main types of development likely to come forward in the future

i. Large retail is a single storey retail unit development with a gross (i.e. GIA) area of 4,000 m 2. It was assumed to require 400 car parking spaces, and to occupy a total site area of 2.6 ha. The building is taken to be of steel construction. Alternative assessments were provided for Food and for Bulky Goods; however the physical characteristics were identical. The development was modelled alternatively on Greenfield and Previously Developed sites. We have assumed simple single story construction and have assumed there are no mezzanine floors. ii. Smaller retail is a single storey development of 1,000 m 2 (10,760 sqft) retail area. A total of 75 car parking spaces being provided, on a total site area of 0.45 ha. The building is of steel framed construction. The development was modelled alternatively on Greenfield and Previously Developed sites. iii. Town Centre Shop is a brick built development on two storeys, of 150 m 2. No car parking or loading space was allowed for, and the total site area (effectively the building footprint) was 0.017 ha. A debate had taken place as to whether or not to assess town centre retail. The sector is in a very poor state, there are numerous empty shops on almost all of the County’s high streets and virtually no development being carried out at the time of this study. After much consideration it was decided to assess this development type but to take a very cautious view of rents to reflect the lack of demand in this sector. 8.29 In line with the Guidance we have only assessed developments of over 100 m 2. There are of course, other types of retail development such as small single farm shops, petrol filling stations and garden centres. We have not included these in this high level study due to the great diversity of project that may arise. There is a range of uses in between and some cross over. Supermarkets sell more than just food, and retailers such as Boots and Gap now trade from non-traditional, out of town sites. The viability of such developments will vary depending on their individual characteristics.

8.30 This range of uses was presented to the development industry during the consultation process and there was an agreement that whilst very little non-residential development was taking place in the County that this mix was representative of that that was likely to come

88 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

forward – although after the event and informed by discussions with development control officers student accommodation was added.

The commercial property market

8.31 We have surveyed the commercial property market. We had expected to find a number of distinct market areas that broadly correspond to the zones used in the earlier part of this report in relation to housing. The overwhelming characteristic of the commercial property market is that little is happening and almost no development is being completed at the moment, there is a significant amount of relatively modern space that is empty and that is available for letting. There are three exceptions to this; the development of large supermarkets, the development of student halls (associated with Durham University) and the development of roadside hotels.

8.32 The DCC area, in terms of the commercial property market, is strongly influenced by the Tyne & Wear and Tees Valley conurbations and also by the important transport links, particularly the A1(M) running north / south through the County and the East Coast Main Line that has stops at Durham City and Chester-le-Street.

8.33 There are three main commercial markets within County Durham:

• The northern and north-eastern areas that look towards Newcastle and Sunderland • The central area around Durham City. This extends to the south west towards Spennymoor and includes Bishops Auckland • The south eastern areas that looks towards Darlington and the Tees Valley 8.34 Additionally the market towns such as Barnard Castle, Stanhope, Wolsingham are local service centres with their own markets serving local businesses. There is considerable overlap between these markets and they certainly do not have clear and defined boundaries.

Employment Market

8.35 With regard to purely employment land (B use class uses), The Employment Land Review (ELR 2012) identifies a number of functional economic market areas across County Durham which reflect local commercial markets. These markets areas are:

• Durham City • Consett and Surrounds • A1 Corridor • Bishop Auckland • A19 Corridor 8.36 Durham City and the surrounding area is viewed as the County's pre-eminent office location and consultation with agents and developers through the ELR identified this area as offering potential for future growth. In the past, a lack of city centre development sites has been key

89 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

in constraining development and, unlike many cities, Durham City does not have a clearly defined Central Business District.

8.37 The A1 Corridor stretches the length of the County from Chester-le-Street in the north to Newton Aycliffe in the south. It covers the area immediately accessible to the A1 and its attractiveness as an office and industrial location is linked to its proximity to the strategic road network. The ELR identified this as a strong market area within the County where the level of demand is likely to be highest. Chester-le-Street is identified in the ELR as a key location for warehousing and distribution building on the success and take up of Drum Industrial Estate. Newton Aycliffe Industrial Estate is one of the largest industrial estates in the region. Following the announcement that the Government were to proceed with the Intercity Express Programme Hitachi, a major train manufacturing firm, have confirmed that their preferred site for train manufacture and assembly plant is Amazon Park in Newton Aycliffe.

8.38 Various sources of market information have been analysed and there is relatively little difference in rents and values across the county, however after consideration of the findings of the employment land review and consultation with stakeholders, we decided to follow the same market areas as for the Residential market being a core area around Durham City and Chester Le Street, then the remainder of the County.

8.39 The principle sources of market information used was that that held by local agents, research published by national agents, and through the Estates Gazette’s EGI database. Over 80% of the commercial property that we identified as being available was for rent rather than for sale. Appendix 7 includes a schedule of commercial space that is currently available in and close to the area. Much of this commercial space is ‘second-hand’ and not of the configuration, type and condition of new space that may come forward in the future and be subject to CIL. It is therefore likely to command a lesser rent than new property in a convenient well accessed location with car parking and that is well suited to the modern business environment – although large vacant spaces do influence the rents in the remainder of the market.

The Retail Market

8.40 In considering retail rents for large units we have drawn on a variety of sources. For supermarkets we have referred in particular to appraisals submitted by developers in the course of planning negotiations. There are a number of large, relatively modern non-food retail units that are vacant and available around the County at modest rents. In this study we are concerned with new properties and development so have assumed have assumed a rent of £140/m 2.

8.41 The rents for town centre shops vary greatly – to the extent that where there are vacant shops the owners are willing to make them available to occupiers on very advantageous terms, including rent free for extended periods 21 . There is evidence of historic rents and the very best locations achieving rents of up to £300/m2 in central Durham and around £200/m 2

21 This is partially due to the requirement for landlords to pay business rates on empty properties.

90 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

in the market towns – however these are not now the norm. The norm is for rents to be at a little over half these levels so this is what we have assumed in this study.

8.42 With this in mind we have used the following rents in reaching our views about commercial capital values:

Table 8.1. Typical rents by sub-area £/m 2/year

Durham City / Wider County

Chester Le Street Durham Large industrial 50 40 Small industrial 70 60 Large office 125 110 Small office 140 100 Large retail (4,000m 2) 140 140 Smaller retail (1,000m 2) 140 140 Shops (150m 2) 160 120 Source: HDH 2012

8.43 Through analysing the available rental space and the space for sale we have formed a view as to the capital value of industrial and office space. In capitalising the rents we have assumed a yield of 8% (a Year’s Purchase of 12.5)22 . We acknowledge that the yield will vary from property to property and will depend on the terms of the lease and the standing of the tenant, however, we believe that this a fair figure across the market – a large unit let to a sound company will be perceived to be a better investment by the market so will attract lower yields.

8.44 There are several exceptions to these. For the large industrial and office space, which we have identified as being more attractive to institutional investors we have assumed a lower yield of 6.5% (Year’s Purchase of 15.4). We have also assumed a yield of 11% (Year’s Purchase of 9) for small retail as there is not an established market in this asset class amongst investors.

8.45 The valuation of large supermarkets is a difficult subject to address in a broad brush and high level study like this one as there are relatively few transaction and they tend to be built by the end user rather than a developer for letting or for sale. We have used a lower yield for supermarkets (ie large food retail) of 5% (Years Purchase of 20) based on the figures appraisals submitted by developers in connection with planning applications. This is a cautious view as the developers actually based their appraisals on a yield of 4.25% (Years Purchase of 22.2) which results in a 10% increase in value.

22 The capitalisation of rents using the yields and Year’s Purchase is widely used by Chartered Surveys and others. The Year’s Purchase is the factor by which the rent is multiplied to calculate the capital value (1/ yield x rent = value).

91 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

Table 8.2 Capitalised typical rents by sub-area area £/m 2

Durham City / Wider County Chester Le Street Durham Large industrial 769 615 Small industrial 875 750 Large office 1,923 1,692 Small office 1,750 1,250 Large retail (4,000m 2) 2,800 2,800 Smaller retail (1,000m 2) 2,154 2,154 Shops (150m 2) 1,455 1,091 Source: HDH 2012

Price assumptions for financial appraisals

8.46 Inevitably the data in Tables 8.1 and 8.2 does not match perfectly with the asking prices of properties in the market. We have therefore looked at further sources of information and consulted with developers to produce the following results that we have used in our appraisals:

Table 8.3 Typical values by sub area £/m 2

Durham City / Wider County Chester Le Street Durham Large industrial 750 600 Small industrial 850 750 Large office 1,700 1,500 Small office 1,700 1,250 Large retail (4,000m 2) 2,800 Smaller retail (1,000m 2) 2,150 Shops (150m 2) 1,500 1,100 Source: HDH 2012

8.47 As well as the above development types we have assumed a rental of £3,750 / room per year for a budget hotel to apply across the area. Assuming a yield of 6.5% this equates to a value of about £2,150 /m 2.

8.48 For student accommodation a gross annual rental income of £5,000/ room is typical. We have adjusted to reflect the services provided by the provider and assumed a net income of £3,000/room. This has been capitalised at 6.5% to give an value of £2,225.m 2.

92 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

Land values

8.49 In order to assess development viability it is necessary to analyse current land values. We have used the data set out in Chapter 4 of this report. In all cases we have assumed £25,000/ha for greenfield sites and £300,000 /ha for brownfield sites. We have included a single shop in the appraisal. As this is most likely to be in a town centre we have used a land value of £1,000,000 /ha – although it should be noted that this equates to a site costs of about £40,000 due to the small site size.

8.50 In line with the residential work we have assumed that the landowners will seek an uplift of 20% over the existing use value and that the owners of greenfield sites (farmland and paddocks) will seek a further additional £250,000 /ha.

Cost assumptions for viability analysis

8.51 The costs associated with a development need to be considered so that they can feed into the financial appraisals. These are summarised below and follow the assumptions used in the residential sections of this report. Paragraph 173 of the NPPF requires:

Therefore, the sites and the scale of development identified in the plan should not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened. To ensure viability, the costs of any requirements likely to be applied to development, such as requirements for affordable housing, standards, infrastructure contributions or other requirements should, when taking account of the normal cost of development and mitigation, provide competitive returns to a willing land owner and willing developer to enable the development to be deliverable.

8.52 The Council requires all development within the County to be of a high standard and to be appropriate for the area in terms of design, scale and situation. However the Council does not have any requirements that are equivalent to the provision of affordable housing or higher environmental standards than those required by national legislation or regulations so there are no specific policies that require viability testing. We have briefly considered the councils land allocation policies for employment uses, particularly as to where there is a constrained land supply that may result in increased land prices and thus an adverse impact on development viability. There are large amounts of brownfield land awaiting development and the council has further greenfield land allocated for non-residential development so we have concluded that no viability testing is required in relation to the Council’s non-residential development polices.

8.53 We have again used the published information from BCIS. The costs are specific to different built forms (office types, shop types etc.). On the basis of these cost figures, it is possible to draw up appropriate cost levels for constructing new build employment space in County Durham. The following have been used:

93 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

Table 8.4 Build Costs - BCIS Base Cost £/m 2

Large industrial 529 Small industrial 725 Large office 963 Small office 963 Large retail 1,107 Small retail 889 Shop 610 Leisure (hotel) 950 Student Accommodation 1,131 Source: BCIS April 2012

8.54 We have given careful consideration as to the costs of achieving higher environmental performance (as defined by BREEAM) – particularly through reference to the BRE / Cyril Sweett research reported in their publication ‘ Putting a Price on Sustainability’ . Considerable improvements can be made through design, some of which actually reduce the cost of delivery (i.e. substituting air conditioning with natural ventilation). We have therefore not made further adjustments to the BCIS figures quoted above.

8.55 In addition to the build cost figures described above, allowance needs to be made for a range of infrastructure costs – roads, drainage and services within the site; parking, footpaths, landscaping and other external costs; offsite costs for drainage and other services, and so on. Many of these items will depend on individual site circumstances, and can only properly be estimated following a detailed assessment of each site. We made an allowance of 15% of build costs for each scheme to cover infrastructure costs.

8.56 In some cases where the site involves redevelopment of land which was previously developed, there is the potential for abnormal costs to be incurred. Abnormal development costs might include demolition of substantial existing structures; piling or flood prevention measures at waterside locations; remediation of any land contamination; remodelling of land levels, and so on. We have run a scenario where the site is on previously developed land. With this variable we have increased the costs by an additional 15% cost.

8.57 We have assumed professional fees amount to 8% of build costs, in each case.

8.58 For previously undeveloped and otherwise straightforward sites, we would normally allow a contingency of 2.5%, with a higher figure of 5% on more risky brownfield types of development.

8.59 For simplicity it has been assumed throughout, as with most financial appraisals, that either VAT does not arise, or its effect can be ignored.

94 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

8.60 Our appraisals assume 7% pa for interest on outgoings. In line with the ‘high level’ nature of this study we have used the developer’s rule of thumb to calculate the interest – being the amount due over one year on half the total cost. We accept that is a simplification, however due to the high level and broad brush nature of this analysis, that it is appropriate.

8.61 The appraisals are assumed to have been prepared using prices and costs at a base date of April 2012, with an immediate start on site. A pre-construction period of three months is assumed. Each unit is assumed to be built over a nine month period.

8.62 Each site is assumed to proceed immediately and so, other than interest on the site cost during construction, there is no allowance for holding costs, or indeed income arising from the ownership of the site.

8.63 Acquisition costs include stamp duty at 4% on site values of £0.5 million and above (reduced below this level), together with an allowance of 1.5% for acquisition agents’ and legal fees.

Results

8.64 Having assimilated the information as described above individual site appraisals have been run for the different site typologies in the different areas. The appraisals are included in Appendix 8 and the results are summarised in the table below:

95 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

Table 8.5 Appraisal Results showing Additional Profit and Approximate Residual Value - Greenfield

Large Small Large Retail Smaller Large Office Small Office Shop Industrial Industrial Food Retail Durham / Chester Le Street

Additional Profit -261,415 -97,759 8,296 -13,240 2,509,066 421,486

Residual Land Worth (APPROX) -221,245 -86,299 24,046 -3,265 3,374,566 577,486

Wider Durham

Additional Profit -473,935 -117,497 -87,852 -78,140 2,509,066 421,486

Residual Land Worth (APPROX) -436,735 -105,641 -72,102 -68,165 3,374,566 577,486

Source: HDH 2012

96 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

Table 8.6 Appraisal Results showing Additional Profit and Approximate Residual Value - Brownfield

Large Small Large Retail Smaller Large Office Small Office Shop Industrial Industrial Food Retail Durham / Chester Le Street

Additional Profit -443,528 -130,803 -100,860 -45,987 1,413,943 204,393 -26,529

Residual Land Worth (APPROX) -400,388 -118,983 -84,360 -35,787 2,357,443 373,893 21,771

Wider Durham

Additional Profit -655,701 -150,587 -197,008 -110,887 1,413,943 204,393 -84,218

Residual Land Worth (APPROX) -615,801 -138,335 -180,508 -100,687 2,357,443 373,893 -35,918

Source: HDH 2012

8.65 In addition to the above we calculated the additional profit for a roadside hotel to be £649,000 on a greenfield site and £433,000 on a brownfield site and the additional profit for student halls to be £318,000.

8.66 The above results largely reflect the difficult state of the property sector and the situation within County Durham with little development happening (because it is not attractive to do so). It is however apparent that some types of development do generate some positive values. In order to make meaningful comparisons, and to reflect the CIL guidance, the additional profit figures need to be converted to a £/m 2 charge basis. The resulting figures, set out in the following two tables, then show a potential level of CIL charge.

97 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

Table 8.7 Appraisal Results showing potential maximum CIL payment £/m 2

Large Small Large Retail Smaller Large Office Small Office Shop Industrial Industrial Food Food Retail Greenfield

-174 -489 17 -88 627 421 Durham / Chester Le Street

-316 -587 -176 -521 627 421 Wider Durham

Brownfield

-296 -654 -202 -307 353 204 -177 Durham / Chester Le Street

-437 -753 -394 -739 353 204 -561 Wider Durham Source: HDH 2012

8.67 The large office sector in the core area could sustain a low level of CIL however as many of the sites that have come forward historically have been subsidised to some extent we would urge caution. There is scope to introduce CIL in the larger retail sector – that is to say outside the town centre shops. The aim of the retail policy in the County Durham Plan will be to direct large food retail to the areas of need and to our main settlements. The retail study (2010) shows there is a need for large food retail in Durham City, Spennymoor and smaller stores in Crook and Ferryhill.

8.68 Additionally we found that typical budget hotel development could bear a maximum of £400 /m 2 on greenfield sites and up to £267 /m 2 on brownfield sites. The equivalent figure for student halls is £88 /m2.

98 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

Conclusions

8.69 As with the residential analysis in the previous chapter we take this opportunity to stress that we are not suggesting that CIL is set at these rates. The above analysis shows the maximum amount of CIL that these modelled developments can bear. This information is an important element of the evidence for setting CIL but is only one part of the evidence the wider context needs to be considered. We do believe that CIL can be levied on large retail, hotel and student halls.

8.70 It is more than likely that CIL may render some sites unviable however it is unlikely that the introduction of CIL on these development types would put the Development Plan at ‘ serious risk ’23 .

23 See paragraph 10 of the CIL Guidance

Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

9. Conclusions and Recommendation

9.1 The purpose of this study is twofold. Firstly it is to inform the preparation of the County Durham Plan and ensure that the affordable housing target is broadly deliverable. Secondly, it is to assess the effect that the introduction of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) may have on the viability of development. The findings in this report will be used, with other evidence, to develop planning policies and to set the level of CIL. The findings of this report will not determine policy on their own – but will inform its development.

9.2 The ability of a site to deliver affordable housing and to make a contribution to CIL are closely linked as they are both a cost to the developer. These two requirements (and any other requirements imposed on a developer) need to be considered together.

Affordable Housing Target

9.3 At the start of this report we set out the SHMA ‘affordable option ’, being the amount of affordable housing that has been assessed as being required to meet the identified need and was set taking into account a wide range of factors in each of the County’s 5 delivery areas. In Chapter 3, we considered the introduction of flexible tenancies and most significantly, the introduction of Affordable Rent as the new type of affordable housing which has the potential to cross-subsidise more affordable housing. We also considered (but made no allowance for in the financial appraisals) the impact of social re-lets and grant funding.

9.4 We established in Chapter 4, using a variety of techniques, including extensive stakeholder consultation, that there are two 2 major, distinct, housing market areas in County Durham with a particular premium for Durham City properties. Most of County Durham has an unusually complex housing market with great differences in not only housing type but also price from settlement to settlement and even from road to road and sub-area to sub-area within a settlement. This is largely a consequence of the different agricultural and industrial histories. Rather than attempt to accurately map this complicated and diverse market it was decided to consider two broad areas:

a. Durham City and Chester-le-Street core area being the higher value and most economically vibrant area of the County.

b. County Durham area being most of the County but excluding Durham and Chester-le- Street.

9.5 Within the County there are several areas with failing housing markets that have been designated a Housing Market Renewal (HMR) areas. These areas require external intervention due to the poor property market so subsequently were not considered in detail in this study – they are unviable.

9.6 These Zones are summarised in Figure 4.7 above which is copied below.

101 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

Figure 9.1 DCC Potential Viability Zones

Source: DCC 2012

9.7 In Chapter 6, the viability results backed up these assumptions on market areas with sites in the Durham City and Chester-le-Street area being different and more viable than sites across County Durham – although there are pockets of high value and viability in the County Durham Area.

9.8 We calculated residual values for a range of representative modelled sites under a range of scenarios, and then compared the residual values with the value of the land in an alternative use (one that does not require a planning consent) plus an uplift for the landowner (the ‘viability threshold’). This allowed us to assess whether the sites were viable or not.

9.9 It was found that if developers were required to deliver the SHMA ‘affordable option’ targets for affordable housing then many sites would not be viable. In order to assess what may be a reasonable 24 affordable housing target, we then ran appraisals against a range of lower affordable housing targets that demonstrated that sites became more viable when the affordable housing percentage was reduced to 10% or 15%.

24 In the context of Paragraph 173 of the NPPF

102 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

9.10 Due to a lack of data for West Durham we used a large degree of professional judgement to set a higher target of 25% 25 . This target was backed up by a recent planning approval at High Rigg, Barnard Castle where the developer agreed to provide 30% affordable housing on a site of 100 dwellings. For Central Durham, viability evidence demonstrated that a target of 20% was reasonable. Based on the evidence (including consultations with developers) we recommend the following lower affordable housing targets for the 5 delivery areas in the County Durham Plan.

North Durham 15%

South Durham 15%

West Durham 25%

Central Durham 20%

East Durham 10%.

9.11 For the sake of clarity these targets will not be able to be sustained within the HMR areas in the current market. The Council may consider setting a zero requirement within these areas or, alternatively, may decide to maintain the targets and then negotiate with developers on a site by site basis. If this second course is taken it should be recognised that it is most likely that grant or subsidy will be required.

Affordable Housing Threshold

9.12 In Chapter 7 we considered the site size threshold that should be set for the provision of affordable housing. It was considered that there is scope to reduce the affordable housing threshold from the current level of 15 to 5 across the whole of the County. However, we also saw that smaller sites were more vulnerable to a downturn in the market.

9.13 The Council have a well developed policy to enable developers to pay a commuted sum / make an off-site contribution rather than provide all the required affordable housing on the development site. This policy enables a financial contribution to be made towards the provision of affordable housing where delivery on site may not be practical.

Community Infrastructure Levy

9.14 In Chapter 6 we analysed the potential for introducing CIL in conjunction with affordable housing targets. It is important to note that the results of the analysis calculates the additional profit. The setting of CIL is informed by viability evidence of the type in this report but the Council should also have regard to a range of other factors when determining the level of CIL and will ultimately have to weigh up the evidence and strike the balance between

25 Such an approach is supported by the CIL Regulations and NPPF which suggests the use of ‘existing available evidence’.

103 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

deterring development through imposing a charge that renders development unviable and development being restricted through the lack of infrastructure.

9.15 CIL is mandatory once it has been implemented – whereas the requirements to provide affordable housing can be subject to negotiation through the s106 framework. This means that it is necessary to take a cautious view and ensure that most sites can bear the charge.

9.16 The analysis found in the County Durham Area, at the 15% affordable housing target, that of the viable sites, the two poorest performing generate an additional profit of just over £50/m 2. Bearing in mind the uncertainty of the market, the comments of the development industry, it is felt that a low flat CIL charge of approximately £20 /m2 would have little adverse effect on the delivery of housing and would not put the County Durham Plan at serious risk 26 .

9.17 This CIL rate would equate to about 2% of construction costs and be less than £2,000 per unit. A charge at this level would be similar to the amount currently collected through s106.

9.18 When analysing results from the Durham City and Chester-le-Street area at the 20% affordable housing target there is sufficient viability to generate significantly higher levels of additional profit and therefore more scope to charge a higher rate of CIL. Again it is prudent to take a cautious view and our recommendation is a rate of £80 /m2 for residential properties in this area.

9.19 Within this area there is a sub-area that contains the potential strategic urban extensions around the northern sides of Durham City. The Council is seeking to allocate these strategic sites and their delivery is at the core of the County Durham Plan, both in terms of housing numbers but also to meet its wider objectives of increasing the size and economic activity of Durham City. The development of these sites is dependent on several very large site specific items of infrastructure – in particular, two relief roads without which the development cannot proceed.

9.20 These sites are located in the County’s best market area and our evidence supports a much higher CIL rate of over £200 per m 2 in this location because of the considerable uplift in land value that is likely to be generated on these strategic sites. We do however recognise the broad brush nature of this work and in setting CIL recommend that the Council also considers the site specific development appraisals that have been prepared for the actual development sites.

9.21 It is quite clear from the analysis that we have undertaken, and that has been tested with stakeholders, that there is scope for residential development in County Durham to bear an element of affordable housing and CIL but we believe there is a high likelihood that a high level of CIL in most of County Durham would deter development. We believe the affordable housing targets set are broadly deliverable and do not put the development plan at risk as they seek to provide the correct balance between need and viability.

26 The CIL examiner’s task is to assess whether the Development Plan is put at serious risk and not to question how the Council has stuck the balance as required by CIL Regulation 14.

104 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. September 2012

9.22 When considering CIL on non-residential development it is important to not only consider the results of the viability analysis but also the reality of the development market which is in a very constrained state due to on-going recession. Based on the viability evidence we do not believe there is scope to charge CIL on the employment uses (office and industrial) in the current market. Similarly there is not scope to charge CIL on the town centre retail development.

9.23 The viability evidence has shown that there is however scope to introduce CIL in relation to large retail development, hotel development and student accommodation – a view that is supported by the fact that development management officers report activity in these three sectors. Again considering the ‘test’ as to whether CIL would put the County Durham Plan at serious risk’ it is recommended that the following rates are considered.

Large Retail (over 1,000m 2) £200/m 2

Hotels £200/m 2

Student Accommodation £50/m 2

9.24 We would recommend that when rates are adopted that they are monitored carefully and in relation to neighbouring authorities and a provision to review the rates is incorporated into the Draft Charging Schedule.

105

APPENDICES

Affordable Housing & CIL Development Viability Study

September 2012

Important Notice

HDH Planning and Development (HDH) is the trading name of RS Drummond-Hay MRICS ACIH.

HDH and officers from Durham County Council (DCC) have prepared this report for the sole use of DCC. The report is jointly authored by HDH and DCC in accordance with the Agreement under which HDH’s services were performed, HDH have lead on some parts of this project and DCC on others. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this report or any other services provided by HDH. This report may not be relied upon by any other party without the prior and express written agreement of RS Drummond-Hay MRICS ACIH.

No part of this report constitutes a valuation and the report should not be relied on in that regard.

RS Drummond-Hay MRICS ACIH trading as HDH Planning and Development Bellgate, Casterton Kirkby Lonsdale Cumbria. LA6 2LF [email protected] 015242 76202 / 07989 975 977

Table of Contents

Appendix 1: Stakeholder Event ...... 3

Feedback from Attendees ...... 3 Workshop 1 - Producing a CIL in Durham ...... 4 Workshop 2 – Charging, Collecting & Spending CIL ...... 10 General concerns, outstanding questions and main issues...... 16

Appendix 2: Historic S106 Payments ...... 19

Appendix 3: Durham County Properties for sale by settlement January 2012 ...... 36

Appendix 4: Land for sale - up to 60 miles from Durham ...... 41

Appendix 5: BCIS Costs ...... 53

Appendix 6: Results of residential price sensitivity appraisals...... 65

Appendix 7: Non-residential Availability ...... 69

Small Offices ...... 69 Large Offices ...... 80 Large Industrial ...... 90 Small Industrial ...... 98 Large Retail 2500m2 plus ...... 104 Small Retail ...... 106 Leisure ...... 109

Appendix 8: Non Residential Appraisals ...... 113

Appendix 9: Base Residential Appraisals ...... 117

Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Appendix 1: Stakeholder Event

Feedback from Attendees

Speakers: Ian Thompson, Stuart Timmiss and Simon Drummond-Hay

Table 1: Robert Bickerton, Graham Pilkington, Steve Willcock, David Stephenson, Richard Hepworth, Amy Hamilton, Paul Graves, Peter Coe

Table 2: Mike Allum, Leo Oliver, Emma Bond, Martin Hawthorne, Joe Ridgeon, Richard Newsome, Bill Naylor, Andrew Carter, Vicky Prendagast

Table 3: Peter Ollivere, Graham Black, Fiona Coleman, Barry Flux, Ben Stubbs, Andy Leadbeater, Maria Ferguson

Table 4: Stephen Reed, Joanne Redshaw, Philip James, Wayne Harris, Chris Harrison, John Redding, Jane Palmer, Ed Thompson

Table 5: Zoë Thirlaway, Maria Antoniou, Justin Hancock, Sarah Jennings, Caroline Strugnell, Sean Wilson, Steve Ragg, Karina Dare

Table 6: Rick Long, David Usher, Kevin Richardson, Ian Prescott, Andrew Sloan, David Brocklehurst, Peter Herbert

Table 7: David Siddle, David Collins, Ed Alder, Gill Hay, Peter Cowen, Victoria Lloyd

Table 8: Thomas Bennett, James Taylor, Peter Jordan, Paul Tanney, Dan Hatcher, Linzi Milley, Ross Smith, Stephen McDonald, Stuart Timmiss.

Table 9: Debbie Shanks, Gareth Neill, Stephen Litherland, Alistair Willis, Gil Telford – Cooke, Steve Jackson, Bryn Morris – Hale

3 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Workshop 1 - Producing a CIL in Durham

Workshop 1 Discussion 1 Viability Appraisal & Affordable Housing Q 1.1: Do the table understand the purpose of viability appraisals? What comments to people have on the viability appraisal inputs? Most delegates understood the purpose of viability appraisals. The majority of delegates agreed there was no other way of setting a CIL charge. However some delegates commented that the viability appraisal is different for every builder and concern was raised that the assumptions were too broad brush and simplistic.

Delegates suggested refining the viability appraisals in the following way: • Developers profit should be 20% of Gross Development Value • It was widely accepted that overheads were not included within the breakdown of Gross Development Value bar chart. Delegates felt that overheads should be included as a development cost not built into developer’s standard profit. • Prelims should also be included however it was explained by a facilitator that the BCIS construction costs cover’s this element. • No allowance has been made in the viability appraisals for finance - It should be 4.25% • Marketing Costs viewed as too low. • General CIL areas and therefore the viability appraisals don’t take account of site by site variables such as abnormals. It was felt that abnormal costs of around 10% of Total Development Cost should be applied to Brownfield sites. • In terms of phasing (assumptions are made at 12 units per Qtr = 48 per annum) House builders commented that 35 units per annum is a more realistic build out rate.

HCA tool kit was suggested as a good reference point for establishing percentages/appraisal assumptions.

DCC would comment that developer’s overheads and finance charges are taken into consideration in the viability appraisals.

Q 1.2: How much (£’s per dwelling) do developers receive for Affordable Housing units? Delegates commented that construction fees are near enough 100% of the income received for Affordable Housing units, which is somewhere between £60 and 70k/dwelling.

There was general agreement that the cost of affordable housing is dependant on tenure, and location. Delegates said that the prices received were dependent on an estimated rental value of the property based over 30 year period and this estimate could vary by £10k. It was also dependant on subsidy or grant being available and the builders finish on properties. However, there was general agreement that making a house affordable and handing it over to an RSL was in reality, a reduction of approximately 40% - 50% on open market value (OMV). One delegate commented that roughly £50,000 to £65,000 should be deducted from the OMV

4 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

price.

House builders had many comments on how much they would expect to receive for an affordable home. Some delegates felt that £1,000 per m2 (sales price) was too optimistic but could be achieved in high value areas. It was generally felt that 80% of OMV was too high and a more realistic figure would be 66% OMV.

The general consensus was that a different assumption on value should be made depending on the CIL charging zone/area. Delegates, including RSL reps, planning consultants and house builders gave a range of prices that house builders are receiving from RSLs for affordable units:

• Prices given ranged from £55-75k/per unit • In North Yorkshire (which is probably representative of County Durham’s higher value areas) developers know that they will receive - Hambleton: 2 bed = £65,200; 3 bed = £75,000 and Rydale: 2 bed = £55,000; 3 bed = £65,000. • One house builder cited Chilton as an example of how developers receive less in low market areas - £50k for a 2 bed unit/£60k for a 3 bed unit (£500-£600 per m2) were quoted as being the maximum achieved on a Gleeson Development. • House Builders are receiving around £65 – 68k in other low value areas in east Durham. £68K was generally seen as a realistic sum.

DCC would comment that it is important to note that CIL will not be required on Affordable Units.

Q 1.3: Does the (£’s per dwelling) amount vary depending on AH tenure? Delegates commented that the levels of subsidy and grants are changing. The former level of subsidy that a developer/RSL would get for shared ownership /social rented units would be £25k & 58k respectively. However, the bidding process has now changed; subsidies are significantly reduced to around 25k per unit regardless of whether it is a social rented unit or a shared ownership unit. The government is asking developers and RSL’s to put in more of their own money.

Regarding the government reforms to ‘affordable rent’ RSL’s felt that the rent they receive from tenants on 80% of market rent is not much more than social rent. It may be £90 rather than £70 per week.

Delegates felt house builders would pay a slight premium with an intermediate product. Intermediate units are generally 30% less than OMV where as social rented is 50% less than OMV.

Shared ownership isn’t working in the current market, however delegates felt that the demand for the intermediate affordable property would grow and when it does work, it can allow developers to make some profit. Shared equity or discounted market sale could be the answer for people wanting to buy their own homes. However, there is finance problem as banks will not lend 50% of value of a house for a shared ownership scheme as they see it as too much of a risk. The banks prefer

5 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

discounted affordable units as they can take the property if the owner defaults on payment. The higher risks have therefore driven the value down of the intermediate/shared equity product.

Workshop 1 Discussion 2

Land Prices, Alternative Use Value & Uplift Q 2.1: Do the Alternative Use Values appear realistic? Delegates felt that the big unknown was how much landowners would accept. A reasonable expectation needed to be understood first and some averages would need to be derived. It’s impossible to predict as every site/landowner is different and has different expectations. There are still problems with a number of land owners who have pre 2007 expectations.

Many larger land owners are happy to sit on the land until values are back to these levels. Often landowners don’t work to the timescales of government policy mechanisms so land owners need to be told about CIL and land agents need much more involvement to understand the CIL process.

Generally, Developers thought that the values presented at the event were absolute minimums and that agricultural land values were low even with the uplift.

Delegates felt that different market areas brought with them different land values and land owner expectations. For the purposes of viability appraisals, high and low value areas should have high and low land prices. It is dangerous to assert a land value for a given piece of land on a generic area basis. There are significant differences between Durham City and the rest of the County.

With regard to the AUV for Housing Land (£500K per ha), there was mixed opinion. One view was that it seemed about right as an average across the County whereas another view was that it was too low. Specific comments included;- • House builders would like to buy land at £500k/hectare. • One delegate commented that larger sites of 8 - 12 acres (3-5 ha) have economies of scale so there is a proportionate drop off in price. • Housing Land would be around £840k/ha (with s106 & 30% Affordable). • More like 600k/acre (1500k/ha) gross land value. • In Durham City, £90,000/acre too low to move sites forward, housing land is closer to £2m/ha. • Urban land prices will differ to rural land prices with urban areas displaying overall higher values.

There was mixed opinion about the industrial value. One delegate said that 250k was too high and it should be more like £150K per ha where as other. Delegates felt that the industrial values were low.

Like other uses, agricultural land prices, vary across the County. The AUV for Agriculture was seen to be generous. One delegate commented that £17.5k/ha would be expected rather than £25k/ha. Another delegate said it should be only be £10K/ha. Delegates accepted that raising the agricultural land value would not have much impact on the actual CIL viability appraisals.

6 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

The possibility of an exceptions policy was raised, which would allow for changing the land values set when applications are lodged. If there was no flexibility it would mean more appeals regarding affordable housing being delivered.

Land value goes up with in line with planning application process. Questions were raise around how this would be captured and where the evidence base value would be taken from.

DCC would comment that contributions to AH will still be assessed on a site by site basis (unlike CIL) so each appraisal for AH will be taken on its own merits. The residual land value is being used as a method to set an appropriate CIL rate that does not make sites unviable across an area. The CIL rate in County Durham should not prevent sites from coming forward and DCC will be taking a cautious approach when setting a CIL rate. The land prices proposed to be used in the CIL viability appraisals were taken from the Valuation Office.

Q 2.3: Is the 10% uplift on AUV (EUV) an acceptable incentive? There was very strong opinion that 10% uplift is too low considering current land owner expectations. RICS have published evidence that the uplift value is min 20%. One delegate commented that the 10% uplift was not accepted given AUV figures are incorrect.

Some delegates found it difficult to get to grips with the minimum uplift rationale. Some delegates could also not see any logic or how it applies in real situations.

DCC would comment that the EUV ‘plus some’ has been an accepted method in setting CIL rates i.e. Shropshire and the London Mayor CIL.

Q 2.4: Is the additional uplift (£250K) for agricultural and paddock land reasonable? There was mixed opinion from delegates. Some felt 250k/ha was a reasonable approach while one delegate agreed it should be 10 times agricultural/paddock AUV. Others felt it was too low. One delegate said that £500K per hectare would be more reasonable and should be sufficient incentive for any greenfield land owner. Others felt that 100K/acre was unrealistic given landowner expectations, with uplift the £250k/ha for agriculture and paddock too simplistic an amount. Others felt it was too low and not reflective of landowner expectations.

Workshop 1 Discussion 3 What development types should be exempt or have a reduced CIL? Q 3.1: Should we charge CIL on employment, community, retail and residential uses? Most delegates mentioned the need to encourage economic development and bring jobs to County Durham, where charging for CIL may discourage development. Most delegates were in agreement that Industrial or offices are not appropriate for a CIL (outside Durham City) as they are simply not viable in the current market. A number of delegates pointed out that a

7 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

charge on offices/Industrial would not be appropriate given the incentives and grants that have been given to developers to create employment sites in County Durham in the past such as the ones at Seaham and Consett

Looking at the costs and values presented, most delegates did not think there were sufficiently high values in commercial land other than where the development is for large supermarkets. One delegate commented that large retail needs redefining into Food and Non Food retail. One delegate added that the large retail costs displayed may be too low. It was thought £900 might be a more realistic figure.

Some delegates suggested Large Office developments could be subject to Section 106 agreements where impact to local infrastructure requires enhancement.

One delegate expressed concern that footloose development e.g. supermarkets and hotels may zone in on areas where CIL was at a low rate leading to market distortion.

Delegates suggested that Brownfield sites should be exempt, especially ones with remediation issues. One delegate asked how DCC intended to deal with promoting 'regeneration brownfield' sites when clearly greenfield sites will be far more attractive viability- wise.

DCC would comment that they are exploring the possibility of having an exceptions policy that deals with contaminated brownfield sites. Also, the CIL regulations are clear that CIL will only apply to net additional floor space so brownfield sites with an existing use will not be charged CIL.

Workshop 1 Discussion 4 Housing Market Areas Q 4.1: Do our High & Low housing market areas look right for Durham? The County Durham Market – Delegates were in agreement that the County Durham market is the hardest area in North East to define or zone. As a result, it is a real challenge to set a CIL rate that picked up the nuances in the housing market. A high uniform CIL charge given the proximity of high/low value areas within the broad zones would create anomalies across the County. There are some low value land area’s that will be interspersed within predominantly high value areas. Delegates commented that, within settlements and between settlements, examples in market variation were prevalent throughout County Durham, i.e. Sherburn Road and Neville’s Cross represent two very different market areas within Durham City. The market value areas even change from village to village in some instances i.e. Lanchester and Burnhope.

A Zoned Approach for County Durham - Some delegates felt that due to these complexities CIL should be based on individual settlements. The fact there isn't an obvious 'middle' value area is valuable evidence that a lower/middle/high 'broad brush' approach cannot be used. However, other delegates didn’t want to see a complicated zoning approach used.

8 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

One delegate commented that the Newark CIL charging schedule was too complex as it had too many zones and too many rates, making the charging schedule fairer but complex and harder to understand and use. Another delegate commented that the greater London Mayors CIL was simple, just 3 areas. Another delegate favoured a more uniform approach saying that it has to be equitable to all, not allowing some developers to get away without paying it.

Delegates commented that a problem with setting a low rate across large areas was that local communities would miss out when lucrative development sites came forward. Lucrative greenfield areas are hard to define but they could be dealt with in S106s.

With regard to the high market areas, most delegates agreed that Durham & Chester-le- Street was ok to group together as high value areas but commented with caution that there are much lower value areas close to Durham City & CLS. Most delegates disagreed that Sedgefield & Newton Aycliffe should be classed in the same market area as Durham & CLS. Delegates commented that even the better sites in Newton Aycliffe are middle market at best and certainly not in the ‘same league’ as Durham City. A number of delegates noted that Lanchester is a high value area not picked up in the high value area. One delegate commented that exemptions from CIL would be needed for poor sites in high value areas.

There was a feeling that the west should not be mapped as a high zone. Some delegates thought that having a high CIL in the west could be a deliberate attempt to restrict development. There are real affordability problems in the West with a lack of employment opportunities and a lack of affordable housing. A high CIL would not help the area. A developer commented that Stanhope is not viewed as a high value location and values are much lower in smaller isolated villages. One delegate suggested reducing CIL rates to encourage development in rural areas, to make towns/ villages more sustainable

With regard to the low market areas, one developer commented that there are many areas in which they would not contemplate building. Some delegates thought that Seaham and Peterlee were higher demand areas compared to Bishop Auckland. Some delegates disagreed saying that that the low value eastern area should include Seaham, and all of coastal areas. Others thought the regeneration area should be extended west into Consett. A number of delegates believed that in reality there would need to be exempt areas that have a nil rate.

There was mixed views on whether Strategic sites and Greenbelt releases should sit outside CIL.

There were a number of other suggestions from delegates, on how to move the CIL zoning work forward; • It was suggested that more work was needed on existing values/against new build costs because significant differences occur between new houses for sale and the average existing house price in any given settlement. • It was suggested there could be a mini CIL covering Durham and Chester-le-Street with the aim of releasing greenbelt land around Durham City and supported by continuation of S106 elsewhere in the County. With more flexibility to spend away from the immediate vicinity of development – perhaps in another part of same town. • A sliding scale based on postcode across the broad market areas was proposed.

9 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

• The model of heat mapping on the likes of Zoopla would be a useful model to adapt for the County. • Further analysis should be carried out, possibly building on SHLAA work with the HBF.

There were many points raised in response to this questions and DCC would like to make the following comments on the points raised above: • The HBF are part of the SHLAA partnership, whose evidence has been used when identifying possible CIL charging zones. • The legal tests relating to S106 in circular 05/05 are being tightened. Section 106 payments from developers must be closely tied to the development site, meaning relying on S106 to deliver ‘strategic infrastructure’ is not a feasible long term solution • Enabling development is the priority in the County but contributions on lucrative developments in low value areas could still be subject to Section 106 agreements for site related needs, such as affordable housing or employment and recruitment training • CIL regulations and guidance confirm that CIL rates should be set broadly across an area and must not be set to make individual sites viable or unviable • CIL rates should be passed on viability not policy

Workshop 2 – Charging, Collecting & Spending CIL

Workshop 2 Discussion 1 What CIL rates would be acceptable in County Durham? Q 1.1: What CIL rate do the house builders & developers think is appropriate in different areas of Durham? Delegates expressed the following views on what CIL rate should be applied in County Durham. There were mixed views. • One table agreed that Shropshire figures of £40/m2 for low value housing areas and £80/m2 for high value areas would be appropriate to Durham. Another delegate thought this was too high for County Durham. The Shropshire rate equates to around £4,000 per house. This could, in some cases, remove up to 40% of the land value. This would be too much of a seismic shift to say 40% of land value is CIL tax. • The rates are going to be low compared to those tabled which are mainly Southern authorities. More details are required concerning CIL rates for northern local authorities. • For housing, one group proposed £50/m2 for high value areas with a zero charge for medium and low areas. Higher value areas such as Durham City should in theory be able to sustain £50/m2 or £5000 per unit. It was suggested that Newark and Sherwood had taken the approach to charge nothing on low value areas, which mirrored County Durham’s coalfield areas. • One table suggested a flat rate between £20 – 40/m2, which would give a ballpark figure

10 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

of £2,000 to £4,000 per unit. • £10/m2 was suggested for low value areas as a maximum. Otherwise viability on marginal sites would be seriously affected. • In contrast however, one developer cited an example of a recent S106 on a site in a low value area where the developer’s contribution equated to £8K per unit (including affordable housing contribution). • A question was raised as to whether developers could gift other areas of land from their land bank as a contribution to CIL.

Workshop 2 Discussion 2 When & how should CIL payments be collected? Q 2.1: When should CIL be made payable? In instalments? On completion? Within 60 days. There was a very strong feeling from delegates that CIL payment should definitely not be paid up front i.e. within 60 days of commencement of development. A phased approach would be easier for a developer to cash flow. It was felt that the ‘within 60 days’ option would affect viability, prevent sites coming forward and reduce the provision of affordable housing. It was felt that CIL should be paid before occupation and some money upfront was reasonable.

Instalments Policy. Some delegates commented that instalments needed to be agreed on a site by site basis, dependant on number of units rather than standard unit nos. (e.g. per 20 units completed). It would need to be proportionate to the size of the scheme. It was agreed that we would need a robust and reliable system that had enforceable trigger points. An Instalments Policy was supported by most but concern was raised that you could end up with developers building houses which were only 99sqm to avoid the CIL or building 49 houses instead of 50 to avoid the next instalment. Allowing flexibility would also ensure that mixed use development came forward in a balanced way rather than skewing types of development according to whether CIL was payable or not.

Upon sale of a property. There was some debate as to whether it should be payable on completions or sales. Some delegates asked if payments should be at the point a property was sold, as developers would not need to borrow CIL money up front. It was suggested that payment could be phased on the basis of average instalments or paid per unit completed. It was felt that occupation would make it difficult to enforce. It was suggested that Council taxable properties should be used to determine completion of units or that it should be linked to legal completion of housing sales on sites. On smaller or regeneration schemes payments on the sale of property would be more equitable to builders / developers and would reduce the risk of stifling developments.

On completion of whole scheme. This was seen as a second choice if the option to pay on the sale of each house was not available. It was suggested that on sites of less than 100 dwellings charging should be left until the completion of the whole development. But it was highlighted that there would be little incentive to finish the last house.

Site specific infrastructure. Where the levy was supporting site specific infrastructure requirements, such as flood risk mitigation or extra highway capacity then it would be

11 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

important to ensure this work was carried out at an appropriate point of development and the money would be guaranteed.

Delegates thought that monitoring and enforcement needed tightening up in Co. Durham if CIL is to be delivered efficiently.

Q 2.2: What impact might CIL have on your organisation for example in terms of administration or choice of house types? Questions were raised around how the charging scheme would be enforced and administered. It was felt that Planning, through Development Management, would be best placed to manage the scheme. House builders were concerned about the burden of responsibility on the Local Authority to keep on top of matters. The Authority felt that no issues were anticipated in terms of the administration itself, however the amount of Council resources needed to administer/enforce could be significant. There was concern that the administration costs for enforcement CIL payments may be restrictive. DCC would comment that CIL receipts can be used to administer the collection of CIL.

It was suggested that the review period for CIL should be set at 18 months, but only if housing market changed substantially, to ensure that developers have some degree of certainty in which to operate.

Developers would not change their approach to housing sizes or types as it is based on total m2 of entire development not individual houses. If the m2 per house was reduced there is less sales income, so not an issue. The location and demand of a particular property development would be the main drivers as to the types of property built. Decisions on house types would be market led to turnover units as quickly as possible. Developers seemed happy that the amount would be clear from the outset and easy to calculate on a m2 basis.

Workshop 2 Discussion 3 What infrastructure should be paid for via CIL? Q3.1: What infrastructure should CIL fund? Developers do care what the Council spend the money on as it can attract people into the area, i.e. if improving the liveability or attractiveness of a town.

Strategic Sites - Some delegates saw the aim of the CIL to specifically release greenbelt land around Durham City and subsequently investment in relief roads. However, others felt CIL was not necessarily the most appropriate mechanism for capturing land value uplift on the Durham greenbelt sites or the other strategic sites.

Affordable Housing - House builders and those from RSL’s felt that Section 106 should remain the mechanism for delivering affordable housing.

Strategic Infrastructure - Government is keen to steer local authorities toward CIL to cross- subsidise infrastructure investment across a wider locality. Delegates suggested CIL could contribute to major physical infrastructure that will create opportunity for improvement. For example Horden rail station would be an enabling development because it would create

12 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

employment opportunities for people living in East Durham. As highway infrastructure associated with Durham City was likely to be carried out anyway in association with development, it was suggested that it would be better to focus CIL spending on unattractive regeneration areas to enable development there. DCC would comment that CIL is unlikely to ever capture the amount of money required to pay for large pieces of infrastructure on its own. It is more likely to be used as gap funding.

Governance & Priorities of Spending – Delegates asked if it would it be better to phase priorities. For example Durham City may be the first priority in order to provide the roads, to get housing, but then second phase of CIL should go to a different town to help deliver sites in that area. A question was raised as to whether CIL should to go to infrastructure providers, not just Council. It was understood that the determination of infrastructure priorities would be a political issue.

Infrastructure Delivery Plan There was a strong feeling particularly among house builders that CIL should be used for new infrastructure needs rather than improving current deficiencies. Existing deficiencies in infrastructure should be paid for out of other funding pots. Delegates asked how DCC have engaged with house builders in developing the IDP. Delegates suggested that IDP is about 'unlocking growth', developers have a local level view that could potentially 'unlock' sites. Some developers are put off investing in a 'negligible' settlement due to a wider issue that they are expected to fund. Pooled / collective resources would not put house builders off contributing. CIL should fund projects specific to the locality where the development is or at least clear benefits should be recognised for the community. DCC would comment that it is encouraging that developers are positive about pooling funds towards infrastructure.

Delegates then suggested the following types of infrastructure that CIL could contribute to: • Transport – roads and public transport a priority • Public Open Space • Renewable energy requirements • Off site playgrounds • Strategic leisure facilities • Cycle network improvements • Education • Health facilities (although one delegate thought that with taxation it would be a double hit for example paying for health care) • Flood mitigation and sewage works (consensus was that water companies should be paying for sewerage works) • Town centre redevelopment (i.e. Stanley)

Delegates were concerned that LAs can change the ‘123’ CIL reg (the list that sets out what CIL can be spent on) at any stage and were underwhelmed by the total revenue CIL was expected to bring in. They commented that not a lot could be achieved with £2-4million per annum. They commented that it seemed lot of angst for not a lot of return.

Community Spending - Emphasis is on wards/parishes/Community Groups who would need to be involved in the decision making process. Governance arrangements were raised as a

13 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

potential issue. It was highlighted that the localism bill may have an effect on how this money is apportioned. It was agreed that there needed to be a better understanding at a local level. CIL could be a tool for incentivising development so residents can pay for community infrastructure.

Concern was raised around how monies from CIL would be used, i.e. would it just go into a pot. Accountability and transparency being the issue. Developers would want to ensure the money was being spent on agreed priorities and not on wider infrastructure funding for instance. DCC would comment that the regulatory ‘123’ list would be published on the Councils website in the interest of transparency.

Q 3.2: Does the infrastructure list look acceptable for Co. Durham? • Need to prioritise what CIL is spent on. The ‘123’ list should be used for local needs priorities which would be monitored annually. • Delegates assumed that CIL contributions would be Durham focused and questioned whether this would be acceptable when other areas may miss out. • It was evident from the information provided that the funding gap massively out weighed the likely CIL contributions. • It was re-emphasised that developers needed certainty that site specific mitigation measures were actually going to be built. • It was not clear how this would fit with Section 106 contributions and Section 278 Highways Act 1980 contributions. • It was felt that there was too much on the list, and that there was no real appraisal of other funding sources available from elsewhere, such as Care Trusts and Education funding streams. • One suggestion was that new school could be dealt with under S106 but CIL could be used for extensions and support to classrooms. • It was suggested that in areas where there is no CIL you could revert to S106. • Local opportunities need to be better understood. All the schemes proposed are major interventions; there may be local improvements unaccounted for that can 'unlock' areas that a developer on a single site may not be willing to undertake due to significant associated costs. DCC would comment that the IDP will include information on other mainstream funding sources.

Workshop 2 Discussion 4 Where should we spend CIL? Q 4.1: Can monies from one delivery area be spent in another? What is a reasonable spending area? - Parish, ward, town, planning delivery area, CIL charging zones, Countywide? Issues raised;- • The general consensus was that CIL or pooling of CIL money being paid in one area to use in another area of the County would be very politically sensitive. It could be

14 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

controversial for wealthy areas to subsidise less affluent locations, as those living in high demand areas will want to see return on disruption. Some delegates felt that would need to be more cross-subsidising whereas other delegates did not think pooling of the CIL was appropriate and it should be linked to settlement or if not practical to Delivery Area. Some developers have more of an affinity with particular areas and would be more concerned with how ‘their’ contribution was spent wisely and prudently. • Transparency of costs. Need to clearly demonstrate where the money will be spent. As long as it is transparent and is generally accepted by ratepayers, cross-boundary delivery is acceptable. An example of this would be the re-instatement of the Leamside line. • Although Government will set a minimum level, the Council will determine how and what percentage of CIL money will go to local parish councils. Developers were wary of Parish Councils managing the money. Parish Councils want to manage CIL money because they know the priorities in their areas. Any levy raised should be linked to gaining support locally for any proposed new development. Communities should be involved in the development of CIL priorities. This links into the Localism and Neighbourhood Planning agendas. • It could be justified if a county wide benefit could be demonstrated i.e. Link road, hospital or connecting cycle networks between villages/towns. • Given the potential amount that could be raised through CIL it was suggested that 3 priorities should be identified, which could be delivered through CIL, for each Delivery Area. There would be different requirements/ roles for CIL in different delivery areas. The Infrastructure Delivery Plan should delve further and set out area priorities. By mapping local requirements it may identify a ‘concentration of need’ where CIL should be spent. • An alternative would be to have a policy to shave off a % for delivery areas, % for parishes and then a % for countywide delivery. There would be set priorities for each delivery area, certain areas should have more a countywide contribution whereas other areas would retain all within delivery areas. Hierarchy of expenditure was suggested i.e. 50% in the parish, 30% in the town, 20% apportioned elsewhere in the County. DCC would comment that there was some excellent ideas regarding governance!

Workshop 2 Discussion 5 What other financial mechanisms could contribute towards funding infrastructure? Q5.1 Local Business Rates? 5.2 New Homes Bonus? 5.3 Better use of Assets? 106’s? Given values available in many parts of the County, the amounts raised via CIL are going to be very small. It would therefore be very difficult to deliver the infrastructure funding deficit.

Alternatives discussed;- • Section 278 Contributions (Highways Act 1980). • Prudential borrowing or Pension Funds in the absence of lending from banks. Most house builders have refinanced with banks, at higher interest rates in bid to restructure their debts – Taylor Wimpey are paying 12% interest reflected in share price of 50 pence. Local authorities can borrow at lower interest rates, say 3%, and lend on to developers, at a higher rate thus returning a profit. This happened in Tees Valley with Barratt and Keep

15 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Moat to enable borrowing against land value. • TIFF mechanism used to borrow and claw back against future CIL. • Going back to old principles. Section 106 is far more focussed. S106 still viewed as the most appropriate means. Keep 106s in use. • Sales of public sector assets and council land sales, the main problem being the lack of demand due to the difficult economic climate. • New Homes Bonus. It was suggested that money towards medical facilities and play areas was more likely to come though this mechanism but there was an issue with money being spread too widely. It was likely that any money which came in from the NHB would go straight into the Council coffers. NHB is not ring fenced. It has been used by Sunderland City Council to part fund unviable Brownfield development sites.

The change in collection and distribution for business rates would also impact on the County in the future. Already high street stores are closing, impacting on the amount of money available through business rates. Implications of local business rates amount to an £80m loss to County Durham’s business rate base.

Overall group felt that better integration across funds should take place in regards to investment in infrastructure. Any financial mechanism can contribute. A fully working LEP would also help.

General concerns, outstanding questions and main issues.

Reviewing the CIL • There is a need to account for future uplift in values and scenario testing to future proof the CIL. • Would CIL payments be indexed to reflect swings in the market? A percentage of the sale price (rather than fixed rate of CIL) would solve issue of prices falling in market.

Cross Boundary Issues • CIL may encourage boundary hopping to lower charges in neighbouring authority areas. For example if Gateshead set a higher CIL charge than County Durham then developers may boundary hop into Derwentside.

Affordable Housing There was a general concern that Affordable Housing (AH) will get squeezed out with the introduction of CIL. Affordable housing requirements can be as much as 30% on every site and this is rarely achieved in reality. Therefore, viability tests are required on a site by site basis. Delegates felt that the level of affordable housing that can be built in conjunction with CIL should still negotiable on a site by site with the likely squeeze being other 106 requirements.

Some delegates discussed how new housing sites should be about mixed community’s not affordable housing. The correct mix of social classes is required to make developments work

16 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

– in higher quality developments you are unable to identify easily the affordable homes. Some delegates did not believe providing affordable units off site were the best way to achieve this high quality mix.

Delegates commented that carbon neutral builds could see an increase of £15,000 on the build cost of each unit. Another delegate commented that affordable now Code 3 not 4 generally, since changes.

One delegate based in North Yorkshire commented that the money is not the issue for developing affordable housing, it is the land availability Feedback Overall there was positive feedback regarding the opportunity for early engagement on CIL with the Council.

Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Appendix 2: Historic S106 Payments

No of Type Affordable Contribution Scheme Sub Division Geographical Purpose of 106 Units/m2 Housing Per Dwelling Address/Name Constraint ? commercial No. of (floor Area) Dwellings

8 Apartments £31.25 Eureka Tce, none Off site children's play Tanhills, Nettlesworth 94 Dwellings Apartments 24 Highfield none Landscaping, Play and Public Art Monies paid to Andrew Mckeown prior to 19/08/10 for artwork as commissioned. Installation April/May 2011 Variation to omit the equipped Elm Crescent, none Off site children's play childrens play area and to Kibblesworth provide commuted payment as contribution to off-site play provision 169 Dwellings, associated 50 £1,295.86 Holly Crescent none Play, Afford Housing, Public Art highway and open space 5,152 9 commercial units (Use £0.58 per sq m Drum Road Public Art in Ind Est Public Art Class B1), associated landscaping, roads and infrastructure 3 B8 Warehouses with offices, £308,333 per Drum Indistrial Public Art in Ind Est and A693 Public Art block levellers, yards, unit Estate Highway Improvement landscaping and new access arrangements from the A693

19 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

26,177.10 Construction of industrial / £1.15 per sq m Drum Indistrial Public Art in Ind Est Public Art and Highway warehouse facility with Estate Improvements ancillary offices, yards, car and trailer parking, site enclosed by perimeter fencing and landscaping scheme

77 63 houses and 14 bungalows £1,246.75 Sandyford Place none Play, Public Art re-alignment of internal road layout and creation of replacement car park along Ivy Way 51 Dwellings and Access road 15 £1,372.55 Arizona none Play, Public Art, Afford Housing 372 Class A1 food store (372 £32.2 per sq m Former Church Sacriston Moving of War Memorial and its square metres) with Hall, Front St, re-design - works completed by associated car parking and Sacriston regen - direct services 2010 access, removal of the war memorial and financial assistance to re-locate it in front of the new community centre 39 flats and formation of £368.90 Land North of Yes to be spent on Moorfoot Off site children's play vehicular access road and Salisbury Play Area associated parking Avenue

14 houses with associated £1,750 West Farm Yes to be spent on Moorfoot Public Art & Off Site Play in access road, driveways and (Birch View) Play Area division landscaping

20 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

No of Type Affordable Contribution Scheme Sub Division Geographical Purpose of 106 Units/m2 Housing Per Dwelling Address/Name Constraint ? commercial No. of (floor Area) Dwellings

Opening Balance 4 Dwellings £300.00 Lily Gardens within the former Derwentside Open space/Play provision District

100 Dwellings £1,299.00 South Moor within the former Derwentside £100,000 upgrade memorial District pack, £30,000 off site open space

86 dwellings and associated £718.60 Land to rear of within the former Derwentside £21,000 Woodland path and infrastructure works 1-17 Aged District footbridge, £10,000 Great North Miners homes, Forest, £5,000 5 yr maintenance The Middles program woodland area, £28,000 in lieu of play equipment 88 Landscaping and revised £300.00 Whitehouse within the former Derwentside Play provision within details relating to Siting, Farm Burnhope District Derwentside Design and External Appearance and Access 108 Dwellings £300.00 Murray Park, within the former Derwentside In lieu of play provision Stanley District

32 dwellings with associated £300.00 Railway Street, within the former Derwentside In lieu of play provision highways, garaging and Consett District landscaping

77 Dwellings £300.00 Orwell gardens, within the former Derwentside On site play provision South Stanley District

164 Substitution of house types £300.00 Kip Hill, Stanley within the former Derwentside Off site play District

21 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

126 Dwellings £300.00 Ewehurst Road within the former Derwentside Public open space Dipton District

22 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

No of Type Affordable Contribution Scheme Sub Division Geographical Purpose of 106 Units/m2 Housing Per Dwelling Address/Name Constraint ? commercial No. of (floor Area) Dwellings

18 dwellings with associated £202.50 Rock Terrace, New Brancepeth in ieu of play and open spacel access road and footpaths New Brancepeth provision 37 15 residential dwellings and £405.00 Lowland Brandon in lieu of play and open space 22 flats, associated roads and House/Brandon provision access Park 20 Residential appartments £303.75 Court Lane, Durham City in lieu of play and open space Durham 17 residential dwellings and £405.00 Paxton Mews Framwellgate Moor/Pity me in lieu of play and open space associated access road Site 20 dwellings with associated £405.00 New Brancepeth New Brancepeth in lieu of open space and play garages, access and provision landscaping details 101 residential dwellings with £405.00 Dryburn Hospital Dryburn in lieu of open space and play associated roads and allocated to provision infrastructure Wharton Park

11 Flats £405.00 Brancepeth Meadowfield in lieu of open space and play Castle provision Development 42 Approval of reserved matters £356.79 Cock of the Nevilles Cross in lieu of open space and play for siting, design and external North provision appearance, means of access and landscaping for the erection of 25 apartments, 15 detached and two semi detached dwellings, persuant outline consent 4/04/696

20 16 no. apartments and 4 no. £364.50 New Durham Sherburn Road/Dragonville area in lieu of open space and play dwellinghouses with Courtyard, provision associated part covered Renny's Lane parking area and bin-store

23 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

32 Apartments £405.00 Rear of Marshall Gilesgate Moor area in lieu of open space and play Terrace provision

11 apartment block of eleven £405.00 Angerstein Belmont in lieu of open space and play residential units with Court provision associated access and parking 42 dwellings, (12 apartments, 30 £405.00 Dryburn Park Framwellgate Moor in lieu of open space and play houses), vehicular and House provision pedestrian access, landscaping and temporary sales board 6 additional residential £1,000.00 The Meadows, Framwellgate Moor Play equipment / leisure facilities dwellings with associated Framwellgate parking relating to application Moor 4/07/00399/FPA Unit 9 for A1 retail including £20,000.00 Boots, Unit 9 Framwellgate Moor City Centre Shop Fronts Grant sale of cosmetics, per unit Durham City Scheme pharmaceutical products and Retail Park ancillary chemists products including food products from 5% of net sales floorspace 27 residential apartments £405.00 Land at Blue Belmont in lieu of open space and play associated access, parking House Buildings provision and landscaping High St Carville

24 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

No of Type Affordable Contribution Scheme Sub Division Geographical Purpose of 106 Units/m2 Housing Per Dwelling Address/Name Constraint ? commercial No. of (floor Area) Dwellings

21 Dwellings £500.00 Working Mens Horden recreation Club - Eden Street

20 Dwellings £500.00 Wellfield House Murton recreation

15 Houses £500.00 Millbank House, Seaham recreation Ambleside Avenue 19 Houses £500.00 Former Factory - Seaham recreation Denehouse Rd 43 Houses £500.00 Dene Crescent Shotton recreation 103 Houses £58.25 Childrens Play Shotton recreation Area - Parklands No details Frederick Street South Hetton recreation found 53 Houses £471.70 Land at South Hetton recreation Fallowfield Terrace 30 Houses £175.00 Former Colliery South Hetton recreation Buildings 16 Dwellings £500.00 Windermere Rd South Hetton recreation

33 24 HOUSES AND 9 £500.00 Argyle Place South Hetton recreation BUNGALOWS 71 Houses £500.00 Cinnamon Drive vicinity of site open space/general environmental improvement

25 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

23 Houses £500.00 Land at Wellfield Wingate recreation Road (Watson's Windows) 13 Houses £500.00 Former Leisure vicinity of site enhancement of a recreational Centre, Lowhills facility Road 26 Houses £230.77 Former Thornley Provision of open space and / or Crossways childrens play areas and / or Hotel, Thornley recreational facilities in Thornley

26 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

No of Type Affordable Contribution Scheme Sub Division Geographical Purpose of 106 Units/m2 Housing Per Dwelling Address/Name Constraint ? commercial No. of (floor Area) Dwellings

11 Dwellings £750.00 Land between immediate locality on land in the Off site environmental Stobb Cross ownership of the Borough (or improvements Garmondsway Parish) Council Cornforth

90 Dwellings associated open £21.69 Redworth Within the vicionity of the Laying out of public open space space and infrastructure Park,South application site Street, Shildon

25 Dwellings and associated £33.92 Redworth The monetary contribution would Off site play access roads and landscaping Park,South be used to benefit not only the provision/environmental Street, Shildon future residents of the proposed improvements development but also the wider community of Shildon and in the overall regeneration of the area.

25 Dwellings and associated £447.00 Redworth Within District Off site play access roads and landscaping Park,South provision/environmental Street, Shildon improvements 11 Dwellings £297.09 Land to the rear Not specified off site works in lieu of open of New South space View, Chilton 26 Detached homes £192.31 Hall Farm, At authority's discretion Childrens play equipment Fishburn "Greenside Close" 45 Detached dwellings and £111.11 Greenhills, Byers Green Area To provide new play equipment bungalows Byers Green 71 Detached houses £126.76 Grayson Road, On site provision maintenance of open space Middleston Moor Ph II

27 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Residential development Hallgarth Kirk Within the vicionity of the The terms of the agreement (outline) Merrington application site were varied so that a sum of £25000 was secured to enable play facilities to be pro vided elsewhere. 10 Dwellings £650.00 LAND EAST OF No specified ALNWICK AVENUE, TRIMDON GR Residential development Former On site provision Play equipment -residual fund including community facilities, Winterton from previous spending landscaping and associated Hospital Site infrastructure Sedgefield 68 Dwellings £674.26 Neville Drive, Within the vicionity of the The former District Council Sedgefield application site allocated it to an area of woodland to the rear of the site with the intention of enhancing and improving the area prior to the refund date. Agreement could not be reached regarding the purchase price with the land agent Smith 34 Dwellings with single storey £700.00 Land adjacent to Not specified Play equipment/open space garages Sanderson improvements. Close off Burn Lane, Newton Aycliffe 19 Houses £700.00 Land at Burnhill Within the Council's area. provision/improvement of open Way/ Sid space Chaplin Way, N.A. No details found WPE Site To be used for the purposes of To be used for the purposes of Chilton Way establishing, maintaining and establishing, maintaining and Chilton Industrial managing new areas of trees, managing new areas of trees, Estate shrubs and hedgerows to the shrubs and hedgerows to the benefit of the development and benefit of the development and the site the site

28 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

No of Type Affordable Contribution Scheme Sub Division Geographical Purpose of 106 Units/m2 Housing Per Dwelling Address/Name Constraint ? commercial No. of (floor Area) Dwellings

30 Dwellings (29 houses and 1 £606.67 Neville Close, Gainford - Policy H1A of the provision of off site open space flat) Gainford Local Plan requires that in and play provision developments of 10 or more dwellings, open space will be required to be provided within or adjacent to the development in accordance with minimum standards. 9 Convert Public House to £577.78 Queens Court, Gainford - Policy H1A of the provision of off site open space Dwelling and Erect 8 No Gainford Local Plan requires that in and play provision Dwellinghouses developments of 10 or more dwellings, open space will be required to be provided within or adjacent to the development in accordance with minimum standards. 14 Proposed Housing £457.14 Neville Close, Gainford - Policy H1A of the provision of off site open space Development (6 Bungalows, 4 Gainford Phase Local Plan requires that in and play provision Houses and 4 Flats) II developments of 10 or more dwellings, open space will be required to be provided within or adjacent to the development in accordance with minimum standards. 14 Erection of 14 Flats and £160.00 Farmers Way, Barnard Castle - Policy H1A of provision of off site open space Alterations and Refurbishment Barnard Castle the Local Plan requires that in and play provision of Existing Dwellinghouse developments of 10 or more dwellings, open space will be required to be provided within or adjacent to the development in accordance with minimum standards.

29 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

No details found Commercial Barnard Castle - Policy H1A of provision of off site open space Yard, Barnard the Local Plan requires that in and play provision Castle developments of 10 or more dwellings, open space will be required to be provided within or adjacent to the development in accordance with minimum standards. 16 Conversion of Mill to form 16 £387.50 Thorngate Mill, Barnard Castle - Policy H1A of provision of off site open space Apartments Barnard Castle the Local Plan requires that in and play provision developments of 10 or more dwellings, open space will be required to be provided within or adjacent to the development in accordance with minimum standards. 10 Proposed housing £400.00 Tannery Yard, Barnard Castle - Policy H1A of provision of off site open space development of 10 units Barnard Castle the Local Plan requires that in and play provision developments of 10 or more dwellings, open space will be required to be provided within or adjacent to the development in accordance with minimum standards. Outline Application for Bouch Way, for use on Bouch way open continued maintenance of open Housing Estate Barnard Castle space areas space area within the estate

18 dwellings together with £600.00 Former provision of off site open space associated infrastructure Osbourne and play provision Garage Site, Toft Hill or (renamed Castlefields & Toft Hill)

30 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

No of Type Affordable Contribution Scheme Sub Division Geographical Purpose of 106 Units/m2 Housing Per Dwelling Address/Name Constraint ? commercial No. of (floor Area) Dwellings

Bracks Farm vicinity of the development openspace, play facilities, Bishop Auckland provision of a bus shelter and off site rectreation.

56 DWELLINGS COMPRISING 3 £1,000.00 Former Garage vicinity of development off site recreation facilities AND 4 BED, 2 AND 3 & Depot Land STOREY TERRACED Toronto Bishop HOUSES WITH GARAGES Auckland

57 dwellings/internal open £17.54 Site of Former none given Maintenance following transfer space/new play field Barrington of land School Bishop Auckland 52 dwellings and Revised Design £442.31 Westfield Road vicinity of the development open space and off site play and & Layout Bishop Auckland recreation £18,402 spent on scheme but only £10,907 received to date - Balance of £7495 to be offset once remaining income received Outline - Residential Land at Grey in the area of the development £20k to enhance existing play Development and Associated Gardens/Hillside and towards the existing play area and £65k for off site play Estate Roads with Formation Road Coundon area in Coundon and recreation provision of New Access Off Hillside Road

75 Houses with Associated £602.41 Tennyson none given off site childrens play and Parking, Road and Drainage Terrace/Hartside recreation facilities Works Close Crook 16 Dwellings and associated £1,006.25 Demolition of locality off site play and recreation garages Uplands Hotel 16 Dwellings

31 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Crook

20 HOUSES - 3 BEDROOM £600.00 Erection of 23 none given off site play and recreation HOUSES, GARAGES AND dwellings on PARKING land at Milton Street Crook 55 Dwellings and associated £680.71 Land off New none given £5065 maintenance of open works Road Crook space, £32374 off site play provision

55 Detached dwellings £727.27 Land at West vicinity of the development £27000 off site childrens play, Road/Goods £13000 off site sport and Station Cottages recreation Crook 15 Dwellings £756 Land at Former vicinity of development off site recreation Eclipse Works West Road 0.42h Crook 64 Houses £109.38 Land at Bone not relevant maintenance only Mill Bank Bishop Auckland 56 Dwellings £219.64 South Church not relevant maintenance only Depot Bishop Auckland 54 Dwellings £296.30 Land at Bonemill none given £7k for maintencance following Bank transfer of land. Possible extra was paid for WV to provide equipment Proposed housing Development none given provision off site and development land at Thomas maintenance of play and Street Auckland recreation facilities Park

139 Dwellings £243.31 Residential not relevant £24000 for maintenance of Development at transferred land, £10000 to Etherley Dene implement management plan Farm Bishop Auckland 21 Dwellings and associated £300.00 Land at North of none given environmental improvements access roads and landscaping High Queen and off site play (including Street Witton maintenance) Park

32 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

23 Housing units £852.17 Land at former none given off site play and recreation Auction Mart site South Church Bishop Auckland residential development - 23 housing units REDEVELOPMENT WITH Demolition & none given off site provision and RESIDENTIAL PROPERTES Redevelopment maintenceof play and INCLUDING NEW ROADS at St Andrews recreational facilities AND ASSOCIATED Road Estate INFRASTRUCTURE Bishop Auckland 49 Dwellings with Garages £617.71 Land Rear of locality £750 maintenance of open and/or Parking Space with High Street space, £29518 off site recreation Ancillary Road and Drainage Howden Le provision Works Wear 13 Dwellings Together with £384.62 13 no Dwellings vicinity of development of site play and recreation Roads, Services and Garages Fir Tree Crook provision Outline residential Land at Howden area in which site located off site recreation development Le Wear

9 Dwellings, Roads, Sewers £1,111.11 Land at vicinity of development off site recreation facilities and Garages Prospect House Fir Tree Outline residential Castle View not relevant maintenance only development North Bitchburn 11 Detached Dwellings £454.55 11 Dwellings at Naismith Grove Pitch To re-surface Naismith Grove Naismith Mews pitch Tow Law

Outline residential Land East of vicinity £2000 fences/gates at development High Road allotments, £1000 water supply, Stanley Crook £300 water meter, £27500 off site sport and recreation facilities 63 REDUCING NUMBER OF £844.44 Tow Law Tow Law maintenance and enhancement DWELLINGS FROM 65 TO Auction Mart off of existing play areas 63 TO ACCOMMODATE AN Church Lane ON-SITE PUMPING Tow Law STATION

33 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

2 Amended Layout, New £6,150 per unit Land at Manor none given £12000 off site sport and Access Position and 2 No. Road St Helen recreation, £300 maintenance Additional Units Auckland 35 Houses £664.29 35 Dwellings none given off site sport and recreation Windsor House Leazes Lane St Helen Auckland 128 DWELLINGS FOR £888.64 Land at Leazes locality recreational facilities RESIDENTIAL AND Lane St Helen ASSOCIATED WORKS Auckland

HOUSES WITH GARAGES Land at Old Hall none given off site play and recreation AND/OR PARKING SPACES Farm St Helen TOGETHER WITH Auckland ANCILLARY ROAD AND DRAINAGE WORKS 41 DWELLINGS TOGETHER £683.41 Land Adjcanet vicinity of development childrens playspace facilities WITH ASSOCIATED WORKS to Oakley Farm Darlington Road West Auckland 15 Flats £900.00 Priory Pine none given playspace, sport and recreation Station Road provision and maintenance West Auckland 131 DWELLINGS WITH 30 £961.83 Development at locality off site sport and recreation ASSOCIATED ROADS AND Middlewood SEWERS, EXISTING Avenue/Davis HIGHWAY STOPPED UP Avenue St WHERE NECESSARY AND Helen Auckland EXISTING HOUSES DEMOLISHED

34 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

ERECTION OF HOUSES Residentail none given off site sort and recreation WITH GARAGES AND/OR Development off provision PARKING SPACES Manor Road St TOGETHER WITH Helen Auckland ANCILLARY ROAD AND DRAINAGE WORKS AND DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

21 DWELLINGS WITH £666.67 21 Dwellings at vicinity off site recreation GARAGES AND Middle ASSOCIATED WORKS Musgrave Farm Louisa Terrace St Helen Auckland 42 Houses with Garages and/or £630.95 Land at locality off site recreation and play Parking Space Together with Greenfields Ancillary Road and Drainage Road Bishop Works Auckland

Outline residential Tindale none given off site sport and recreation development Crescent Hospital Bishop Auckland 10 Dwellings £600.00 Demolition of locality off site recreation and play The Two Blues Public House & erection of 10 dwellings at Bishop Auckland CONSTRUCTION OF SPAR £5,000.00 per Demolition of £5,000 improvements of CONVENIENCE STORE unit Former Chruch highways and footpaths WITH ASSOCIATED CAR Hall & PARKING AND NEW Construction of ACCESS shop West Auckland

35 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Appendix 3: Durham County Properties for sale by settlement January 2012

36 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Durham County Properties for sale by settlement January 2012

Annfield Plain 1/41 £55,000 £55,000 £55,000 0 £0 £0 £0 17 £57,500 £59,950 £65,000 0 £0 £0 £0 20 65,000 £67,950 £70,000 0 £0 £0 £0 3 £149,950 £149,950 £249,950 0 £0 £0 £0 Beamish 0/21 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 9 £55,000 £69,995 £114,750 3 £114,750 £114,750 £135,000 9 69,950 £179,000 £185,000 2 £179,000 £179,000 3 £160,000 £160,000 £164,950 0 £0 £0 £0 Bloemfontein 0/85 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 25 £63,500 £69,950 £73,000 0 £0 £0 £0 52 69,950 £74,950 £89,950 1 £140,000 £140,000 £140,000 8 £158,000 £158,000 £179,000 1 £180,000 £180,000 £180,000 Bournmoor 4/132 £94,950 £94,950 £95,000 2 £0 £0 £0 35 £69,950 £69,950 £79,999 10 £49,200 £49,200 £69,600 55 74,950 £75,000 £95,000 16 £59,800 £65,000 £89,700 30 £199,950 £214,950 £225,000 1 £329,950 £329,950 £329,950 Burnopfield 0/4 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 4 £110,800 £110,800 £110,800 4 £110,800 £110,800 £110,800 0 0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 Chester Moor 0/6 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 1 £204,950 £204,950 £204,950 0 £0 £0 £0 4 249,995 £104,950 £249,995 0 £0 £0 £0 1 £350,000 £350,000 £350,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Chester-le-Street 19/286 £60,000 £66,000 £75,000 0 £0 £0 £0 94 £89,950 £94,995 £114,950 0 £0 £0 £0 92 104,950 £110,000 £164,000 0 £0 £0 £0 81 £225,000 £230,000 £249,950 1 £225,000 £225,000 £250,000 Clough Dene 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 Consett 17/512 £40,000 £45,000 £59,950 0 £0 £0 £0 125 £79,950 £82,950 £94,950 5 £112,500 £112,500 £114,000 219 95,000 £99,950 £122,995 21 £101,995 £115,960 £154,950 151 £168,995 £175,000 £200,000 13 £190,495 £191,995 £202,500 Craghead (HMR area) 0/20 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 5 £52,500 £55,000 £63,500 0 £0 £0 £0 13 69,650 £69,950 £88,500 1 £140,000 £140,000 £140,000 2 £168,000 £168,000 £168,000 1 £180,000 £180,000 £180,000 Dipton (with Flint Hill) 0/40 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 11 74950 74950 80000 0 £0 £0 £0 18 89,950 £92,500 £105,000 1 £150,000 £150,000 £150,000 11 £130,000 £130,000 £199,950 0 £0 £0 £0 East Law 0/9 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 3 £95,000 £95,000 £110,000 0 £0 £0 £0 5 75,000 £110,000 £185,000 0 £0 £0 £0 1 £495,000 £495,000 £495,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Ebchester 0/13 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 4 £95,000 £95,000 £110,000 0 £0 £0 £0 7 105,000 £105,000 £220,000 0 £0 £0 £0 2 £275,000 £275,000 £275,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Edmondsley 0/7 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 2 £49,500 £49,500 £49,500 0 £0 £0 £0 4 94,950 £164,950 £164,950 3 £164,950 £164,950 £164,950 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 Fencehouses 1/86 £56,000 £56,000 £56,000 0 £0 £0 £0 35 £54,950 £64,950 £79,999 8 £39,600 £39,600 £49,200 42 68,900 £74,950 £79,999 10 £49,400 £49,400 £65,000 8 £90,000 £90,000 £199,950 0 £0 £0 £0 Grange Villa 0/9 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 7 £39,000 £39,000 £49,950 0 £0 £0 £0 0 0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 2 £79,950 £79,950 £79,950 0 £0 £0 £0 Great Lumley 0/33 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 5 £75,000 £79,950 £79,950 0 £0 £0 £0 17 103,000 £120,000 £144,950 0 £0 £0 £0 7 £186,000 £186,000 £229,950 1 £499,950 £499,950 £499,950 Hamsterley (with Low Westwood) 1/18 £69,950 £69,950 £69,950 0 £0 £0 £0 9 £80,000 £89,950 £91,000 0 £0 £0 £0 7 80,000 £80,000 £135,000 0 £0 £0 £0 2 £235,000 £235,000 £235,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Hamsterley Mill 0/6 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 1 295,000 £295,000 £295,000 0 £0 £0 £0 5 £330,000 £350,000 £375,000 0 £0 £0 £0 High Handenhold 8/114 £50,000 £50,000 £69,950 0 £0 £0 £0 36 £69,950 £69,950 £79,950 0 £0 £0 £0 49 90,000 £97,950 £119,950 0 £0 £0 £0 21 £180,000 £185,000 £209,950 0 £0 £0 £0 High Westwood 0/1 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 1 £395,000 £395,000 £395,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Hobson (Burnopfield) 0/12 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 4 £85,000 £85,000 £85,000 0 £0 £0 £0 4 119,950 £119,950 £149,950 0 £0 £0 £0 4 £145,000 £145,000 £145,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Iveston 0/8 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 2 85,000 £85,000 £85,000 0 £0 £0 £0 6 £449,000 £449,000 £599,000 3 £399,000 £399,000 £449,000 Lintz Green 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 Medomsley 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 5 £79,950 £85,000 £85,000 0 £0 £0 £0 10 124,950 £124,950 £149,000 0 £0 £0 £0 6 £230,000 £230,000 £295,000 1 £300,000 £300,000 £300,000 Medomsley Edge 0/2 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 1 124,950 £124,950 £124,950 0 £0 £0 £0 1 £295,000 £295,000 £295,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Moorside (part of Consett) 0/17 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 2 £40,000 £40,000 £40,000 0 £0 £0 £0 13 65,000 £68,000 £81,596 0 £0 £0 £0 2 £88,950 £88,950 £88,950 0 £0 £0 £0 Nettlesworth (with Kimblesworth) 0/20 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 7 £84,950 £84,950 £102,950 0 £0 £0 £0 6 95,000 £95,000 £115,000 0 £0 £0 £0 8 £136,950 £136,950 £310,000 0 £0 £0 £0 New Kyo (part of Anfield Plain) (H1/28 £38,500 £38,500 £38,500 0 £0 £0 £0 13 £42,500 £44,950 £49,000 0 £0 £0 £0 13 65,000 £69,000 £84,950 0 £0 £0 £0 1 £79,950 £79,950 £79,950 0 £0 £0 £0 No Place 0/60 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 20 £65,000 £69,950 £77,500 3 £114,750 £114,750 £135,000 25 97,000 £102,000 £1,440,000 3 £165,000 £165,000 £179,000 13 £164,950 £185,000 £229,999 0 £0 £0 £0 Ouston (with Urpeth Grange) 3/57 £50,000 £50,000 £74,950 0 £0 £0 £0 21 £64,950 £64,950 £77,000 0 £0 £0 £0 21 124,950 £129,950 £147,500 0 £0 £0 £0 13 £180,000 £199,950 £220,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Ox Hill (part of Stanley) (HMR futu 0/1 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 1 £69,950 £69,950 £69,950 0 £0 £0 £0 0 0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 Pelton (with Newfield and Pelton L3/58 £69,950 £69,950 £69,950 0 £0 £0 £0 16 £74,950 £78,950 £85,000 0 £0 £0 £0 26 85,000 £89,950 £99,950 0 £0 £0 £0 13 £179,950 £185,000 £209,950 0 £0 £0 £0 Pelton Fell 1/13 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 1 £109,950 £109,950 £109,950 1 £109,950 £109,950 £109,950 7 72,500 £72,500 £95,000 2 £135,000 £135,000 £135,000 5 £144,950 £160,000 £190,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Perkinsville 0/9 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 3 £69,950 £69,950 £112,000 0 £0 £0 £0 6 102,500 £102,500 £114,950 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 Pickering Nook 0/11 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 4 £85,000 £85,000 £124,950 0 £0 £0 £0 4 119,950 £119,950 £149,950 0 £0 £0 £0 3 £135,000 £135,000 £145,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Picktree 0/3 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 1 174,950 £174,950 £174,950 0 £0 £0 £0 2 £420,000 £420,000 £420,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Plawsworth 0/5 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 4 £274,950 £274,950 £310,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Quaking Houses (HMR future) 0/3 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 2 £36,995 £36,995 £36,995 0 £0 £0 £0 1 69,950 £69,950 £69,950 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 Rainton Gate 0/10 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 3 £99,950 £99,950 £110,000 0 £0 £0 £0 1 174,950 £174,950 £174,950 0 £0 £0 £0 5 £219,950 £219,950 £225,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Rickleton 2/26 £70,000 £70,000 £70,000 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 6 107,950 £107,950 £114,950 114950 £0 £0 £0 18 £250,000 £250,000 £279,950 0 £0 £0 £0 Shotley Bridge (part of Consett) 3/86 £40,000 £40,000 £67,500 0 £0 £0 £0 22 £75,000 £82,500 £97,500 0 £0 £0 £0 26 95,000 £95,000 £115,000 0 £0 £0 £0 35 £179,950 £195,000 £254,950 0 £0 £0 £0 South Moor (part of Stanley) 0/60 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 25 £55,000 £57,000 £59,950 0 £0 £0 £0 28 65,000 £66,500 £84,950 3 £134,995 £134,995 £139,950 5 £144,995 £149,950 £150,000 1 £144,995 £144,995 £144,995 Stanley (HMR future) 15/486 £32,995 £38,500 £55,000 0 £0 £0 £0 152 £58,000 £59,950 £71,000 6 £109,995 £109,995 £114,750 234 73,000 £75,000 £95,000 18 £115,995 £115,995 £134,995 86 £157,000 £165,000 £180,000 11 £149,995 £149,995 £180,000 Tanfield 0/4 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 1 £180,000 £180,000 £180,000 0 £0 £0 £0 1 137,000 £137,000 £137,000 0 £0 £0 £0 2 £325,000 £325,000 £325,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Tanfield Lea 0/18 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 5 £70,000 £75,000 £75,000 0 £0 £0 £0 11 80,000 £80,000 £138,000 0 £0 £0 £0 13 £80,000 £124,950 £138,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Tantobie 1/25 £89,000 £89,000 £89,000 0 £0 £0 £0 8 £59,950 £59,950 £74,950 0 £0 £0 £0 15 65,000 £75,000 £89,000 0 £0 £0 £0 1 £250,000 £250,000 £250,000 0 £0 £0 £0 The Dene 4/78 £99,950 £99,950 £99,950 0 £0 £0 £0 19 £157,500 £158,000 £170,000 0 £0 £0 £0 34 185,950 £189,995 £204,950 0 £0 £0 £0 20 £299,950 £299,950 £375,000 0 £0 £0 £0 The Grove (part of Consett) 0/11 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 3 £52,500 £52,500 £68,950 0 £0 £0 £0 6 67,500 £67,500 £105,000 0 £0 £0 £0 2 £136,950 £136,950 £136,950 0 £0 £0 £0 The Middles (part of Consett) 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 Waldridge 0/51 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 16 £104,950 £105,000 £137,950 0 £0 £0 £0 11 105,000 £105,000 £195,000 0 £0 £0 £0 24 £229,950 £230,000 £235,000 0 £0 £0 £0 West Pelton 0/7 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 2 £87,500 £87,500 £87,500 0 £0 £0 £0 3 89,950 £89,950 £146,500 0 £0 £0 £0 1 £179,950 £179,950 £179,950 0 £0 £0 £0 West Rainton 2/46 £94,950 £94,950 £94,950 0 £0 £0 £0 11 £90,096 £90,096 £100,000 2 £90,096 £90,096 £90,096 21 99,950 £107,946 £136,995 6 £114,746 £114,746 £116,446 12 £214,950 £214,950 £225,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Billy Row (with Stanley Crook and 0/58 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 17 £71,000 £71,000 £80,000 0 £0 £0 £0 26 79,950 £80,000 £99,950 0 £0 £0 £0 14 £169,950 £169,950 £215,000 4 £169,950 £169,950 £169,950 Binchester 0/6 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 2 £82,500 £82,500 £82,500 0 £0 £0 £0 0 0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 2 £465,000 £465,000 £465,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Bishop Auckland 1/486 £79,950 £79,950 £79,950 0 £0 £0 £0 132 £65,000 £69,950 £79,950 1 £79,950 £79,950 £79,950 217 94,950 £99,950 £112,000 2 £129,995 £129,995 £129,995 135 £152,950 £159,950 £175,000 5 £149,995 £149,995 £152,950 Bradbury 1/5 £80,000 £80,000 £80,000 0 £0 £0 £0 2 £279,500 £279,500 £279,500 0 £0 £0 £0 2 162,500 £162,500 £162,500 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 Byers Green 0/24 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 7 £64,950 £64,950 £85,000 0 £0 £0 £0 5 49,995 £54,950 £149,950 0 £0 £0 £0 12 £154,950 £154,950 £295,000 1 £249,950 £249,950 £249,950 Chilton (HMR current) 0/77 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 31 £57,000 £59,500 £75,000 0 £0 £0 £0 34 67,500 £69,950 £85,000 0 £0 £0 £0 12 £140,000 £170,000 £174,950 0 £0 £0 £0 Chilton Lane 0/8 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 2 £22,500 £22,500 £22,500 0 £0 £0 £0 2 24,950 £24,950 £24,950 0 £0 £0 £0 4 £129,950 £129,950 £279,950 0 £0 £0 £0 Close House 0/6 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 2 £45,000 £45,000 £45,000 0 £0 £0 £0 0 0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 4 £94,950 £94,950 £185,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Coronation 0/4 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 2 £59,950 £59,950 £59,950 0 £0 £0 £0 1 32,500 £32,500 £32,500 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 Coundon (Grange) 0/7 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 1 £200,000 £200,000 £200,000 0 £0 £0 £0 3 119,950 £119,950 £119,950 0 £0 £0 £0 3 £140,000 £140,000 £175,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Crook 4/201 £35,000 £35,000 £55,000 0 £0 £0 £0 44 £62,500 £68,000 £79,950 0 £0 £0 £0 99 94,950 £99,950 £116,000 1 £149,950 £149,950 £149,950 54 £144,950 £180,000 £199,995 14 £199,995 £199,995 £199,995 Dene Valley 0/30 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 18 £55,000 £55,000 £60,000 0 £0 £0 £0 35 80,000 £90,000 £129,995 1 £129,995 £129,995 £129,995 40 £155,000 £159,995 £175,000 4 £149,995 £149,995 £149,995 Eldon 0/7 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 7 £50,000 £50,000 £55,000 0 £0 £0 £0 0 0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 Eldon Lane 0/4 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 4 £29,950 £29,950 £34,950 0 £0 £0 £0 0 0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 Escomb 0/7 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 2 £92,000 £92,000 £92,000 0 £0 £0 £0 4 62,950 £62,950 £89,950 0 £0 £0 £0 1 £199,950 £199,950 £199,950 0 £0 £0 £0 Etherley (Grange, High & Low) 0/2 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 1 £115,000 £115,000 £115,000 0 £0 £0 £0 0 0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 1 £410,000 £410,000 £410,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Ferryhill (HMR current - Dean) 4/201 £36,120 £36,120 £36,120 0 £0 £0 £0 67 £57,000 £57,950 £66,950 0 £0 £0 £0 101 69,000 £72,950 £89,950 0 £0 £0 £0 30 £134,950 £135,000 £175,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Fir Tree 0/10 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 3 £69,950 £69,950 £82,000 0 £0 £0 £0 1 265,000 £265,000 £265,000 0 £0 £0 £0 6 £265,000 £265,000 £285,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Fishburn 0/46 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 11 £62,000 £62,000 £65,000 0 £0 £0 £0 26 69,950 £74,950 £89,950 0 £0 £0 £0 9 £120,000 £149,950 £179,950 0 £0 £0 £0 Helmington Row 0/5 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 1 £74,950 £74,950 £74,950 0 £0 £0 £0 3 99,995 £99,995 £225,000 0 £0 £0 £0 1 £365,000 £365,000 £365,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Howden-le-Wear 0/44 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 12 £49,950 £54,950 £69,950 0 £0 £0 £0 12 74,950 £139,995 £139,995 7 £139,995 £139,995 £139,995 20 £175,000 £175,000 £225,000 8 £175,000 £175,000 £185,000 Hunwick (with Lane Ends) 0/36 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 8 £70,000 £70,000 £79,950 0 £0 £0 £0 9 109,950 £114,950 £139,950 0 £0 £0 £0 19 £180,000 £199,950 £220,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Kirk Merrington 0/27 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 5 £64,950 £94,950 £159,950 0 £0 £0 £0 14 106,000 £106,000 £127,000 0 £0 £0 £0 8 £210,000 £210,000 £279,950 0 £0 £0 £0 Leeholme 0/14 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 5 £32,950 £32,950 £37,950 0 £0 £0 £0 9 43,000 £74,950 £77,000 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 Mainsforth 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 Middridge 0/4 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 2 139,000 £139,000 £139,000 0 £0 £0 £0 2 £167,950 £167,950 £167,950 0 £0 £0 £0 Mordon 0/7 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 4 135,000 £135,000 £135,000 0 £0 £0 £0 3 £330,000 £330,000 £440,000 0 £0 £0 £0 New Coundon 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 Newfield 0/5 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 1 £149,950 £149,950 £149,950 0 £0 £0 £0 3 132,500 £132,500 £134,950 0 £0 £0 £0 1 £210,000 £210,000 £210,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Newton Aycliffe 3/246 £62,500 £62,500 £70,000 0 £0 £0 £0 51 £79,950 £82,950 £87,950 2 £103,995 £103,995 £103,995 137 89,950 £94,995 £119,950 5 £118,995 £118,995 £119,950 55 £159,950 £169,995 £186,500 4 £169,995 £169,995 £169,995 North Bitchburn 0/3 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 1 £79,950 £79,950 £79,950 0 £0 £0 £0 1 150,000 £150,000 £150,000 0 £0 £0 £0 1 £269,950 £269,950 £269,950 0 £0 £0 £0 North Close 0/6 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 3 £159,950 £159,950 £159,950 0 £0 £0 £0 3 164,950 £164,950 £219,950 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 Oakenshaw 0/15 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 4 £65,000 £65,000 £69,950 1 £99,950 £99,950 £99,950 5 99,950 £125,000 £144,950 0 £0 £0 £0 6 £129,950 £129,950 £200,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Roddymoor 0/2 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 1 39,950 £39,950 £39,950 0 £0 £0 £0 1 £450,000 £450,000 £450,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Rushyford 0/2 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 2 £144,950 £144,950 £144,950 0 £0 £0 £0 0 0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 Sedgefield Village 6/78 £74,950 £74,950 £84,000 0 £0 £0 £0 6 £89,950 £89,950 £105,000 0 £0 £0 £0 35 149,950 £155,000 £170,000 0 £0 £0 £0 31 £239,000 £245,000 £269,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Shildon 1/227 £44,950 £44,950 £44,950 0 £0 £0 £0 104 £59,995 £64,950 £74,950 2 £93,995 £93,995 £93,995 97 29,950 £79,950 £89,950 3 £108,995 £108,995 £108,995 24 £135,000 £135,000 £160,995 4 £106,995 £106,995 £106,995 South Church (part of Bishop Auc0/23 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 3 £55,000 £55,000 £55,000 0 £0 £0 £0 12 69,950 £74,950 £79,950 0 £0 £0 £0 8 £200,000 £2,000,000 £315,000 1 £379,950 £379,950 £379,950 Spennymoor 3/337 £52,500 £52,500 £62,000 1 £52,500 £52,500 £52,500 107 £64,950 £69,950 £76,000 4 £62,500 £32,500 £67,500 143 94,950 £105,000 £124,950 18 £177,500 £177,500 £185,000 85 £159,950 £165,000 £185,000 18 £183,500 £183,500 £187,500 St. Helen (part of Bishop Auckland 0/69 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 14 £64,950 £64,950 £64,950 1 £79,995 £79,995 £79,995 34 94,950 £94,950 £112,950 1 £129,995 £129,995 £129,995 21 £149,950 £150,000 £169,995 0 £0 £0 £0 Sunnybrow 0/5 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 2 £65,000 £65,000 £65,000 0 £0 £0 £0 1 44,950 £44,950 £44,950 0 £0 £0 £0 2 £145,000 £145,000 £145,000 0 £0 £0 £0

37 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4+ bedroom Settlement All Homes New Homes All Homes New Homes All Homes New Homes All Homes New Homes Sample Lower 3rd Decile Median Sample Lower 3rd Median Sample Lower 3rd Decile Median Sample Lower 3rd Decile Median Sample Lower 3rd Decile Median Sample Lower 3rd Decile Median Sample Lower 3rd Decile Median Sample Lower 3rd Decile Median Quartile Quartile Decile Quartile Quartile Quartile Quartile Quartile Quartile Toft Hill 1/36 £25,000 £25,000 £25,000 0 £0 £0 £0 9 £64,950 £64,950 £85,000 0 £0 £0 £0 14 115,950 £115,950 £129,950 0 £0 £0 £0 12 £149,950 £155,000 £155,000 5 £149,950 £149,950 £155,000 Toronto 0/15 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 5 £44,950 £44,950 £75,000 0 £0 £0 £0 8 75,000 £75,000 £80,000 0 £0 £0 £0 2 £199,950 £199,950 £199,950 0 £0 £0 £0 Trimdon Village 3/94 £27,500 £27,500 £40,000 0 £0 £0 £0 32 £54,950 £59,950 £75,000 0 £0 £0 £0 48 79,950 £83,000 £93,950 0 £0 £0 £0 11 £94,950 £94,950 £169,950 0 £0 £0 £0 West Auckland (part of Bishop Au 0/50 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 19 £59,950 £64,950 £74,950 1 £70,000 £70,000 £70,000 21 75,000 £75,000 £84,950 0 £0 £0 £0 12 £139,950 £139,950 £179,950 0 £0 £0 £0 West Cornforth 1/38 £65,000 £65,000 £65,000 0 £0 £0 £0 14 £44,950 £44,950 £59,950 0 £0 £0 £0 19 50,000 £59,950 £80,000 1 £110,000 £110,000 £110,000 5 £164,995 £235,000 £235,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Willington 0/5 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 5 £164,995 £235,000 £235,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Witton Park 0/23 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 7 £42,500 £42,500 £67,000 0 £0 £0 £0 10 100,000 £100,000 £100,000 0 £0 £0 £0 6 £249,950 £249,950 £289,950 0 £0 £0 £0 Woodside 0/3 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 1 £119,950 £119,950 £119,950 0 £0 £0 £0 2 135,000 £135,000 £135,000 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 Bearpark 1/30 £95,000 £95,000 £95,000 0 £0 £0 £0 7 £64,950 £64,950 £74,950 2 £71,996 £71,996 £71,996 18 79,950 £79,950 £84,995 2 £79,996 £79,996 £79,996 4 £249,950 £249,950 £375,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Bowburn 0/83 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 22 £76,950 £79,995 £79,995 3 £79,995 £79,995 £104,995 41 75,000 £81,950 £99,950 6 £119,995 £119,995 £119,995 2 £145,000 £154,950 £169,950 6 £179,995 £179,995 £189,995 Brancepeth 0/6 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 2 £225,000 £225,000 £225,000 1 £295,000 £295,000 £295,000 0 0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 4 £349,950 £349,950 £395,000 2 £395,000 £395,000 £395,000 Brandon / village 0/91 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 28 £72,950 £72,950 £88,950 2 £80,746 £80,746 £80,746 52 84,995 £89,000 £101,950 7 £93,496 £93,496 £104,995 11 £140,000 £140,000 £195,000 1 £169,950 £169,950 £169,950 Brasside 1/28 £48,500 £48,500 £48,500 0 £0 £0 £0 6 £129,000 £129,000 £129,950 1 £135,000 £135,000 £135,000 13 109,950 £110,000 £135,000 0 £0 £0 £0 8 £209,950 £209,950 £249,950 0 £0 £0 £0 Broompark 0/13 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 2 £79,950 £79,950 £79,950 0 £0 £0 £0 7 72,500 £72,500 £105,000 0 £0 £0 £0 4 £154,950 £154,950 £177,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Burnhope 0/28 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 3 £74,950 £74,950 £95,000 0 £0 £0 £0 17 85,000 £90,000 £110,000 0 £0 £0 £0 8 £300,000 £300,000 £379,950 0 £0 £0 £0 Cassop 0/2 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 2 134,950 £134,950 £134,950 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 Cornsay Colliery 0/2 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 1 £134,500 £134,500 £134,500 0 £0 £0 £0 0 0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 1 £250,000 £250,000 £250,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Coxhoe 0/81 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 23 £75,000 £76,950 £85,000 1 £107,995 £107,995 £107,995 31 114,950 £115,000 £132,500 6 £169,000 £170,000 £170,000 27 £180,495 £184,950 £191,500 7 £187,495 £187,495 £187,495 Croxdale 0/4 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 3 £80,000 £80,000 £89,950 0 £0 £0 £0 0 0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 1 £480,000 £480,000 £480,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Durham City 14/180 £60,000 £60,000 £92,000 0 £0 £0 £0 54 £124,995 £134,995 £209,950 1 £279,950 £279,950 £279,950 61 107,000 £114,950 £140,000 0 £0 £0 £0 47 £249,950 £295,000 £330,000 0 £0 £0 £0 East Hedley Hope 0/3 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 2 £94,950 £94,950 £94,950 0 £0 £0 £0 1 415,000 £415,000 £415,000 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 Esh Village 0/13 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 4 £109,950 £109,950 £115,000 0 £0 £0 £0 9 199,950 £210,000 £239,950 0 £0 £0 £0 7 £210,000 £210,000 £239,950 0 £0 £0 £0 Esh Winning (HMR Current) 0/60 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 18 £68,500 £68,500 £69,950 0 £0 £0 £0 29 79,950 £80,000 £90,000 0 £0 £0 £0 13 £179,950 £169,950 £235,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Hett 0/7 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 5 £119,950 £129,950 £130,000 0 £0 £0 £0 2 330,000 £330,000 £330,000 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 High Pittington 0/17 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 3 £79,950 £79,950 £98,000 0 £0 £0 £0 6 120,000 £120,000 £139,950 0 £0 £0 £0 8 £224,950 £235,000 £249,950 0 £0 £0 £0 High Shincliffe 0/12 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 2 £140,000 £140,000 £140,000 0 £0 £0 £0 6 185,000 £230,000 £230,000 0 £0 £0 £0 3 £245,000 £245,000 £275,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Kelloe 0/17 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 7 £47,950 £60,000 £69,950 0 £0 £0 £0 8 73,950 £79,950 £79,950 0 £0 £0 £0 2 £149,950 £149,950 £149,950 0 £0 £0 £0 Lanchester 1/50 £97,500 £97,500 £97,500 0 £0 £0 £0 12 £114,000 £120,000 £129,950 0 £0 £0 £0 19 154,950 £159,950 £170,000 0 £0 £0 £0 22 £220,000 £225,000 £275,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Langley Moor 1/16 £66,950 £66,950 £66,950 0 £0 £0 £0 7 £79,950 £79,950 £119,950 0 £0 £0 £0 4 60,000 £60,000 £140,000 0 £0 £0 £0 4 £220,000 £220,000 £249,950 0 £0 £0 £0 Langley Park 0/69 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 31 £58,950 £59,950 £76,950 0 £0 £0 £0 22 110,000 £110,000 £115,000 0 £0 £0 £0 17 £124,950 £159,950 £229,950 5 £309,995 £314,995 £319,995 Low Pittington 0/10 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 1 £175,000 £175,000 £175,000 0 £0 £0 £0 2 149,950 £149,950 £149,950 0 £0 £0 £0 7 £525,000 £525,000 £695,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Maidenlaw 0/1 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 1 £300,000 £300,000 £300,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Meadowfield 0/31 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 6 £49,950 £67,500 £74,950 0 £0 £0 £0 19 112,000 £115,000 £134,950 0 £0 £0 £0 6 £99,950 £235,000 £250,000 0 £0 £0 £0 New Brancepeth 0/23 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 11 £59,950 £59,950 £67,500 0 £0 £0 £0 9 64,950 £64,950 £137,000 0 £0 £0 £0 4 £210,000 £210,000 £335,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Parkhill 0/9 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 5 £70,000 £75,000 £75,000 0 £0 £0 £0 4 85,000 £85,000 £94,950 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 Quarrington Hill 0/4 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 3 £59,950 £59,950 £59,950 0 £0 £0 £0 1 84,950 £84,950 £84,950 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 Quebec 0/1 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 1 £134,950 £134,950 £134,950 0 £0 £0 £0 0 0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 Sacriston 0/75 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 18 £69,950 £69,950 £82,000 0 £0 £0 £0 39 109,950 £110,000 £139,950 9 £117,500 £145,000 £145,000 18 £159,950 £159,950 £174,995 7 £152,500 £152,500 £159,995 Satley 0/3 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 2 155,000 £155,000 £155,000 0 £0 £0 £0 1 £290,000 £290,000 £290,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Shadforth 0/7 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 3 £89,950 £89,950 £89,950 0 £0 £0 £0 3 116,950 £116,950 £259,950 0 £0 £0 £0 1 £369,000 £369,000 £369,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Sherburn 0/30 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 16 124,950 £125,000 £135,000 0 £0 £0 £0 5 £189,950 £212,950 £217,950 0 £0 £0 £0 Sherburn Hill 0/13 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 6 £44,950 £44,950 £45,000 0 £0 £0 £0 7 74,950 £74,950 £119,950 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 Shincliffe 0/7 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 1 £200,000 £20,000 £200,000 0 £0 £0 £0 3 329,500 £329,500 £399,950 0 £0 £0 £0 3 £550,000 £550,000 £550,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Sunderland Bridge 0/1 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 1 £480,000 £480,000 £480,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Sunniside 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 Ushaw Moor 1/63 £124,950 £124,950 £124,950 0 £0 £0 £0 17 £64,950 £64,950 £74,950 0 £0 £0 £0 37 75,000 £79,950 £95,000 0 £0 £0 £0 8 £84,950 £84,950 £175,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Waterhouses 0/11 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 2 £79,950 £79,950 £79,950 0 £0 £0 £0 5 124,950 £130,000 £135,000 0 £0 £0 £0 4 £164,950 £164,950 £164,950 0 £0 £0 £0 Witton Gilbert 0/43 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 14 £78,000 £78,000 £88,000 0 £0 £0 £0 21 88,000 £90,000 £116,950 0 £0 £0 £0 8 £189,950 £189,950 £195,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Blackhall Colliery 0/47 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 20 £59,950 £59,950 £69,950 0 £0 £0 £0 22 88,995 £100,000 £145,000 0 £0 £0 £0 5 £100,000 £154,000 £158,995 1 £154,000 £154,000 £154,000 Blackhall Rocks 0/8 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 5 £54,950 £54,995 £65,000 0 £0 £0 £0 2 88,950 £88,950 £88,950 0 £0 £0 £0 1 £154,000 £154,000 £154,000 1 £154,000 £154,000 £154,000 Castle Eden 1/16 £210,000 £210,000 £210,000 0 £0 £0 £0 2 £139,950 £139,950 £139,950 0 £0 £0 £0 7 215,000 £215,000 £345,000 0 £0 £0 £0 6 £349,950 £350,000 £359,500 0 £0 £0 £0 Crimdon 0/6 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 3 £54,950 £54,950 £54,995 0 £0 £0 £0 1 154,950 £154,950 £154,950 0 £0 £0 £0 2 £154,000 £154,000 £154,000 1 £154,000 £154,000 £154,000 Dalton-le-Dale 0/17 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 2 £84,995 £84,995 £84,995 0 £0 £0 £0 8 145,000 £145,000 £175,000 0 £0 £0 £0 7 £225,000 £225,000 £275,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Deaf Hill 3/95 £27,500 £27,500 £40,000 0 £0 £0 £0 32 £54,950 £59,950 £75,000 0 £0 £0 £0 48 79,950 £83,000 £93,950 0 £0 £0 £0 12 £94,950 £94,950 £169,950 0 £0 £0 £0 Easington Colliery 1/70 £100,000 £100,000 £100,000 0 £0 £0 £0 25 £56,500 £59,850 £69,995 0 £0 £0 £0 36 70,000 £74,950 £99,950 0 £0 £0 £0 8 £154,950 £154,950 £160,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Easington Village 0/57 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 16 £69,950 £79,950 £89,950 0 £0 £0 £0 29 129,995 £1,399,500 £159,950 0 £0 £0 £0 12 £220,000 £224,995 £249,950 0 £0 £0 £0 Grants Houses 0/67 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 21 £55,000 £59,950 £74,950 2 £79,995 £79,995 £79,995 38 75,000 £76,995 £85,000 3 £89,995 £89,995 £89,995 8 £69,950 £69,950 £119,950 0 £0 £0 £0 Haswell 0/19 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 8 £31,950 £31,950 £39,950 0 £0 £0 £0 6 72,000 £94,995 £110,000 0 £0 £0 £0 6 £149,995 £159,950 £169,950 0 £0 £0 £0 Haswell Plough 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 Hawthorn 2/20 £112,950 £112,950 £112,950 0 £0 £0 £0 1 £132,000 £132,000 £132,000 0 £0 £0 £0 9 69,950 £150,000 £230,000 0 £0 £0 £0 8 £279,995 £279,995 £299,950 1 £460,000 £0 £0 Hesleden 0/9 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 4 £69,995 £69,995 £89,950 0 £0 £0 £0 5 76,950 £99,950 £99,950 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 High Hesleden 0/1 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 1 285,000 £285,000 £285,000 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 Horden (part of Peterlee) 0/101 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 42 £45,000 £59,950 £69,950 0 £0 £0 £0 47 69,950 £69,995 £79,995 0 £0 £0 £0 12 £135,000 £179,950 £199,995 0 £0 £0 £0 Hutton Henry 0/7 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 2 £79,950 £79,950 £79,950 0 £0 £0 £0 2 224,950 £224,950 £224,950 0 £0 £0 £0 3 £154,950 £154,950 £199,950 0 £0 £0 £0 Ludworth 0/17 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 10 £41,950 £41,950 £54,950 0 £0 £0 £0 4 79,950 £79,950 £84,950 0 £0 £0 £0 3 £150,000 £150,000 £163,950 0 £0 £0 £0 Murton 0/125 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 42 £69,950 £69,950 £79,950 7 £69,995 £69,995 £79,960 57 69,950 £74,950 £89,950 8 £109,995 £109,995 £110,000 25 £159,950 £165,000 £174,950 1 £197,995 £197,995 £197,995 Peterlee 2/430 £56,000 £56,000 £56,000 0 £0 £0 £0 131 £60,000 £65,000 £75,000 2 £79,995 £79,995 £79,995 213 75,000 £79,950 £100,000 3 £89,995 £89,995 £89,995 84 £145,000 £158,000 £199,950 0 £0 £0 £0 Seaham (HMR current) 8/293 £55,000 £55,000 £59,950 0 £0 £0 £0 81 £69,950 £72,000 £86,950 2 £114,995 £114,995 £114,995 137 92,000 £99,950 £124,950 4 £124,995 £124,995 £132,995 73 £175,000 £199,950 £240,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Seaton 1/35 £78,950 £78,950 £78,950 0 £0 £0 £0 10 £79,950 £79,950 £89,995 0 £0 £0 £0 15 89,950 £90,950 £135,000 0 £0 £0 £0 10 £210,000 £210,000 £249,950 0 £0 £0 £0 Shotton Colliery 2/46 £44,000 £44,000 £44,000 0 £0 £0 £0 15 £69,950 £71,500 £79,950 0 £0 £0 £0 22 77,500 £77,500 £85,000 0 £0 £0 £0 7 £150,000 £150,000 £194,950 0 £0 £0 £0 South Hetton 1/50 £45,000 £45,000 £45,000 0 £0 £0 £0 10 £65,000 £65,000 £72,000 0 £0 £0 £0 25 78,000 £79,950 £89,950 0 £0 £0 £0 14 £165,000 £165,000 £189,950 0 £0 £0 £0 Station Town 0/14 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 4 £47,000 £47,000 £64,950 0 £0 £0 £0 5 40,000 £49,950 £54,950 0 £0 £0 £0 6 £325,000 £352,000 £349,950 0 £0 £0 £0 Thornley 0/37 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 7 £61,000 £61,000 £65,000 0 £0 £0 £0 16 48,000 £59,500 £74,995 0 £0 £0 £0 14 £180,000 £180,000 £218,000 3 £218,000 £218,000 £220,000 Trimdon Colliery 0/7 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 3 £48,000 £48,000 £49,950 0 £0 £0 £0 3 84,950 £84,950 £95,000 0 £0 £0 £0 1 £450,000 £450,000 £450,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Trimdon Grange 1/26 £55,000 £55,000 £55,000 0 £0 £0 £0 8 £65,000 £65,000 £79,950 0 £0 £0 £0 11 74,950 £74,950 £92,950 0 £0 £0 £0 5 £65,000 £94,950 £94,950 0 £0 £0 £0 Trimdon Station 3/60 £27,500 £27,500 £40,000 0 £0 £0 £0 22 £49,950 £54,950 £59,950 0 £0 £0 £0 26 74,950 £83,000 £92,950 0 £0 £0 £0 10 £94,950 £94,950 £169,950 0 £0 £0 £0 Wheatley Hill (HMR current) 0/43 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 16 £62,000 £64,950 £69,950 0 £0 £0 £0 20 65,950 £79,950 £80,000 0 £0 £0 £0 8 £159,950 £159,950 £165,950 0 £0 £0 £0 Wingate / Wellfield 1/76 £59,995 £59,995 £59,995 0 £0 £0 £0 18 £44,000 £44,000 £57,500 0 £0 £0 £0 38 69,950 £76,500 £114,950 0 £0 £0 £0 23 £169,000 £179,950 £200,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Barnard Castle 4/105 £79,000 £79,000 £79,000 0 £0 £0 £0 29 £99,500 £100,000 £120,000 0 £0 £0 £0 36 129,500 £130,000 £159,950 0 £0 £0 £0 36 £220,000 £234,950 £270,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Bolam 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 Boldron 0/2 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 2 £350,000 £350,000 £350,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Bowes 1/6 £99,000 £99,000 £99,000 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 3 159,950 £159,950 £160,000 0 £0 £0 £0 3 £495,000 £49,500 £495,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Butterknowle 0/13 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 7 £80,000 £80,000 £99,500 0 £0 £0 £0 4 80,000 £80,000 £104,950 0 £0 £0 £0 2 £229,950 £229,950 £229,950 0 £0 £0 £0 Cockfield 0/35 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 16 £65,000 £69,950 £70,000 0 £0 £0 £0 12 72,000 £75,000 £95,000 0 £0 £0 £0 7 £165,000 £165,000 £174,950 0 £0 £0 £0 Cotherstone 0/8 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 2 £120,000 £120,000 £120,000 0 £0 £0 £0 4 195,000 £195,000 £214,950 0 £0 £0 £0 2 £445,000 £445,000 £445,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Cowshill 0/4 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 2 £150,000 £150,000 £150,000 0 £0 £0 £0 2 175,000 £175,000 £175,000 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 Crawley Side 1/83 £84,000 £84,000 £84,000 0 £0 £0 £0 22 £94,950 £99,950 £110,000 0 £0 £0 £0 29 119,950 £124,950 £168,000 0 £0 £0 £0 33 £199,000 £199,950 £295,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Daddry Shield 0/3 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 2 £70,000 £70,000 £70,000 0 £0 £0 £0 1 335,000 £335,000 £335,000 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 Eastgate 0/7 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 2 £100,000 £100,000 £105,000 0 £0 £0 £0 2 139,500 £139,500 £139,500 0 £0 £0 £0 2 £335,000 £335,000 £335,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Edmundbyers 0/3 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 3 £425,000 £425,000 £495,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Eggleston 0/7 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 1 £149,950 £149,950 £149,950 0 £0 £0 £0 5 189,000 £229,950 £299,000 0 £0 £0 £0 1 £395,000 £395,000 £395,000 0 £0 £0 £0 Evenwood 0/41 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 15 £54,950 £59,500 £69,950 0 £0 £0 £0 17 74,950 £74,950 £84,950 1 £115,995 £115,995 £115,995 9 £84,950 £84,950 £154,995 1 £154,995 £154,995 £154,995 Evenwood Gate 0/3 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 2 74,950 £74,950 £74,950 0 £0 £0 £0 1 £189,950 £189,950 £189,950 0 £0 £0 £0 Frosterley 0/19 £0 £0 £0 0 £0 £0 £0 4 £67,500 £67,500 £84,950 0 £0 £0 £0 6 100,000 £100,000 £115,000 0 £0 £0 £0 9 £225,000 £275,000 £295,000 0 £0 £0 £0

38 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Appendix 4: Land for sale - up to 60 miles from Durham

Waltons Terrace, New Brancepeth Price: £70,000.00 Size: 0 Hectares Description: Planning permission granted for the erection of two detached three bedroomed dwellings with garages. Residential location 3.37 miles from Ushaw Moor and 4.28 miels from Durham City.

Prospect Place, Coxhoe, County Durham Size: 1.07 Hectares Description: Residential development site of 1.07 hectares (2.65 acres) with detailed Planning Permission for forty seven dwellings granted by Durham County Council (Reference 4/11/00166/FPA). No requirement for affordable housing for the first three years and those dwellings where ...

Green Lane Business Village, Yok Hill Road, Spennymoor Price: £1,900,000.00 (GBP) Size: 13.13 Description: The subject land is located to the north of Spennymoor, County Durham to the East of A167. Newcastle upon Tyne is 24 miles to the north of the site and Durham City lies 6 miles to the north. Access by car to Durham City can be achieved in circa 10 minutes. The property ...

Former Kensington Hall Hotel, Kensington Terrace, Willington

41 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Price: GBP Size: 0.92 Description: The development site is 0.92 acre, being broadly rectangular in shape and being situated at the end of Kensington Terrace. The site is a combination of tarmac surface and unmade ground. The site currently has planning consent for a 44 apartment scheme as well as a mixed...

High Hope Street, Crook, Durham Price: £75,000.00 Size: 0.4300 Acres Description: Self contained fenced yard/compound. The site is located on Hope Street which provides a small industrial estate on the outskirts of Crook. The site briefly comprises of an operational yard which is flat, level and compacted hardcore surface.

Cook Way, Peterlee Price: £1,000,000.00 Size: 5.6600 Hectares Description:

Whitworth Road, Peterlee, County Durham Price: £100,000.00 Size: 1.1900 Acres Description: Suitable for a variety of uses, subject to planning. Offers in the region of that quoted, subject to contract. The site is broadly level and currently landscaped. Highway access is gained from the existing Whitworth Road.

Land adjacent to 3 Winchester Drive, Peterlee, County Durham Price: £75,000.00 Size: 0.4700 Acres Description: Suitable for a variety of uses,subject to planning.Offers invited in the region of that quoted, subject to contract.The site is broadly rectangular,level and currently landscaped.New highway access will be required to enable access from the main road

Land at rear of 4 Winchester Drive, Peterlee, County Durham Price: £95,000.00 Size: 0.6000 Acres Description: Suitable for a variety of uses,subject to planning.Offers in the region of that quoted, subject to contract. The site is broadly rectangular, level and currently landscaped. New highway access will be required to enable access from the main road.

Mill Hill, Peterlee, County Durham Price: POA Size: 58630 sq ft

42 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Description: The subject property comprises a self contained factory/warehouse with ancillary office accommodation over two floors to the front. There is car parking externally for approximately 60 plus cars as well as yard space for 60 HGV's.

Land, Mill Hill, Peterlee, Durham Price: POA Size: 1.0000 - 6.3100 Acres Description: Suitable for a variety of uses, subject to planning. The site is flat and broadly offering a single point of access and egress directly onto Mill Hill.

Durham Chare, Bishop Auckland, County Durham Price: £67,500.00 (Reduced to) Size: 2996 - 2996 sq ft Description: Planning permission granted for one three bedroomed dwelling with garage and store. The plot is situated on the edge of a mature residential location yet within walking distance of all town centre amenities.

Redundant Buildings, Carmyers Farm, Stanley, County Durham

Price: Expressions of interest are invited for sale or rent Description: A range of former farm and residential buildings suitable for economic or employment generating uses, including diversification of agricultural enterprises; recreational tourist facilities and; visitor accommodation.

Land, Pemberton Road, Newton Aycliffe, County Durham Description:

FORDHALL ROAD & POOLE ROAD, SUNDERLAND, Tyne and Wear Price: £500,000.00 Size: 1.1 Acres Description: Sunderland is situated on the north east Coast of England at the mouth of the River Wear, approximately 12 miles south east of Newcastle-upon-Tyne and 13 miles north east of Durham. The A19 provides access to Newcastle-upon-Tyne via the Tyne Tunnel and also south to Mid...

South View, Shildon, County Durham

43 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Price: £125,000.00 Size: 5602 - 5602 sq ft Description: Cleared site extending to approximately 0.22 of an acre, planning permission for the erection of 2 semi detached houses and 6 apartments fronting South View. Planning permission extension of time limit granted 26 August 2011.

Unit BT79/3, Catkin Way, Bishop Auckland Size: 7.10 Description: Residential development opportunity. Outline planning consent for 118 units. Cleared level site. ( Agency Pilot Software Ref: 2760 )

Land to the south of Catkin Way, Catkin Way, Bishop Auckland, Tyne & Wear Price: GBP Size: 5.80 Description: Bishop Auckland is a market town in County Durham approximately 29 miles south of Newcastle Upon Tyne and 13 miles north of Darlington. The site extends to approximately 5.8 acres. All buildings on site, save for one small offiice building, have recently been demolished...

43-45 Wear Tavern, St. Lukes Terrace, Sunderland, Tyne and Wear Price: £185,000.00 Description:

44 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Derwent Avenue, Gateshead Price: £500,000.00 Size: 2.63 Acres Description: The site is located within the North East Fruit and Veg Wholesale Market which is accessed off Derwent Avenue and in turn Earlsway, one of the main carriageways running through the Team Valley estate.Access to the A1 Western Bypass is excellent providing easy communicat...

25 South Road, Bishop Auckland, County Durham Price: Offers Invited Size: 0.3 Acres Description: Potential residential development Site situated in an attractive location with rural aspect and close to village amenities. Site area approx 1/3 of an acre.

Portfolio Land Sale, Newton Aycliffe, County Durham Description: Aycliffe Business Park is the second largest in the North East at approximately 672 acres. It is home to over 250 companies providing employment to in excess of 8,000 people. In recent years public investment and private development has improved the business environment...

Hilton Road, Newton Aycliffe, County Durham Price: £129,000.00 (ONO for quick sale)

45 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Size: 0.67 Acres Description: Accessed off Hilton Road with frontage onto St Cuthberts Way, a busy road into the business park. Planning permission granted for 5 business/general industrial/storage or distribution and ancillary retail units with associated car parking and landscaping. Total site ar...

Abbotsford Road, Gateshead, Tyne and Wear Price: £300,000.00 Size: 13283 sq ft Description: The site is located on Abbotsford Road approximately twomiles to the south east of Newcastle City Centre. Thelocation allows access directly onto the A184 FellingBypass and in turn A1M and A19. Other occupiers in thenearby location include Scottish & Newcastle Brewe...

Hendon Sidings, Prospect Row, Sunderland Price: GBP Size: 13.24 Description: The site comprises an area of 5.36 hectares (13.25 acres). Our client will give consideration to subdivisions from 0.81 hectares (2 acres) upwards. (From Caldes Software. Property Ref: N7357. Nov 6 2011 7:16AM)

Former South Tyneside College, Mill Lane, Hebburn, Tyne and Wear Description: FREEHOLD OFFERS FOR THE SITE ARE INVITED ON A CONDITIONAL AND UNCONDITIONAL BASIS BY 12 PM ON FRIDAY 27TH JANUARY 2012. PLEASE CONTACT BNPPRE FOR MORE INFORMATION. THE VENDOR RESERVES THE RIGHT NOT TO ACCEPT THE HIGHEST OR ANY OFFERS MADE. The site is located to the sou...

Leggs Cross Farm, Bolam Road, Darlington, County Durham Rent: 7000.00 / Annum Size: 1.3000 Acres Description: A level well screened site with good access for haulage vehicles. New lease, term to be agreed, ideal commercial storage land.

Station Road, Hebburn, Tyne and Wear Rent: 12000.00 / Annum

46 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Size: 0.3400 Hectares Description: The site is broadly level, being enclosed by a mixture of wire, timber and concrete panel perimeter fencing. Available on a FR&I lease for a term of years to be agreed.

3-6 Portland Terrace, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear Price: £2,400,000.00 (GBP) Size: 463 - 14749 sq ft Description: Residential development/conversion opportunity. Prime residential development opportunity with planning permission for 16 apartments and associated car parking.

Orchard House, Buston Terrace, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear Size: 0.52 Hectares Description: The site is located in Jesmond, an affluent residential suburb approximately 1 mile to the north east of Newcastle upon Tyne city centre.There are good transport links and Newcastle International Airport is approximately 7 miles away. The site is approximately 0.52 ha w...

Ponteland Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear Price: POA Size: 2.1300 Acres Description: Potential Development Site for Sale, offers invited for the freehold interest by informal tender. Outline Planning for Residential Use. The site is currently used as a depot occupied by British Telecommunications.

Unit 1, Faverdale Industrial Estate, Darlington, County Durham Price: £245,000.00 (Price Reduced) Size: 6564 - 7407.48 sq ft Description: Versatile site extending to approximately 1.34 acres incorporating semi detached industrial unit, gross internal area 6564sq.ft. eaves height 9.7m, ridge height 14.3m plus 3 offices with provision of a wc/washbasin and kitchen. Total NIA 78.36sq.m. (843.5sq.ft.). Good h...

47 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Chesterfield House, The Green, Norton Price: GBP Size: 1.24 Description: Chesterfield House comprises a substantial detached period three storey building of part solid part cavity brick construction, lying beneath a range of pitched and hipped roofs with slate coverings. The windows are predominately of traditional timber sash construction,...

Bellway Industrial Estate, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear Rent: 20000.00 / Annum Size: 0.6000 Acres Description: Secure open storage, flexible terms. The site comprises of a secure area with a hardcore surface surrounded to the boundaries by secure palisade fencing (please note that fencing will be undertaken upon signing of a lease).

Open Storage Sites, Bellway Industrial Estate, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear Rent: 30000.00 / Acre Size: 0.5500 - 0.8400 Hectares Description: Secure open storage sites. Suitable for a varierty of uses, subject to planning. Flexible Terms. Our client is seeking rental offers in the region of £30,000 per acre.

Pullman House, Hopetown Lane, Darlington, County Durham

Price: GBP Size: 0.28 Description: The property is located less than a mile north of Darlington town centre on a plot bordering Hopetown Lane to the east and Widdowfield Street to the south. The property is a block of 24 apartments across 3 storeys. The property is of timber frame construction with bric...

Haughton Road, DARLINGTON, County Durham Price: POA Size: 1.2200 - 1.3000 Acres Description: Secure Compounds, 24 Hour SecurityPlot 1 - 1.3 acresPlot 2 - 1.22 acresAsking Rent £13,000 per annum and £12,200 per annum, respectivelySuitable for a variety of external storage purposes. Lease term negotiable

48 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Morton Park, Darlington, County Durham Size: 12.5400 Acres Description: Development site extending to 5.6 hectares (12.54acres) located behind B&Q and Morrisons Supermarket and Morrisons trade park with access directly off Lingfield Way. The site presently has permission for B1, B2 and B8 uses however alternative uses may be considered...

. Morton Park, Darlington, County Durham Price: POA Size: 5.0600 Hectares Description: On the Instructions of Wm Morrison Supermarkets plcMorton Park is located 1.8 miles to the east of Darlington town centre The estate benefits from excellent transport links being accessed directly off Yarm Road (A67) which is linked to the A66 providing direct access to...

Morton Park, Darlington, County Durham Size: 1.7700 Acres Description: Situated adjacent to Premier Inn and accessed off Yarm Road, a level rectangular site with good prominance which presently has planning permission for childrens day nursery and nursing home. The site may be suitable for alternative uses subject to the sellers and local...

49 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Morton Park, Darlington, County Durham Price: £140,000.00 (for quick sale) Size: 0.5340 Acres Description: Commercial Development LandVacant land comprising a corner site approximately 0.534 acres. Site is held on a ground lease for 125 years from January 2007

Land Fronting Yarm Road, Darlington, County Durham Price: POA Size: 0.7000 Hectares Description: On the Instructions of Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc. Located approximately 1.8 miles to the east of Darlington town centre. The site is currently undeveloped. Within a 10 minute drive from Durham station and Durham Tees Valley airport. For further opportunities please ...

Haverton Hill Industrial Estate, Billingham Price: £300,000.00 Size: 1 Acres Description:

Hotspur Northumberland Park, North Shields, Northumberland Description: Design and build opportunities are available within the business park for high specification offices of up to 300,000 ft² with on-site car parking.For more information about this property, click on "Visit this property’s website"

Former Dicksons Van World, Scotswood Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear

Rent: 45000.00 / Annum Size: 0.4100 Hectares Description: High prominent secure site. Former yard car sales. Suitable for a variety of uses, subject to planning. Flexible Terms.

50 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Snipe Lane, Darlington, County Durham Price: £40,000.00 Size: 5.5400 Acres Description: Situated of the A66 west bound off Snipe Lane on the outskirts of Darlington. Approx 5.54 acres of fenced land presently split into small paddocks. Water supply.

Urlay Nook Road, Stockton-on-Tees, Durham

Price: £200,000.00 Size: 2.6900 Acres Description: Located approx 2 miles to the north of Yarm & 1 mile to the west of Eaglescliffe close to the A67(linking to Durham Tees Valley Airport)& A66 Trunk Road.Full planning consent has been granted for approximately 10,000ft² of industrial ac

Durham Lane, Stockton on Tees Price: £1,500,000.00 Size: 14.2000 Acres Description: The site provides an irregular shaped development site suitable for employment related uses. Planning consent has been obtained for an approximate 100,000 sq ft warehouse unit with offices. Further information is available upon application.

Brambles Farm TA Centre, Longlands Road, Middlesbrough Price: GBP Size: 4.95 Description: The site is situated to the south of East Middlesbrough Industrial estate which is located approximately 6.5 kilometres (4 miles) to the east of Middlesbrough. Middlesbrough forms the major commercial centre of the Teesside conurbation, which includes Stockton, Thorna...

Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Appendix 5: BCIS Costs

Rate per m2 gross internal floor area for the building Cost including prelims. Last updated 21-Apr-2012 12:04. Location adjusted to Durham (Location index 93, sample 127). Building Function £/m² gross internal floor area

(Maximum age of projects) Lower Upper Sample Mean Lowest Median Highest Quartile Quartile

114 Railway stations (30) 2048 477 1602 2176 2395 3460 13

116 Railway lineside buildings (30) 1237 650 908 1017 1361 2385 11 116.2 Railway relay 1001 650 877 1001 1132 1335 7 buildings/substations (30) 117 Rail vehicle storage/repair 1603 572 - 1075 - 3163 3 buildings (25)

124 Coach and bus stations (15) 1916 992 - 1933 - 2806 4

125 Car parks (Multi-storey) (15) 333 249 272 316 391 429 9

125.4 Car parks (Underground) (20) 471 433 - 435 - 547 3

126 Petrol stations (15) 3158 2538 - 2959 - 4177 4 127 Road vehicle storage/repair

buildings (incl car showrooms) 777 165 662 765 827 1843 60

(20)

127.1 Garages (20) 574 165 403 586 722 994 6

127.11 Domestic scale garages (25) 643 173 - 761 - 994 3

127.12 Vehicle storage buildings (20) 422 165 - 458 - 605 4

127.3 Vehicle showrooms (25) 788 462 664 753 820 1843 61 127.31 Vehicle showrooms with

workshops, garages, etc

Generally (15) 785 462 729 770 813 1416 24 500 to 2000m2 788 481 735 768 810 1416 15 GFA (15) Over 2000m2 738 462 714 752 804 900 8 GFA (15) 127.32 Vehicle showrooms without

workshops, garages, etc

Generally (25) 794 585 678 757 805 1395 10 500 to 2000m2 748 585 745 757 797 841 6 GFA (25) 127.4 Vehicle repair and

maintenance buildings

Generally (20) 785 232 752 821 875 1075 9 Up to 500m2 862 726 819 821 868 1075 5 GFA (20) 500 to 2000m2 689 232 - 813 - 895 4 GFA (15) Over 2000m2 720 470 493 705 918 1043 7 GFA (30)

134 Port and harbour buildings (15) 2246 875 - 1290 - 5528 4

136 Boat control buildings (20) 1473 938 - 1516 - 1921 4

144 Air transport terminals (15) 1911 1311 1566 1625 2021 3031 5 147 Aircraft storage/repair buildings 755 77 - 719 - 1507 4 (15)

152 Radio buildings (30) 1507 739 - 1440 - 2409 4

153 Television buildings (30) 1623 924 - 1961 - 1982 3

154.1 Telephone exchanges (30) 1235 719 962 1110 1501 1786 11

157.2 Sorting Offices (15) 880 311 810 891 933 1708 15

53 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

162.1 Generator houses, power 1294 830 885 980 1328 2679 6 stations, etc (30) 162.2 Sub-stations (electricity 1510 986 990 1138 1144 3295 5 transmission) (30)

175.1 Refuse depots (15) 905 294 499 587 950 2420 6

177 Mortuaries, morgues (25) 2152 1008 1959 2272 2716 2806 5 265 Livestock buildings - farms(pig 258 165 - 281 - 329 3 pens, milking parlours, etc) (30) 265.5 Stud farms, stables and the like 835 546 - 794 - 1206 4 (25) 268 Agricultural storage buildings 422 168 - 399 - 722 4 (30)

273 Food/drink/tobacco factories (15) 984 351 697 1178 1272 1318 8 274 Factories for chemical and allied 1167 275 377 814 1859 2508 5 industries (15)

275.1 Factories for metals (20) 821 329 - 863 - 1272 3 275.2 Factories for mechanical 788 397 - 797 - 1169 3 engineering (20) 275.5 Factories for electronics, 882 274 770 826 1061 1475 6 computers, or the like (20) 277.3 Factories for paper, printing and 588 205 391 456 657 1317 6 publishing (20) 278 Builders yards, Local Authority 727 416 546 657 943 1035 7 maintenance depots (15) 282 Factories

Generally (20) 625 153 383 528 753 2508 209 Up to 500m2 787 298 563 643 953 1813 37 GFA (20) 500 to 2000m2 611 153 401 519 728 2508 94 GFA (20) Over 2000m2 565 205 348 453 753 1407 78 GFA (20) 282.1 Advance factories

Generally (15) 528 259 365 499 633 1102 51 Up to 500m2 688 513 558 614 751 1102 12 GFA (15) 500 to 2000m2 520 259 368 476 638 1102 26 GFA (15) Over 2000m2 397 260 315 363 462 634 13 GFA (15) 282.12 Advance Factories/Offices -

mixed facilities (class B1)

Generally (15) 797 286 472 805 1016 1498 23 Up to 500m2 1124 624 - 1187 - 1498 4 GFA (20) 500 to 2000m2 720 286 469 727 939 1235 12 GFA (15) Over 2000m2 727 308 426 725 907 1407 8 GFA (15) 282.2 Purpose built factories

Generally (25) 668 153 399 577 819 2508 128 Up to 500m2 851 462 597 725 1151 1272 7 GFA (20) 500 to 2000m2 655 153 422 529 735 2508 52 GFA (25) Over 2000m2 658 205 366 627 834 1825 69 GFA (25) 282.22 Purpose built factories/Offices - 640 261 400 554 884 1458 18 mixed facilities (15) 284 Warehouses/stores

Generally (15) 513 132 339 409 544 2796 87 Up to 500m2 928 410 544 692 755 2796 7 GFA (15) 500 to 2000m2 515 267 353 430 621 1046 20 GFA (15) Over 2000m2 464 132 324 380 500 1850 60 GFA (15)

54 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

284.1 Advance warehouses/stores (15) 380 132 320 355 396 734 23 284.2 Purpose built

warehouses/stores

Generally (15) 547 164 344 435 542 2796 60 Up to 500m2 928 410 544 692 755 2796 7 GFA (15) 500 to 2000m2 487 267 341 366 502 1046 15 GFA (15) Over 2000m2 501 164 339 433 510 1850 38 GFA (15) 284.5 Cold stores/Refrigerated stores 838 440 530 649 1110 1710 8 (20)

314.1 County, City, Town halls (25) 1475 930 1165 1250 1882 2188 6

315 Local admin buildings (15) 1260 552 1084 1217 1461 2088 25

317 Law courts (20) 1850 1359 1607 1889 2070 2200 9 320 Offices

Generally (15) 1124 483 883 1073 1260 3604 233 Air-conditioned

Generally (15) 1230 483 995 1137 1352 3604 89

1-2 storey (15) 1110 483 907 1085 1201 2074 31

3-5 storey (15) 1262 773 1071 1157 1377 3604 48

6+ storey (15) 1494 1018 1226 1277 1692 2646 9 Not air-conditioned

Generally (15) 1031 530 787 963 1171 2007 93

1-2 storey (15) 941 530 751 917 1056 1603 51

3-5 storey (15) 1119 553 905 1053 1228 2007 39

6+ storey (20) 1444 1123 - 1507 - 1638 4 320.1 Offices with shops, banks,

flats, etc

Generally (15) 1087 705 828 970 1358 1990 24

1-2 storey (15) 848 705 753 791 906 1111 8

3-5 storey (15) 1101 781 855 920 1382 1529 7

6+ storey (15) 1289 864 1041 1355 1480 1990 9

321 Artist's studios (15) 951 558 - 1028 - 1188 4 338 Banks/Building Society branches 1843 1404 - 1736 - 2390 3 (20) 340 Mixed commercial developments 954 464 575 959 1347 1396 9 (30) 341 Wholesale trading 752 524 - 788 - 906 4 building/auction rooms (25) 341.1 Retail warehouses

Generally (20) 523 267 387 468 561 1643 56 Up to 1000m2 616 332 428 528 619 1643 10 (20) 1000 to 7000m2 509 267 374 468 571 1090 35 GFA (20) 7000 to 484 329 388 443 509 735 9 15000m2 (20) Over 15000m2 384 265 - 368 - 534 4 GFA (25) 341.5 Market building providing

accommodation for pens stalls 644 240 - 611 - 1116 4

etc (20)

342 Shopping centres (20) 861 665 - 828 - 1090 3

343 Department stores (40) 893 309 698 750 1024 1684 5 344 Hypermarkets, supermarkets

Generally (25) 1008 167 708 1007 1307 1734 53

Up to 1000m2 1015 681 - 889 - 1599 4

55 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

(25) 1000 to 7000m2 1029 167 722 1126 1319 1734 44 GFA (25) 7000 to 752 674 - 752 - 831 4 15000m2 (25) 345 Shops

Generally (25) 725 372 488 610 795 1830 40

1-2 storey (25) 734 372 477 610 813 1830 36

3-5 storey (25) 643 531 - 625 - 791 4 345.1 Shops with domestic, office 1099 474 846 947 1212 1922 9 accommodation (15) 371 Mountain and cave rescue 1090 881 - 1134 - 1212 4 stations (15) 372 Fire stations

Generally (15) 1634 336 1429 1669 1842 2466 38 Up to 500m2 1741 336 1568 1737 1982 2466 28 GFA (15) 500 to 2000m2 1419 888 1285 1502 1663 1800 8 GFA (15) 372.1 Fire service admin/control 1960 1274 - 1966 - 2635 4 buildings (20)

372.6 Fire training buildings (15) 1227 613 1113 1157 1410 1723 8

373 Ambulance stations (25) 840 505 653 761 1001 1319 11

374 Police stations (15) 1479 1025 1250 1514 1572 2134 10 374.1 Police admin/control buildings 1316 971 1214 1325 1356 1901 11 (15)

375 Military buildings (30) 1566 390 908 1092 1527 5298 34 375.1 Air Force facilities, operations 1240 1089 - 1096 - 1534 3 building (30)

375.35 Territorial Army Centres (15) 880 769 - 909 - 934 4

375.4 Civil defence facilities (25) 3326 1191 - 3946 - 4223 4 375.5 Camps, depots, bases, ranges 2062 782 837 881 2510 5298 5 (30) 376.5 Reformatories,borstals,secure 2104 1139 1611 1972 2575 3246 7 residential units for children (20)

411.1 Hospital teaching centres (15) 1371 1132 1272 1366 1414 1688 6 412 General hospitals, GP

hospitals, cottage hospitals

Generally (20) 1617 808 1308 1560 1808 3465 143 Up to 1000m2 1684 808 1355 1608 1857 3465 40 (20) 1000 to 7000m2 1577 844 1304 1516 1778 3135 90 GFA (20) 7000 to 1479 892 1309 1639 1694 1792 6 15000m2 (20) Over 15000m2 1872 1118 1364 1690 2388 2790 7 GFA (20) 412.8 Hospital - mixed specialist 1541 892 1226 1417 1910 2263 5 facilities (20) 413 Mental, psychiatric hospital 1613 1104 1300 1473 1742 3135 12 facilities (15)

413.1 Psychiatric units (15) 1680 1200 1300 1473 1760 3135 8

413.12 Psycho-geriatric units (20) 1127 808 - 1191 - 1318 4

413.2 Mental handicapped units (15) 1422 1155 1225 1450 1513 2014 9

414.1 Ear, nose and throat units (40) 1068 762 850 933 1219 1578 5 414.8 Hospital facilities for treatment of 1466 1004 1268 1471 1643 1971 8 parts of the body (15) 415 Maternity, gynaecological 1519 1090 1299 1421 1549 2465 8 hospital facilities (25)

415.7 Genito-urinary facilities (25) 1456 1022 1322 1471 1666 1771 6 416 Paediatric, geriatric hospital 1551 1171 1332 1533 1710 2130 8 facilities (15)

56 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

416.1 Paediatric units, children's 1549 1243 1454 1613 1702 1733 5 hospitals (15)

416.2 Geriatric units (20) 1549 1171 - 1448 - 2130 4 417.1 Diagnosis excluding radiography 1710 1000 1088 1741 2023 3083 10 (x-ray) (40) 417.2 Surgery including operating 1748 1339 1519 1690 1758 2526 6 theatres (25)

417.4 Hospital laboratories (20) 2002 1694 1788 1914 2052 2644 6

417.41 Pathology laboratories (20) 1825 1694 - 1800 - 2004 4 417.5 Occupational therapy,

physiotherapy, hydrotherapy 1373 844 911 1280 1573 2257 5

(20) 417.7 Chemotherapy including 1738 1582 - 1697 - 1975 4 pharmacies, dispensaries (15)

417.71 Pharmacies (25) 1104 561 - 1321 - 1431 3

417.73 Chemotherapy units (15) 1738 1582 - 1697 - 1975 4 417.81 Radiotherapy units (incl linear 2196 876 - 2369 - 3170 4 accelerators) (25)

417.88 Specialised facilities (20) 2055 872 - 1941 - 3465 4

418.1 Ward blocks (15) 1294 876 1130 1341 1441 1671 6

418.2 Outpatients/casualty units (15) 1652 1429 - 1676 - 1826 4

418.25 Day hospitals (20) 1567 1290 1339 1654 1656 1896 5

418.3 Intensive care/Acute wards (20) 1754 1375 1382 1601 1878 2535 5 418.8 Sterile stores, sterilisation units 1450 500 709 1674 2060 2277 6 (30) 421 Health Centres, clinics, group

practice surgeries

Generally (15) 1213 365 1004 1190 1386 2650 93

Public (15) 1349 365 1049 1367 1614 2650 32

Private (15) 1135 716 992 1124 1289 1537 60 425 Welfare consultation centres 1205 734 980 1059 1300 2878 14 (15)

427 Medical research facilities (15) 1738 1101 1141 1636 2119 2907 7 441 Observation and assessment 1361 897 - 1469 - 1612 4 centres (25) 442 Nursing homes, convalescent

homes, short stay medical 1185 691 859 1191 1364 1964 20

homes (15) 443 Hospices - Homes for chronic 1281 1011 1069 1343 1448 1582 7 invalids, addicts, etc (15) 444 Homes for mentally

handicapped/deficient

Generally (20) 1142 674 963 1112 1269 2114 20 Up to 500m2 1086 674 842 953 1139 2114 8 GFA (20) 500 to 2000m2 1195 772 1112 1226 1322 1486 11 GFA (20) Over 2000m2 1163 1008 - 1157 - 1324 3 GFA (25) 445.1 Homes for physically 1452 929 1153 1259 1494 2572 6 handicapped (20)

446 Childrens homes (15) 1384 787 1070 1324 1594 2317 26 447 Old people's home

Generally (15) 1079 726 913 1053 1168 2183 42 Up to 500m2 1012 823 - 1052 - 1160 3 GFA (25) 500 to 2000m2 1206 759 966 1091 1298 2183 10 GFA (15) Over 2000m2 1036 726 851 1027 1165 1665 30 GFA (15)

448 Day centres (15) 1277 909 1073 1254 1354 2161 28

461 Veterinary hospitals (15) 1455 1102 1184 1386 1606 2117 7

57 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

462 Animal clinics (20) 1251 1163 - 1175 - 1414 3 464 Animal rearing and living

facilities: research, domestic etc 1049 146 824 1070 1453 1598 9

(15)

464.1 Kennels and catteries (15) 1077 146 878 1159 1471 1598 8

511 Canteens, refectories (15) 1560 798 1384 1677 1795 2170 12

512 Restaurants (20) 1462 1206 1289 1480 1629 1705 5 515 Cafes, snack bars, coffee bars, 1602 765 997 1623 1710 2915 5 milk bars (25) 517 Public houses, licensed

premises

Generally (20) 1391 859 1288 1319 1574 1930 18 Up to 500m2 1386 1221 - 1356 - 1611 4 GFA (20) 500 to 2000m2 1392 859 1288 1307 1609 1930 14 GFA (20) 518 Function rooms, banqueting 2730 2066 - 2712 - 3432 4 rooms, meeting rooms, etc (15)

524 Theatres (15) 1802 1335 1480 1581 2155 2816 14

525 Cinemas (25) 997 771 - 964 - 1291 4 532 Community Centres

Generally (20) 1211 544 965 1176 1385 4260 130 Up to 500m2 GFA

Generally (20) 1229 562 881 1135 1407 4260 56 Steel framed 1399 690 924 1264 1418 4260 17 (20) Brick 1049 562 829 1006 1186 1817 33 construction (20) Timber framed 1741 1300 1475 1567 2088 2276 5 (15) 500 to 2000m2 GFA

Generally (20) 1198 544 1015 1194 1385 2069 68 Steel framed 1204 672 1007 1194 1348 1822 40 (20) Brick 1170 544 1016 1180 1404 2069 25 construction (20) Timber framed 1211 775 - 1219 - 1633 4 (25) Over 2000m2 GFA

Generally (20) 1190 855 1068 1281 1327 1386 6 Steel framed 1201 855 - 1281 - 1386 4 (20) 532.1 General purpose halls

Generally (15) 1268 457 1099 1256 1448 2060 57 Up to 500m2 1314 767 1148 1302 1482 2060 45 GFA (15) 500 to 2000m2 1096 457 879 1031 1259 1938 12 GFA (15)

532.2 Visitors' centres (15) 1706 991 1281 1644 2040 3284 27 534 Clubs, youth clubs, students 1496 718 1124 1366 1684 2718 11 unions, etc (15) 538 Mixed recreation buildings,

holiday camps, caravan sites,etc 1308 1025 1152 1155 1542 1665 5

(20) 541 Covered swimming pools

Generally (20) 1928 877 1597 1820 2202 3978 50 Up to 500m2 1984 470 1327 1681 2580 3978 8 GFA (25) 500 to 2000m2 1761 877 1518 1767 2057 2689 35 GFA (20) Over 2000m2 2205 1675 1938 2200 2377 3135 12 GFA (20)

58 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

541.1 Small swimming pools (15) 2140 1392 1482 1737 2111 3978 5

541.2 25 metre swimming pools (15) 1695 877 1434 1701 1855 2585 16

541.3 50 metre swimming pools (25) 2284 2178 - 2185 - 2489 3

541.4 Leisure pools (20) 2307 1723 2200 2224 2316 3135 6 546.1 Boat houses (private and 1642 737 - 1549 - 2735 4 recreational) (15) 562.1 Sports centres/recreational

centres

Generally (15) 1035 483 868 998 1145 1998 91 Up to 500m2 1368 917 1041 1244 1669 1998 7 GFA (15) 500 to 2000m2 1002 483 851 990 1144 1678 48 GFA (15) Over 2000m2 1015 521 906 994 1085 1990 36 GFA (15) 562.11 Sports centre/recreation

centres inc swimming pools

Generally (15) 1491 852 1281 1517 1645 2067 38 500 to 2000m2 1586 1215 1245 1541 1864 2067 5 GFA (15) Over 2000m2 1476 852 1295 1498 1642 1937 33 GFA (15) 562.12 Gymnasia/sports halls

Generally (15) 996 276 825 987 1163 1552 94 Up to 500m2 1233 775 1172 1283 1398 1552 8 GFA (15) 500 to 2000m2 982 276 821 980 1132 1499 76 GFA (15) Over 2000m2 908 411 741 888 1173 1372 10 GFA (15) 562.13 Indoor athletics training

centres

Generally (25) 872 541 691 868 1028 1255 8 Over 2000m2 919 677 743 946 1034 1255 7 GFA (25) 562.2 Gymnasia, fitness centres, etc 1269 530 702 1421 1725 2078 7 (15)

562.31 Squash courts (20) 1118 711 - 886 - 1758 3

562.32 Tennis courts (indoor) (15) 433 283 376 392 516 585 9

562.33 Table tennis centres (20) 730 627 - 681 - 931 4

562.41 Indoor cricket centres (15) 813 387 669 918 1025 1063 5

563.2 Indoor bowling greens (15) 526 411 441 497 512 810 6 564.1 Stadia, sports grounds

Generally (15) 1359 352 957 1526 1667 2174 18 Up to 500m2 1363 883 905 1586 1592 1850 5 GFA (15) 500 to 2000m2 921 352 654 709 1113 1774 5 GFA (15) Over 2000m2 1630 1359 1480 1580 1698 2174 8 GFA (15)

565.1 Riding schools (15) 404 289 - 385 - 557 4

565.2 Rifle ranges (20) 836 348 - 725 - 1545 4

566.2 Golf driving ranges (20) 662 334 - 516 - 1135 3

567.1 Covered ice rinks (25) 929 562 - 1024 - 1200 3 568.1 Sports pavilions, club houses

and changing rooms

Generally (15) 1176 346 896 1100 1371 3670 235 Steel framed 1230 558 967 1188 1448 2329 52 (15) Brick 1132 346 878 1039 1318 3147 163 construction (15)

Timber framed 1455 630 1060 1246 1613 3670 18

59 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

(15)

568.11 Sports changing rooms

Generally (15) 1283 346 1024 1280 1524 2362 50 Steel framed 1324 924 1194 1264 1391 1888 6 (15) Brick 1270 346 984 1262 1530 2362 42 construction (15) 568.12 Sports pavilions and club

houses

Generally (15) 1135 528 876 1048 1266 3670 176 Steel framed 1204 558 933 1171 1404 2329 43 (15) Brick 1088 528 853 1012 1252 3147 117 construction (15) Timber framed 1345 630 916 1144 1556 3670 14 (15) 568.13 Golf club houses

Generally (20) 1342 689 867 1018 1808 2517 15 Steel framed 1275 689 908 1058 1580 2446 8 (20) Brick 1082 743 763 1001 1018 1887 5 construction (20)

630 Churches, chapels (15) 1480 622 1039 1275 1529 4209 42 640 Mission halls, meeting houses 1630 992 1256 1464 1650 3081 15 (15) 650 Temples, mosques, synagogues 1434 1076 - 1477 - 1748 3 (20)

670.1 Crematoria (20) 1802 1132 - 1687 - 2702 4 710 Schools

Generally (15) 1251 435 1025 1214 1443 3228 841

Public (15) 1249 457 1023 1210 1441 3228 769

Private (15) 1259 435 1026 1236 1419 2398 66 711 Nursery schools/creches

Generally (15) 1403 435 1184 1348 1582 2503 142 Up to 500m2 1450 435 1213 1372 1666 2503 96 GFA (15) 500 to 2000m2 1305 759 1093 1319 1487 1936 45 GFA (15) 712 Primary schools

Generally (15) 1257 577 1055 1214 1443 2239 316 Up to 500m2 1316 687 1080 1290 1475 1991 62 GFA (15) 500 to 2000m2 1226 577 1025 1199 1383 2239 180 GFA (15) Over 2000m2 1284 782 1094 1229 1473 1966 74 GFA (15)

712.1 Middle schools (15) 1105 879 1007 1093 1247 1290 6 712.12 Primary/middle schools - 1415 986 1255 1396 1559 1990 9 specialised teaching blocks (15) 712.8 Primary Schools - mixed 1332 894 1105 1236 1538 2156 13 facilities (15) 713 Secondary schools (high 1109 586 883 1084 1275 3228 129 schools) (15) 713.1 Secondary schools - specialised 1184 457 946 1135 1322 2338 115 teaching blocks (15) 713.8 Secondary Schools - mixed 1136 620 955 1167 1344 1546 18 facilities (15)

714 Sixth form/tertiary colleges (15) 1193 484 928 1125 1400 2011 38 714.1 Sixth form specialised teaching 1378 977 1143 1320 1496 1891 10 blocks (15)

714.8 Sixth form - mixed facilities (15) 1279 1015 - 1207 - 1686 4

717 Special schools (15) 1350 784 1149 1341 1516 2703 40

60 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

717.2 Schools for the mentally 1335 826 1167 1352 1562 2127 34 handicapped (15) 717.3 Schools for the physically 1310 1110 - 1267 - 1595 4 handicapped (20)

721 Universities (15) 1388 920 1102 1467 1508 1918 9 721.2 University - specialised teaching 1562 854 1202 1353 1734 3665 27 blocks (15)

721.8 University - mixed facilities (20) 1819 1028 - 1928 - 2393 4 722 Colleges

Generally (15) 1181 683 882 1071 1296 3111 41

1-2 storey (15) 1167 763 909 1145 1293 1929 18

3-5 storey (15) 1151 683 846 1066 1399 1958 18 722.2 Colleges - specialised teaching 1288 302 949 1232 1446 3911 50 blocks (15)

722.8 Colleges - mixed facilities (15) 1186 811 991 1154 1320 1868 10

727 Adult education facilities (25) 1218 644 944 1104 1251 3640 49 727.1 Adult education facilities for the 1098 992 - 1050 - 1251 3 mentally handicapped (25) 727.2 Adult education facilities for the 1327 1035 - 1438 - 1508 3 physically handicapped (25)

729.1 Lecture theatres (15) 2386 1516 1755 2173 2626 4252 7

731.1 Research facilities (15) 1501 1008 1223 1338 1446 3383 10

732 Laboratories (15) 1711 1053 1395 1542 1905 2745 29 751 Botanical gardens, herbaria, 2023 1362 - 1872 - 2986 4 zoos (20)

756 Museums, planetaria (15) 2055 563 1007 1253 2685 5181 7 757 Art galleries, facilities for special 1974 1106 1299 1820 2581 3130 7 displays (15)

758 Exhibition buildings (15) 2205 1067 1352 1374 2914 5043 9 760 Libraries

Generally (15) 1470 631 1276 1420 1699 2533 49 Up to 500m2 1532 928 1316 1474 1673 2252 14 GFA (15) 500 to 2000m2 1457 631 1166 1419 1761 2533 27 GFA (15) Over 2000m2 1409 1091 1183 1357 1524 1974 8 GFA (15)

762 Public Libraries (15) 1577 1193 1363 1529 1740 2252 28 763 School/College/University 1290 631 964 1179 1481 2533 19 Libraries (15)

764 Special libraries (25) 1585 1309 - 1362 - 2083 3 766 Computer buildings

Generally (30) 1597 824 1183 1432 2012 2834 27 Air-conditioned 1992 1186 1457 2276 2478 2563 5 (30) Not air- 1289 824 - 1087 - 2158 4 conditioned (30) 767 Record offices, archives, patent 1611 1249 - 1758 - 1824 3 offices (25) 810 Housing, mixed developments 783 397 660 760 879 1736 637 (15) 810.1 Estate Housing

Generally (15) 759 285 651 742 841 1589 1129 Single storey 831 285 720 804 930 1445 227 (15)

2-storey (15) 740 396 644 725 824 1430 815

3-storey (15) 743 494 623 699 828 1589 85 4-storey or 1077 820 - 985 - 1425 3 above (25)

810.11 Estate Housing detached (15) 776 607 641 754 855 1046 12

61 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

810.12 Estate housing semi detached

Generally (15) 758 399 649 743 847 1445 227 Single storey 881 563 743 866 1001 1445 45 (15)

2-storey (15) 732 399 640 722 825 1070 171

3-storey (15) 666 531 593 630 726 928 11 810.13 Estate housing terraced

Generally (15) 778 396 651 752 880 1589 264 Single storey 825 521 693 774 944 1283 53 (15)

2-storey (15) 766 396 655 753 851 1136 173

3-storey (15) 765 500 626 700 790 1589 38 816 Flats (apartments)

Generally (15) 901 357 748 866 1006 2774 634

1-2 storey (15) 865 510 741 837 961 1615 176

3-5 storey (15) 886 357 744 866 1003 1824 412

6+ storey (15) 1227 680 929 1131 1369 2774 39 818 Housing with shops, offices, 1004 513 775 910 1128 2192 47 workshops or the like (15) 820.1 'One-off' housing detached (3

units or less)

Generally (15) 1208 540 914 1079 1446 2710 98 Single storey 1008 540 875 965 1128 1495 40 (15)

2-storey (15) 1239 629 909 1080 1541 2552 42

3-storey (15) 1618 1022 1450 1530 1782 2710 13 4-storey or 1495 973 - 1272 - 2462 4 above (25) 820.2 'One-off' housing semi-detached 873 581 771 868 971 1273 108 (3 units or less) (15) 820.3 'One-off' housing terraced (3 1201 705 763 816 950 4167 13 units or less) (15) 841 Housing provided in connection 1012 796 892 1035 1077 1260 5 with other facilities (15) 843 Sheltered Housing

Generally (15) 924 513 760 873 995 1877 74 Single storey 988 636 730 915 1166 1877 15 (15)

2-storey (15) 897 513 756 866 973 1560 31

3-storey (15) 917 682 834 868 950 1372 15 4-storey or 876 663 729 850 932 1321 8 above (15) 843.1 Sheltered Housing with shops, 972 703 818 949 1073 1367 7 restaurants or the like (5)

852 Hotels (15) 1204 686 1065 1204 1288 1867 20

853 Motels (15) 860 646 785 818 996 1056 5

856.1 Dormitories (15) 1260 897 1008 1274 1389 1833 15 856.2 Students' residences, halls of 1148 708 911 1131 1300 2008 49 residence, etc (15)

856.3 Nurses' residences (25) 918 664 851 960 1015 1070 7 856.4 Staff residential accommodation 784 731 - 734 - 888 3 (20) 856.5 Barracks, mess accommodation, 1285 1055 1174 1269 1376 1542 34 section houses, etc (15)

856.7 Youth hostels (15) 1481 927 - 1469 - 2057 4 856.8 Short stay hostels for homeless 1215 689 916 1126 1267 3370 23 etc (15)

914.1 Links, corridors, etc (15) 1735 1242 1256 1329 1547 3300 5

916 Conference centres (15) 1469 1027 - 1503 - 1842 4

62 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

922 Staff rooms, common rooms, 1854 937 1264 1826 2325 3039 7 rest rooms, etc (15)

931 Kitchens (20) 1876 904 1273 1665 2119 3418 5 931.1 Kitchens with dining facilities 2042 1557 1587 1671 2034 3358 5 (15)

941.1 Public conveniences (15) 2174 884 1874 2024 2416 3738 6 941.2 Toilet blocks - private facilities 2237 1082 - 1896 - 3732 3 (20) 943 Utility blocks (washing and toilet 1713 971 1446 1582 1756 3331 13 facilities) (20)

947 Dressing, changing rooms (25) 1465 1229 - 1317 - 1851 3

952 Laundries (30) 1226 580 791 813 1573 2373 5

971.2 Boiler houses (25) 1679 405 791 1536 2379 3471 7 971.21 Boiler houses, including boiler 2526 1536 2037 2396 3102 3471 7 plant (30)

Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Appendix 6: Results of residential price sensitivity appraisals

Table A6.1 Residual Value and Viability Thresholds for SHMA affordable option County Durham

Residual Value £/ha Alternative Viability Base Use Value Threshold -5% Price 5% 1 North Durham 1 25,000 280,000 510,543 633,914 757,284 2 North Durham 2 25,000 280,000 122,434 247,451 372,468 3 South Durham 1 25,000 280,000 -108,772 -256 104,156 4 Central Durham 1 300,000 360,000 449,822 569,927 690,032 5 South Durham 2 300,000 360,000 416,667 562,239 709,882 6 East Durham 1 300,000 360,000 -176,386 -6,829 161,139 7 Central Durham 2 500,000 600,000 2,288,439 3,096,861 3,926,771 8 East Durham 2 300,000 360,000 -487,714 -358,881 -230,048 9 East Durham 3 300,000 360,000 23,444 175,082 320,692 10 Central Durham 3 300,000 360,000 10,072 206,347 398,693 11 South Durham 4 500,000 600,000 590,254 818,668 1,052,677 12 Central Durham 4 50,000 310,000 -573,707 -503,727 -434,267 13 North Durham 3 300,000 360,000 284,145 562,502 840,858 14 South Durham 5 50,000 310,000 272,606 493,561 714,515 15 East Durham 4 50,000 310,000 249,832 382,848 515,863 16 Central Durham 5 50,000 310,000 528,179 726,706 925,232

65 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Table A6.2 Residual Value and Viability Thresholds for SHMA affordable option Durham City and Chester-le-Street

Residual Value £/ha Alternative Viability Base Use Value Threshold -5% Price 5% 1 Durham City 1 25,000 280,000 640,757 767,212 893,667 2 Durham City 2 25,000 280,000 780,106 935,118 1,090,130 3 Durham City 3 25,000 280,000 587,694 723,272 858,850 4 Durham City 4 300,000 360,000 497,418 616,407 735,396 5 Chester-le-Street 1 300,000 360,000 755,324 915,990 1,076,655 6 County Durham 1 300,000 360,000 791,668 997,196 1,202,724 7 County Durham 2 500,000 600,000 590,137 1,297,366 2,021,376 8 Chester-le-Street 2 300,000 360,000 729,527 907,100 1,084,674 9 Durham City 5 300,000 360,000 752,334 924,042 1,102,815 10 County Durham 3 300,000 360,000 447,543 645,589 852,200 11 Durham City 6 500,000 600,000 1,314,768 1,564,490 1,826,558 12 Durham City 7 50,000 310,000 -172,097 -86,460 -2,350 13 County Durham 4 300,000 360,000 492,261 772,476 1,052,691 14 Durham City 8 50,000 310,000 430,460 653,930 877,401 15 Chester-le-Street 3 50,000 310,000 183,760 309,943 436,127 16 County Durham 5 50,000 310,000 222,723 400,229 577,735

66 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Table A6.3 Additional Profit for SHMA affordable option Durham County

Additional Profit £/m2 -5% Base Price 5% 1 North Durham 1 129 194 259 2 North Durham 2 -64 -9 46 3 South Durham 1 -168 -119 -76 4 Central Durham 1 56 123 191 5 South Durham 2 29 91 153 6 East Durham 1 -156 -104 -54 7 Central Durham 2 158 233 310 8 East Durham 2 -313 -265 -217 9 East Durham 3 -121 -65 -11 10 Central Durham 3 -104 -42 19 11 South Durham 4 0 62 125 12 Central Durham 4 -703 -648 -593 13 North Durham 3 -12 54 119 14 South Durham 5 -9 74 156 15 East Durham 4 -33 53 139 16 Central Durham 5 100 187 274

67 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Table A6.3 Additional Profit for SHMA affordable option Durham City and Chester-le-Street

Additional Profit £/m2

-5% Base Price 5%

1 Durham City 1 210 281 353 2 Durham City 2 239 311 383 3 Durham City 3 161 229 296 4 Durham City 4 88 159 230 5 Chester-le-Street 1 183 255 327 6 County Durham 1 155 225 295 7 County Durham 2 4 72 142 8 Chester-le-Street 2 164 240 315 9 Durham City 5 166 238 312 10 County Durham 3 37 107 178 11 Durham City 6 209 284 360 12 Durham City 7 -410 -337 -265 13 County Durham 4 39 110 180 14 Durham City 8 53 142 230 15 Chester-le-Street 3 -80 7 93 16 County Durham 5 -36 47 129

68 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Appendix 7: Non-residential Availability

constructed in reinforced concrete with concrete floors and roof and brick clad Small Offices elevations. The building currently prov...

Durham

1st 2nd Floors, 4/5 North Road, Durham Rent: £9000.00 / Annum Size: 1319 - 2452 sq ft Unit 3, Belmont Business Park, Durham, County Durham Description: Located opposite The Gates Shopping Centre at the busy junction of Rent: £13.50 / sq ft North Road and Framwellgate Bridge, the subject premises occupy the first and Size: 1480 sq ft second floors above Iceland and are served well by the nearby bus station and Description: Belmont Business Park is extremely well located on the outskirts of railway station. The property is arranged as a... Durham City on Broomside Lane which is close to Junction 62 of the A1(M). Unit 3 is an attractive modern headquarters office building completed in 2001 with brick elevations, curved profile metal roof ...

Green Lane, Durham Price: POA Size: 210 - 9100 Milburngate House, Durham Description: The property is a modern two-storey office building with brick Price: GBP elevations and a pitch tiled roof. The offices are available on the first floor and Rent: £9.5 / sq ft provide 13,446 sq ft of office space. The offices benefit from a single 8 person Size: 5250.04 - 27722.25 sq ft passenger lift, suspended ceiling and rece... Description: The subject accommodation is located within the central tower, which forms part of the main office complex. Built in the early 1970's the property was The Crossgate Centre, Alexandra Crescent, Durham, County Durham

69 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Rent: £3620 - £15850 / Annum Size: 362 - 1585 sq ft Description:

1 City West Business Park, St. Johns Road, Durham, County Durham Rent: £10.50 / sq ft Size: 300 - 3000 sq ft Description: The Business Park comprises twenty two, two-storey office build-ings Belmont Industrial Estate , Durham which are capable of subdivision to create individual offices, open plan suites or Rent: 445.00 - 575.00 / sq ft which can be easily knocked through into the next unit to provide larger open plan Size: 230 - 9300 offices.City West Business Park off... Description: This is a modern development of 6 small workshops and 3 offices ideal for small to medium sized businesses. The offices range from 70 sq m (750 Unit 1, West Durham Office Park, Durham, Durham sq ft) to 116 sq m (1250 sq ft) and are carpeted throughout, have electric heating, Rent: 12.00 / sq ft WC and washing facilities. The workshops b... Size: 2250 sq ft Description: Modern open plan offices. Generous on site car parking. The accommodation is currently arranged to provide a meeting room, manager's room and open plan office area. The property also features a key pad entry system.

Abbey Road, Durham Price: POA Size: 130 - 8300 Description: This centre in Durham comprises a 12,278 sq ft (1,140 sq m) two City West Business Park, Durham, County Durham storey office block. With 17 offices ranging from 137 sq ft to 6,329 sq ft (12 sq m to Size: 96.88 - 2992.36 sq ft 587 sq m). It offers flexible managed workspace accommodation for companies Description: Modern development of 22 self-contained properties arranged over seeking office premises. two floors. The specification includes solid carpet covered floors, perimeter trunking, plaster and painted walls and suspended ceilings incorporating Cat II lighting. There are tea point facilities and ...

Unit 2, Low Cocken Farm, CHESTER LE STREET, County Durham Rent: £6,000 / Annum Size: 2544 sq ft Description

70 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Chester le street

172B-172B Front Street, Chester le Street, Durham Rent: 18000.00 / Annum Size: 1490 sq ft Date Updated: 03/06/2010 Description: The subject office accommodation is located on the second floor and is accessed by a self contained entrance on Front Street. 5 dedicated car parking spaces. Available on a new FRI lease for a term of years to be agreed. An EPC Abbey Road, Durham has been commissioned. Price: POA Size: 130 - 8300 Auckland House , High Chare, Chester Le Street, County Durham Date Updated: 11/02/2012 Price: £160,000.00 Description: This centre in Durham comprises a 12,278 sq ft (1,140 sq m) two Size: 1599 - 1599 sq ft storey office block. With 17 offices ranging from 137 sq ft to 6,329 sq ft (12 sq m to Date Added: 09/01/2012 587 sq m). It offers flexible managed workspace accommodation for companies Description: seeking office premises.

Unit 2, Low Cocken Farm, CHESTER LE STREET, County Durham Lumley Court, Chester le Street Rent: £6,000 / Annum Price: POA Size: 2544 sq ft Size: 2250 - 6100 sq ft Date Added: 05/01/2012 Date Updated: 10/09/2010 Description: Description: Lumley Court offers a mix of modern self contained office buildings arranged around a fully landscaped courtyard together with generous on site car parking.

Seaham

Lumley Court, Chester le Street Price: POA Size: 130 - 8300 Date Updated: 09/02/2012 Description: Lumley Court provides high specification offices of 1,035 sq ft (96.15 sq m) to 3,050 sq ft (283.35 sq m). The self contained detached and semi detached 19 Adelaide Row, Seaham buildings have been designed to meet the needs of the modern occupier and are Price: GBP available either to lease or purchase. ... Rent: £8.18 / sq ft Size: 1100.01 sq ft Description: The property is located at the junction of Adelaide Row and Back South Railway Street within Seaham town centre, in close proximity to the main

71 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

retail parade of Church Street. The property comprises a single storey former Post Description: Ridgemount House comprises a six-storey office building, benefiting Office hall, with a ground floor sales area... from a communal entrance lobby and passenger lift. The available accommodation is situated to the ground, first and second floor, with the ground floor benefiting 1st Floor Offices, 29-30 Church Street, Seaham, Durham from a dedicated private entrance. A ki... Rent: 6500.00 / Annum Size: 1281 sq ft 5th Floor, Ridgemount House, Bede Way, Peterlee, Durham Description: The subject premises comprise the first floor of a two storey building, Rent: 10.00 / sq ft consisting of retail at ground floor and office above.The property is situated on Size: 4500 sq ft Church Street, a busy pedestrianised retail thoroughfare. Date Updated: 03/06/2010 Description: Town Centre Offices to let. The subject suite is located on the 5th Floor of Ridgemount House which is on the eastern edge of Peterlee Town Centre adjacent to the Castle Dene Shopping Centre. Available by way of a new FR&I lease via a service ch

Hall Dene Way, Seaham Price: POA Size: 140 - 8400 Description: This centre in Seaham comprises a 17,981 sq ft (1,670 sq m) industrial estate with units ranging from 651 sq ft to 3,000 sq ft (60 sq m to 278 sq 30 Yoden Way, PETERLEE, County Durham m). It offers flexible managed workspace accommodation for companies seeking Price: POA workshop or office premises. Size: 146 - 2245 sq ft Date Added: 16/04/2012 Description: Various Office Suites The shopping centre provides approximately 305,366 sq ft (28,369 sq m) of retail accommodation as well as the available office Peterlee suites listed below.Established occupants include Asda, The Post Office, Ladbrokes, Peacocks, Iceland, Boots, New Look a...

Lee House, Peterlee, County Durham Rent: 10.00 / sq ft Size: 235 - 2718 sq ft Date Updated: 03/06/2010 Description: Town Centre offices to let.Flexible terms available.Units can be combined.The offices comprise a mixture of open plan and cellular accommodation located at levels 2,4&6.Available by way of a new FR&I lease via a service charge Ridgemount House, Bede Way, Peterlee for a term to Price: GBP Size: 2007.49 - 10760.09 sq ft Date Added: 28/02/2012

72 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

2 Fern Court, Peterlee, County Durham Rent: 10.95 / sq ft Size: 3796 sq ft Date Added: 02/03/2012 Description: The available accommodation is situated on the ground floor and benefits from open plan floor plates with carpeted raised access floors, suspended ceilings and security grilles. Externally, there are 15 car parking spaces available.

North West Industrial Estate, Durham Price: POA Size: 230 - 9300 Date Updated: 09/02/2012 Description: The centre at Peterlee comprises a 205,036 sq ft (19,047 sq m) industrial estate with 57 units ranging from 588 sq ft to 35,669 sq ft (54 sq m to 3,313 sq m). The property offers flexible managed workspace accommodation for companies seeking workshop, light industrial, ... St Bede's House, Birchwood Drive, Peterlee, County Durham Size: 4,000 - 40,000 sq ft Date Added: 20/12/2011 Description: St Bede's House delivers an efficient rectangular floor plate with central core to maximise flexibility to enable each floor to be let as a whole or in various sizes subject to occupiers requirements. A contemporary design with brick and profile cladding together with co...

2 Fern Court, Peterlee, County Durham Rent: 10.95 / sq ft Size: 3796 sq ft Date Updated: 29/02/2012 Description: The available accommodation is situated on the ground floor and benefits from open plan floor plates with carpeted raised access floors, suspended ceilings and security grilles. Externally, there are 15 car parking spaces available. Castle Eden, Durham Price: POA Size: 130 - 8300 Date Updated: 11/02/2012 Description: Grade 2 listed building built 1828, refurbished to high standard in 2007 to create The Old Brewery Business Centre containing 25 executive offices on an easy-in easy-out licence. Just one month's notice is all you need to give. Each room comes with telephone and broad...

73 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Description: Individual office rooms available from 170sq.ft. up to a floor of 3,700sq.ft.DISCOUNTED RENTAL TERMS AVAILABLE FOR NEW BUSINESS START UPS

Wingate Grange Industrial Estate, Durham Price: POA Size: 290 - 9900 Date Updated: 09/02/2012 Description: The property in Wingate comprises a 10,373 sq ft (963 sq m) St Cuthberts Way, Newton Aycliffe industrial estate. With 2 units ranging from 5,000 sq ft to 5,373 sq ft (464 sq m to Price: POA 499 sq m). The building offers flexible managed workspace accommodation for Size: 210 - 9100 companies looking for workshop or light industri... Date Updated: 11/02/2012 Description: The complex in Newton Aycliffe comprises a 62,000 sq ft business Sedgefield centre with 40 individual office suites, workshops and light industrial units, ranging from 250 sq ft - 7500 sq ft. Newton Aycliffe

Parsons Court, Newton Aycliffe, County Durham Price: POA Size: 1035 - 6100 sq ft Date Updated: 07/10/2011 Description:

1 Evans Incubation Centre, Durham Way South, Newton Aycliffe, County Durham Rent: £665.00 / Annum Size: 300 - 1250 sq ft Date Updated: 20/04/2012 Description: The offices are fully furbished and complete with secretarial service. The premises include meeting rooms, networking lounges, kitchens and shower rooms.Other features include hot desking options, postal services and a free available car park. The offices have been adap...

. Bede House and St Cuthbert's House, ., Newton Aycliffe, County Durham Price: POA Size: 170 - 3700 sq ft Date Updated: 18/11/2010

74 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Durham Way South, Newton Aycliffe Aycliffe Industrial Park , Newton Aycliffe Rent: 100.00 - 1250.00 / sq ft Price: POA Size: 260 - 9600 Size: 200 - 9000 Date Updated: 11/02/2012 Date Updated: 11/02/2012 Description: A modern 2 storey development consiting of 41 offices. Offices range Description: A modern development incorporating a mix of commercial uses from 170 - 1250sqft (15.7-115.8sqm) and are tastefully decorated. Offices are fully including offices, manufacturing and storage. Offices ranging from serviced to include:Buildings Insurance, Service Charge, Business Rates, 300sqft(27.7sqm) - 1000sqft(92.65sqm), each have their own services with Workstations, Telephone line installation ... uspended ceiling and categoryII lighting, heating and carpets. Furnis...

Aycliffe Industrial Estate, Newton Aycliffe Grindon Way, Newton Aycliffe, County Durham Price: POA Price: £775,000.00 Size: 140 - 8400 Size: 0 - 30763 sq ft Date Updated: 09/02/2012 Date Updated: 10/04/2012 Description: Parsons Court provides a number of different and innovative options Description: The property comprises two separate purpose built industrial for procuring new high quality office accommodation. The development provides a buildings, a set down/storage yard and associated car parking.The range of high specification office buildings from 2,250 sq ft to 6,100 sq ft (209.03 sq factory/workshop building is of steel portal frame construction, clad in profile m to 566.71 sq m). The self contai... sheeting to both its main elevations and the doublepitched roo...

75 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Description: The premises briefly comprise of a single storey office storage area which provides open plan and self contained areas. The remaining site is a triangular shape providing hard surfaced tarmacadam storage area.

Redworth Road, Durham Price: POA Size: 230 - 9300 Date Updated: 09/02/2012 Description: The centre in Shildon comprises of an established 24,273 sq ft (2,254 Easy In Easy Out Office - Suite 3, 1-1 Easy In Easy Out Office - Suite 3, Enterprise sq m) industrial estate with 3 detached units with internal office accommodation House, Spennymoor, County Durham ranging from 5,016 sq ft to 10,979 sq ft (465 sq m to 1,019 sq m). The property Price: POA offers flexible managed workspace acco... Size: 100 Date Updated: 15/03/2012 Description: Each suite is available on a simple monthly licence and is carpeted and ready for immediate occupation and can be furnished if required. Tenants have the use of communal toilets and kitchen facilities. Ample free parking is provided.

Dabble Duck Road, Durham Price: POA Size: 230 - 9300 Date Updated: 09/02/2012 Description: The centre in Shildon comprises a 10,890 sq ft (1,011 sq m) industrial Easy In Easy Out Office - Suite 7, 1-1 Easy In Easy Out Office - Suite 7, Enterprise estate with 17 units ranging 495 sq ft to 990 sq ft (45 sq m to 91 sq m). The House, Spennymoor, County Durham premises offers flexible managed workspace accommodation for companies Price: POA seeking light industrial premises. Size: 320 Date Updated: 15/03/2012 Description: Each suite is available on a simple monthly licence and is carpeted and ready for immediate occupation and can be furnished if required. Tenants have Spennymoor the use of communal toilets and kitchen facilities. Ample free parking is provided.

Wear Street, Spennymoor, Durham Rent: 25000.00 / Annum Size: 3228 - 3288 sq ft Date Updated: 19/08/2010

76 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Easy In Easy Out Offices - Suite 6, 1-1 Easy In Easy Out Offices - Suite 6, Enterprise House, Spennymoor, County Durham Price: POA Size: 115 Date Updated: 15/03/2012 Description: Each suite is available on a simple monthly licence and is carpeted and ready for immediate occupation and can be furnished if required. Tenants have the use of communal toilets and kitchen facilities. Ample free parking is provided.

Enterprise House - Ground Floor Wing B Office Suit, 1-1 Enterprise House - Spennymoor Ground Floor Wing B Office Suite, Enterprise House, County Durham Price: POA Price: POA Size: 114 - 1995 sq ft Size: 1995 sq ft Date Updated: 30/07/2010 Date Updated: 30/07/2010 Description: Free Car Parking24hr CCTV Estate SecurityOn Site Management Description: Open Plan office area with own meeting room, staff kitchen and Team WC's. Access is via a controlled voice entry system.

Binchester Garage, Binchester Lane Ends , BISHOP AUCKLAND, County Durham Price: £335,000.00 Size: 4742 - 4742 sq ft Date Added: 03/01/2012 Description:

Bishop Auckland

Easy In Easy Out Office - Suite 2, 1-1 Easy In Easy Out Office - Suite 2, Enterprise House, Spennymoor, County Durham 71 Cockton Hill Road, Bishop Auckland, County Durham Price: POA Rent: £12500 - £12500 / Annum Size: 116 Size: 1186 - 1186 sq ft Date Updated: 15/03/2012 Date Updated: 22/02/2012 Description: Each suite is available on a simple monthly licence and is carpeted Description: and ready for immediate occupation and can be furnished if required. Tenants have the use of communal toilets and kitchen facilities. Ample free parking is provided. .

1C Henson Close, Bishop Auckland, County Durham Size: 2500 - 5000 sq ft Date Updated: 11/04/2012

77 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Description: Newly constructed two storey detached office building incorporating personal lift and approximately 22 car parking spaces to front and side. The building will be left to an open plan finish in order that a prospective tenant can contribute and discuss with the client t...

Vinovium House, Saddler Street, Bishop Auckland Size: 4260 - 22117 sq ft Date Added: 20/04/2012 Description: Floors availability - numbers 4-8 from 4,260sq.ft. (396sq.m.) to 22,117sq.ft. (2055sq.m.)Floor layouts are predominantly open plan, some limited 5 Former Doctors Surgery, South View, Bishop Auckland, County Durham dedicated car parking available (there is public car parking nearby within the town Price: £75,000.00 centre). Available to let as a whole or ... Size: 1000 - 1476.2 sq ft Date Added: 21/02/2011 Description: Substantial double fronted two storey mid terraced property overlooking the green and conveniently situated for access to Bishop Auckland approx 5 miles distant. The building incorporates UPVC double glazing, fire alarm and security alarm systems and night storage heat...

22a Main Street, Shildon, County Durham Size: 1236 sq ft Date Updated: 10/04/2012 Description: • GIA 114.90 sq.m (1,236 sq.ft)• Potential for alternative uses, subject to necessary consents.• Town centre location• Grade II listed building

South Church Enterprise Park, Durham Price: POA Size: 230 - 9300 Date Updated: 11/02/2012 Description: The property in Bishop Auckland comprises a 10,000 sq ft (929 sq m) single storey business centre with 6 units ranging from 1,000 sq ft to 3,000 sq ft (92 sq m to 278 sq m). The building offers flexible managed workspace accommodation for companies seeking studio premi...

Dabble Duck Road, Durham Price: POA Size: 230 - 9300

78 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Date Updated: 09/02/2012 Description: The centre in Shildon comprises of an established 24,273 sq ft (2,254 Description: The centre in Shildon comprises a 10,890 sq ft (1,011 sq m) industrial sq m) industrial estate with 3 detached units with internal office accommodation estate with 17 units ranging 495 sq ft to 990 sq ft (45 sq m to 91 sq m). The ranging from 5,016 sq ft to 10,979 sq ft (465 sq m to 1,019 sq m). The property premises offers flexible managed workspace accommodation for companies offers flexible managed workspace acco... seeking light industrial premises. New Search

Barnard Castle

Wolsingham

Consett

Church View, Bishop Auckland, County Durham Price: £135,000.00 (or best offer) Rent: £7500 / Annum Size: 1118 - 1118 sq ft Date Updated: 24/01/2012 Description: Versatile detached premises fronting the main road within the village constructed around 1990 originally as a doctors surgery the property benefits from a larm system, double glazing and gas central heating, car parking to the front of the property for 5 cars, accommoda... Unit 28B, Consett, County Durham Binchester Garage, Binchester Lane Ends , BISHOP AUCKLAND, County Durham Rent: 9900.00 - 10250.00 / Annum Price: £335,000.00 Size: 1592 sq ft Size: 4742 - 4742 sq ft Description: Modern single storey offices within attractive landscaped setting Date Added: 03/01/2012 located on the Number One Industrial Estate, Consett. The estate is approximately Description: 3/4 mile from Consett town centre.

Redworth Road, Durham Hownsgill Industrial Estate, Durham POA Price: POA Price: Size: 230 - 9300 Size: 180 - 8800 Date Updated: 09/02/2012

79 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Description: The property in Consett comprises a 33,304 sq ft (3,093 sq m) industrial estate with 4 units ranging from 5,350 sq ft to 11,302 sq ft (497 sq m to 1,049 sq m). The building offers flexible managed workspace accommodation for companies seeking light industrial or storag...

53-53 Derwentside Business Centre, Consett Business Park, Consett Rent: 7.03 / sq ft Size: 2973 sq ft

Wycliffe House, Green Lane, Durham, Tyne and Wear

Size: 13,446 sq ft Large Offices Date Updated: 05/03/2012 Description: Wycliffe House is a modern two-storey office building with brick elevations and a pitched tiled roof. The Valuation Office occupies the ground floor. Durham The first floor is available.Wycliffe House is located on Green Lane, a short walk from Durham city centre. Access is...

Milburngate House, Durham Price: GBP Second Floor Offices, 20-26 North Road, Durham, County Durham Rent: £9.5 / sq ft Rent: £8000 / Annum Size: 5250.04 - 27722.25 sq ft Size: 6402 sq ft Date Updated: 26/02/2012 Date Updated: 29/02/2012 Description: The subject accommodation is located within the central tower, which Description: The property is situated on North Road a busy street occupied by forms part of the main office complex. Built in the early 1970's the property was retail and commercial users at the western edge of the city centre and close to the constructed in reinforced concrete with concrete floors and roof and brick clad prime shopping area of Silver Street. The premises are immediately adjacent to the elevations. The building currently prov... bus station and comprise second floor ...

80 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Green Lane, Durham Belmont Industrial Estate , Durham Price: POA Rent: 445.00 - 575.00 / sq ft Size: 210 - 9100 Size: 230 - 9300 Date Updated: 09/02/2012 Date Updated: 11/02/2012 Description: The property is a modern two-storey office building with brick Description: This is a modern development of 6 small workshops and 3 offices elevations and a pitch tiled roof. The offices are available on the first floor and ideal for small to medium sized businesses. The offices range from 70 sq m (750 provide 13,446 sq ft of office space. The offices benefit from a single 8 person sq ft) to 116 sq m (1250 sq ft) and are carpeted throughout, have electric heating, passenger lift, suspended ceiling and rece... WC and washing facilities. The workshops b...

Wycliffe House, Green Lane, Durham, County Durham Abbey Road, Durham Rent: £12.50 / sq ft Price: POA Size: 13446 sq ft Size: 130 - 8300 Date Updated: 24/05/2011 Date Updated: 11/02/2012 Description: Wycliffe House is a modern two-storey office building located on Description: This centre in Durham comprises a 12,278 sq ft (1,140 sq m) two Green Lane, a short walk from Durham city centre. The available accommodation storey office block. With 17 offices ranging from 137 sq ft to 6,329 sq ft (12 sq m to is situated at first floor level with suspended ceiling and recessed lighting, air- 587 sq m). It offers flexible managed workspace accommodation for companies conditioning to part and double door entran... seeking office premises.

81 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Chester Le Street Description: Lumley Court offers a mix of modern self contained office buildings arranged around a fully landscaped courtyard together with generous on site car parking. Seaham

Tempest Road, Seaham, Durham Price: £450,000.00 Size: 15010 sq ft Description: Modern office accommodation with warehouse facilities set in a secure yard. Total Site Area - 0.29ha (0.72 acres) or thereabouts. Suitable for a Lumley Court, Chester le Street variety of uses, subject to planning. Price: POA Size: 130 - 8300 Date Updated: 09/02/2012 Description: Lumley Court provides high specification offices of 1,035 sq ft (96.15 sq m) to 3,050 sq ft (283.35 sq m). The self contained detached and semi detached buildings have been designed to meet the needs of the modern occupier and are available either to lease or purchase. ...

Hall Dene Way, Seaham Price: POA Size: 140 - 8400 Description: This centre in Seaham comprises a 17,981 sq ft (1,670 sq m) industrial estate with units ranging from 651 sq ft to 3,000 sq ft (60 sq m to 278 sq m). It offers flexible managed workspace accommodation for companies seeking workshop or office premises. Abbey Road, Durham Price: POA Size: 130 - 8300 Date Updated: 11/02/2012 Description: This centre in Durham comprises a 12,278 sq ft (1,140 sq m) two storey office block. With 17 offices ranging from 137 sq ft to 6,329 sq ft (12 sq m to 587 sq m). It offers flexible managed workspace accommodation for companies seeking office premises.

Lumley Court, Chester le Street Spectrum 3, Spectrum Business Park, SEAHAM, County Durham Price: POA Asking Price £ Size: 2250 - 6100 sq ft Price: Rent: £11.9500 / sq ft Date Updated: 10/09/2010 Size: 10162 - 61618 sq ft

82 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Description: Spectrum Business Park is a former Enterprise Zone. Spectrum 3 is Description: Further details of this property are available from Colliers currently available, offering up to 61,618 sq ft of accommodation. Built over ground, International first and second floors, the whole building is available to let either as a whole, or from as little as 10,162 sq ft....

Spectrum, Seaham, County Durham Rent: 11.95 / sq ft Size: 5800 - 10200 sq ft Description: Latest Office release, Spectrum 4 and 5. Total Net Area Minimum Suite Spectrum 3 61,618 sq ft. 10,200 sq ftSpectrum 4 35,012. 5,800 sq ftSpectrum 5 39,958 6,600 sq ftSpectrum 6 41,528 6,900 sq ft

Spectrum 6, Spectrum Business Park, SEAHAM, County Durham Price: Asking Price £162,592 Rent: £11.9500 / sq ft Size: 6803 - 13606 sq ft Description: New high specification offices with dedicated car parking. Spectrum Business Park is a former Enterprise Zone. Spectrum 6 which houses Business Link's new North Est HQ has 2 remaining wings avaialble at ground floor level at 6,800 sq ft each. The building has a cafe ...

Spectrum 7 & 8, Spectrum Business Park, SEAHAM, County Durham Price: POA Rent: £11.9500 / sq ft Peterlee Size: 7352 - 77408 sq ft Description: New high specification office accommodation available to let. Spectrum 7 is build over ground, first and second floors, offering accommodation from 7,754 sq ftm, up to 47,398 sq ft in total. Spectrum 8 is built over ground and first floors and offers letting of indivi...

Ridgemount House, Bede Way, Peterlee Price: GBP Size: 2007.49 - 10760.09 sq ft Date Added: 28/02/2012 Ridgemount House comprises a six-storey office building, benefiting Description: Spectrum 4 & 5, Spectrum Business Park, SEAHAM, County Durham from a communal entrance lobby and passenger lift. The available accommodation Price: POA is situated to the ground, first and second floor, with the ground floor benefiting Rent: £11.9500 / sq ft from a dedicated private entrance. A ki... Size: 5835 - 74970 sq ft

83 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Mill Hill, Peterlee, County Durham 4 Fern Court, PETERLEE, County Durham Price: POA Rent: £51,500 / Annum Size: 58630 sq ft Size: 10,214 sq ft Date Updated: 10/04/2012 Date Added: 11/04/2012 Description: The subject property comprises a self contained factory/warehouse Description: The subject premises comprise a two storey stand alone building with with ancillary office accommodation over two floors to the front. There is car brick elevations and feature glazed entrance under a pitched roof.Internally, the parking externally for approximately 60 plus cars as well as yard space for 60 accommodation has been maintained to a high standard and benefits from raised HGV's. access floors, suspended ceilings and Cat...

North West Industrial Estate, Durham Apollo, Birchwood Drive, Peterlee, County Durham Price: POA Rent: £10.50 / sq ft Size: 230 - 9300 Size: 20170 - 44161 sq ft Date Updated: 09/02/2012 Date Updated: 06/06/2011 Description: The centre at Peterlee comprises a 205,036 sq ft (19,047 sq m) Description: The property provides a two-storey office/call centre on the popular industrial estate with 57 units ranging from 588 sq ft to 35,669 sq ft (54 sq m to Bracken Hill Business Park, a well established office/call centre location located to 3,313 sq m). The property offers flexible managed workspace accommodation for the south west of Peterlee approximately 1¼ miles from the Peterlee Junction of companies seeking workshop, light industrial, ... the A19.The accommodation ranges fr...

84 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Rent: £10.50 Size: 21491 - 44161 sq ft Date Added: 25/11/2011 Description: The property comprises a two storey office or call centre on the poplar Bracken Hill Business Park. Available as a whole or on a floor by floor basis, from 21,491 sq ft.

Gemini, Birch Wood Drive, Peterlee Rent: 10.50 / sq ft Size: 20067 - 40940 sq ft Date Updated: 05/03/2012 Description: The property provides a two-storey purpose built call centre with the following specification:* Double height reception* Full air conditioning* Gas fired central heating* Full raised access floors* 2 Eight person passenger lift* 157 car park spaces Gemini, Birch Wood Drive, Peterlee Rent: £10.50 Size: 20067 - 40940 sq ft Date Added: 25/11/2011 Description: The property comprises a two storey office or call centre on the popular Bracken Hill Business Park. Available as a whole or on a floor by floor basis from 20,067 sq ft. Can be combined with the Apollo building to provide circa 85,000 sq ft.

Point One, Whitehouse Business Park, Peterlee St Bede's House, Birchwood Drive, Peterlee, County Durham Price: POA Size: 4,000 - 40,000 sq ft Size: 17000 - 70030 sq ft Date Added: 20/12/2011 Date Updated: 13/01/2012 Description: St Bede's House delivers an efficient rectangular floor plate with Description: State of the art office accommodation in a landscaped business park central core to maximise flexibility to enable each floor to be let as a whole or in environment various sizes subject to occupiers requirements.A contemporary design with brick and profile cladding together with co...

Point One , Whitehouse Business Park, Peterlee, County Durham Rent: 11.95 / sq ft Apollo, Birch Wood Drive, Peterlee Size: 17000 - 70032 sq ft

85 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Description: The accommodation is available to let by way of a full repairing and insuring lease for a term of years to be agreed. The building can be made available as a whole or sub-divided, depending on tenant's requirements.

Former Easington Colliery School, Seaside Lane, Easington Size: 1.8000 Acres Description: Excellent Development site.The property was constructed in 1911- 1913 and is the Former Easington Colliery School. Comprising a Grade II Listed Point One, Peterlee, County Durham building split into a number of blocks. Size: 16999.43 - 70029.93 sq ft Description: State of the art office accommodation in a landscaped business park. Prominently located at the entrance to the park, Point One has been particularly designed to provide flexible efficient accommodation.For more information about this property, click on "Visit this prop...

Wingate Grange Industrial Estate, Durham Price: POA Size: 290 - 9900 Description: The property in Wingate comprises a 10,373 sq ft (963 sq m) industrial estate. With 2 units ranging from 5,000 sq ft to 5,373 sq ft (464 sq m to Castle Eden, Durham 499 sq m). The building offers flexible managed workspace accommodation for Price: POA companies looking for workshop or light industri... Size: 130 - 8300 Description: Grade 2 listed building built 1828, refurbished to high standard in 2007 to create The Old Brewery Business Centre containing 25 executive offices on an easy-in easy-out licence. Just one month's notice is all you need to give. Sedgefield Each room comes with telephone and broad... Newton Aycliffe

Parsons Court, Newton Aycliffe, County Durham Price: POA Size: 1035 - 6100 sq ft Description:

86 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Size: 260 - 9600 Description: A modern 2 storey development consiting of 41 offices. Offices range from 170 - 1250sqft (15.7-115.8sqm) and are tastefully decorated. Offices are fully serviced to include:Buildings Insurance, Service Charge, Business Rates, Workstations, Telephone line installation ...

Hilton Road, Newton Aycliffe, County Durham Price: £129,000.00 (ONO for quick sale) Size: 0.67 Acres Description: Accessed off Hilton Road with frontage onto St Cuthberts Way, a busy road into the business park. Planning permission granted for 5 business/general industrial/storage or distribution and ancillary retail units with associated car parking and landscaping. Total site ar... Aycliffe Industrial Estate, Newton Aycliffe Price: POA Size: 140 - 8400 Description: Parsons Court provides a number of different and innovative options for procuring new high quality office accommodation. The development provides a range of high specification office buildings from 2,250 sq ft to 6,100 sq ft (209.03 sq m to 566.71 sq m). The self contai...

St Cuthberts Way, Newton Aycliffe Price: POA Size: 210 - 9100 Description: The complex in Newton Aycliffe comprises a 62,000 sq ft business centre with 40 individual office suites, workshops and light industrial units, ranging from 250 sq ft - 7500 sq ft. Aycliffe Industrial Park , Newton Aycliffe

Price: POA Size: 200 - 9000 Description: A modern development incorporating a mix of commercial uses including offices, manufacturing and storage. Offices ranging from 300sqft(27.7sqm) - 1000sqft(92.65sqm), each have their own services with uspended ceiling and categoryII lighting, heating and carpets. Furnis...

Durham Way South, Newton Aycliffe Rent: 100.00 - 1250.00 / sq ft

87 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Price: POA Size: 230 - 9300 Description: The centre in Shildon comprises a 10,890 sq ft (1,011 sq m) industrial estate with 17 units ranging 495 sq ft to 990 sq ft (45 sq m to 91 sq m). The premises offers flexible managed workspace accommodation for companies seeking light industrial premises.

Jubilee Road, Shildon, County Durham Rent: £35000 - £35000 / Annum Grindon Way, Newton Aycliffe, County Durham Size: 6739 - 6739 sq ft Price: £775,000.00 Description Size: 0 - 30763 sq ft

Description: The property comprises two separate purpose built industrial Jubilee Road, Shildon, County Durham buildings, a set down/storage yard and associated car parking.The Rent: £35000 - £35000 / Annum factory/workshop building is of steel portal frame construction, clad in profile Size: 6739 - 6739 sq ft sheeting to both its main elevations and the doublepitched roo... Date Added: 14/11/2011

Description: Bishop Auckland

Redworth Road, Durham Price: POA Size: 230 - 9300 Description: The centre in Shildon comprises of an established 24,273 sq ft (2,254 sq m) industrial estate with 3 detached units with internal office accommodation ranging from 5,016 sq ft to 10,979 sq ft (465 sq m to 1,019 sq m). The property Bishop Auckland Magistrates' Court, Woodhouse Lane, Bishop Auckland offers flexible managed workspace acco... Price: GBP Size: 5888.00 sq ft Date Added: 12/03/2012 Description: The Magistrates’ Court is a two storey brick built building standing on a site of approximately 0.127 Ha (0.315 acres). The property adjoins Bishop Auckland Police Station. Shared car parking is located in front of the Court building with further car spaces to the w...

Dabble Duck Road, Durham

88 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Norland House, Hackworth Industrial Park, Shildon, County Durham Price: £245,000.00 (ONO for quick sale) Size: 10884 - 10884 sq ft Date Updated: 30/08/2011 Description: Situated on a prominant site just off the Shildon/Bishop Auckland bypass and adjacent to the entrance to Hackworth Business Park. Bishop Auckland lies approximately 3.5 miles distant and Shildon town centre less than 1 mile distant. The premises are currently occupied ...

South Church Enterprise Park, Durham Jubilee Road, Shildon, County Durham Price: POA Rent: £35000 - £35000 / Annum Size: 230 - 9300 Size: 6739 - 6739 sq ft Date Updated: 11/02/2012 Date Added: 07/12/2011 Description: The property in Bishop Auckland comprises a 10,000 sq ft (929 sq m) Description: single storey business centre with 6 units ranging from 1,000 sq ft to 3,000 sq ft (92 sq m to 278 sq m). The building offers flexible managed workspace Jubilee Road, Shildon, County Durham accommodation for companies seeking studio premi... Rent: £35000 - £35000 / Annum

Size: 6739 - 6739 sq ft Date Added: 14/11/2011 Description:

Vinovium House, Saddler Street, Bishop Auckland Size: 4260 - 22117 sq ft Date Added: 20/04/2012 Description: Floors availability - numbers 4-8 from 4,260sq.ft. (396sq.m.) to Dabble Duck Road, Durham 22,117sq.ft. (2055sq.m.)Floor layouts are predominantly open plan, some limited Price: POA dedicated car parking available (there is public car parking nearby within the town Size: 230 - 9300 centre). Available to let as a whole or ... Date Updated: 09/02/2012

Description: The centre in Shildon comprises a 10,890 sq ft (1,011 sq m) industrial estate with 17 units ranging 495 sq ft to 990 sq ft (45 sq m to 91 sq m). The premises offers flexible managed workspace accommodation for companies seeking light industrial premises.

89 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Large Industrial

Durham

Cathedral Park, Belmont Industrial Estate, Durham, County Durham Price: £197,165.00 (GBP) Redworth Road, Durham Size: 39433.00 sq ft Date Added: 06/02/2012 Price: POA Description: The last phases are now complete of a prestigious new development Size: 230 - 9300 close to the A1(M). High quality new build units Date Updated: 09/02/2012 Description: The centre in Shildon comprises of an established 24,273 sq ft (2,254 sq m) industrial estate with 3 detached units with internal office accommodation ranging from 5,016 sq ft to 10,979 sq ft (465 sq m to 1,019 sq m). The property offers flexible managed workspace acco...

Barnard Castle

Wolsingham 10A, Belmont Industrial Estate , Durham, County Durham Rent: £23,000 / Annum Size: 6069 sq ft Consett Date Updated: 22/02/2012 Description: Belmont Industrial Estate is located immediately adjacent to the Price: POA A690, which is the main route linking Durham with the A1(M), A19 and Sunderland. Size: 180 - 8800 The premises are accessed off Broomside Lane which links to the A690 and are Date Updated: 09/02/2012 approximately 2 miles from Durham city centre.T... Description: The property in Consett comprises a 33,304 sq ft (3,093 sq m) industrial estate with 4 units ranging from 5,350 sq ft to 11,302 sq ft (497 sq m to 1,049 sq m). The building offers flexible managed workspace accommodation for companies seeking light industrial or storag...

Unit 8, Belmont Industrial Estate, Durham Rent: £51900 / Annum Size: 13592 sq ft

90 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Date Updated: 11/01/2012 Description: The 43.98 acre site comprises a range of industrial buildings, being a Description: A detached industrial unit with office and large yard area including 30 former brick manufacturing facility with associated offices, canteen and workshops parking spaces. forming the southern half of the site. The northern section is open ground accessed via the southern site but no lo...

Units 2 & 3 North Point, Durham, County Durham Rent: £52000 - £80000 / Annum Unit 6, Angel Park, Chester Le Street Size: 11895 - 32132 sq ft Price: GBP Date Added: 08/03/2012 Size: 30087.53 sq ft Description: The properties are of steel portal framed construction with brickwork Description: Angel Park was constructed by local developers, City & Northern in and insulated profile steel cladding to the external walls and a double pitched roof 2004 and comprises of six attractive factory/warehouse units ranging from 10,000 of insulated profile steel sheet construction incorporating translucent rooflights. sq ft to 30,000 sq ft. The subject is of traditional steel portal frame construction Internally, the property has... formed in two spans, each of equal s...

Sunflag Industrial Park, Belmont, Durham, County Durham Price: POA Size: 15000 - 195000 sq ft Date Updated: 03/06/2010 Description: Extensive Warehouse/Production Units. Secure, self contained site. Adjacent to Junction 62 of the A1(M). Flexible lease Terms. Rentals on application. Chester Le Street

D Angel Park, Chester Le Street, County Durham Price: Price on Application Rent: £3.75 / sq ft Size: 10748 sq ft Description: The property is well located on established Drum Industrial Estate, approximately one mile to the west of Junction 63 of A1(M) with access via A693. The property is of steel portal frame construction with an external envelope of brick, curtain walling and profile cla...

Fir Street, Sedgley, West Midlands Price: POA Size: 43.98 Acres

91 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

facilities and roller shutter door access. The units benefit from office accommodation and extensive secure car parking and yard...

Drum One and Drum Three, Drum Park, Chester Le Street, County Durham Price: GBP Size: 83720 - 347605 sq ft Description: Two new warehouse buildings with office accommodation on first and Foxcover Distribution Park, Seaham, County Durham second floors located immediately to the south of the Tyneside conurbation on the Price: GBP A1 corridor, adjoining the A693 within 3 mins drive time of Junction 63 of the Size: 61785 sq ft A1(M).- Suspended ceilings, modern recesse... Date Added: 17/01/2012 Description: New build warehouse units located within the Former East Durham Enterprise Zone.- 10 minimum eaves height- Dock leveller and level loading doors- 5% office content- Attractive incentives available- Up to 5 years rent free available Seaham Unit B, Hall Dene Way, Seaham, Durham Tempest Road, Seaham, Durham Rent: 148000.00 / Annum Price: £450,000.00 Size: 37152 sq ft Size: 15010 sq ft Date Updated: 03/06/2010 Date Updated: 03/06/2010 Description: Modern factory warehouse facility with secure yard and car parking Description: Modern office accommodation with warehouse facilities set in a for circa 83 vehicles. Open plan offices split over two floors with passenger lift.8m secure yard. Total Site Area - 0.29ha (0.72 acres) or thereabouts. Suitable for a eaves, incentives available. Good communications links both north and south. variety of uses, subject to planning.

5 Stockton End, Sandy, Bedfordshire Price: £292,500.00 (Guide Price) Foxcover 3 Dawdon, Seaham, County Durham Rent: £28500 / Annum Size: 61709.44 sq ft Size: 6542 sq ft Date Added: 16/04/2012 Date Added: 20/03/2012 Description: The buildings are of steel portal frame construction clad with Description: Business Premises/Factory For Sale/To Let.Total Gross Internal Area insulated profile sheeting to the walls and roof and provide both dock loading - 608 sq m (6,542 sq ft).Includes Warehouse and Toilets.Ample Parking.A1 Trunk Road Under One Mile.

92 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Date Updated: 19/08/2010 Description: The premises comprise a self contained factory / production unit with integral office accommodation and secure yard. (May Sell)

Wellmere Road, Sunderland, Tyne and Wear Size: 5186 - 11057 sq ft Date Added: 04/01/2012 Description: The premises comprise a detached factory originally constructed in 5/5a Mill Hill, Peterlee, County Durham 1977 as two semi-detached units which have been linked by the previous Size: 112659 sq ft occupiers. The units are of single storey, steel framed construction with cavity Date Added: 30/03/2012 brickwork and insulated profile steel cladding to ... Description: Industrial/warehouse complex on 10.46 acre site Good yard/circulation area plus expansion land Average eaves height 10m/30ft ( Agency Pilot Software Ref: 2379 ) Peterlee

Mill Hill, Peterlee, County Durham Price: POA Whitehouse Interchange, Peterlee Size: 58630 sq ft Price: GBP Date Updated: 10/04/2012 Size: 6200.05 sq ft Description: The subject property comprises a self contained factory/warehouse Date Updated: 26/02/2012 with ancillary office accommodation over two floors to the front. There is car Description: The site has an area of approximately 1.45 acres (0.59 hectares). parking externally for approximately 60 plus cars as well as yard space for 60 The District of Easington Council granted planning permission in November 2006 HGV's. as a district centre comprising industry, offices, warehouse and retail units. The site is available To Let or For Sale on a ... 4-4 Winchester Drive, Peterlee, Durham Rent: 32000.00 / Annum Units 2 & 3 Palmer Road, Peterlee, County Durham Size: 6364 sq ft Price: £1,000,000.00 Date Updated: 19/08/2010 Rent: 100325.00 / Annum Description: Self contained detached factory/production unit. Rental offers in the Size: 27663 sq ft region of £32,000 pa. Trade Counter use, subject to planning. Warehouse - 4,290

93 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

st ft. Office - 2,073 sq ft. Available on a new FR&I lease for a term of years to be the unit has car parking to its frontage and south gable end. To the northern gable agree end there is a large secure yard ...

4 Mill Hill, North West Industrial Estate, Peterlee 4, Whitehouse Business Park, Peterlee, Co Durham Price: GBP Price: GBP Size: 24000.17 sq ft Size: 40000.00 sq ft Date Updated: 26/02/2012 Date Added: 17/01/2012 Description: Description The premises comprise a detached industrial unit being Description: - New Build Industrial Units- Direct access to the A19- 6.8 metre eves of steel framed construction under a flat metal deck roof with mineral felt covering. Sedgefield The property benefits from offices and staff amenities within an extensive site offering potential for expansion or r... Newton Aycliffe Davy Drive, Peterlee, Durham Price: £550,000.00 Parsons Court, Newton Aycliffe, County Durham Size: 28602 sq ft Price: POA Date Updated: 03/06/2010 Size: 1035 - 6100 sq ft Description: Former bus depot with workshop, wash bay and yard. Total site area Description: - 0.83 ha (2.05 acres) or thereabouts. The premises comprise of three steel portal frame units linked together to provide an operational bus depot facility.

Northfield Way Aycliffe Business Park, Newton Aycliffe, County Durham Unit 1, Peterlee, County Durham Size: 3048.00 - 13328.00 sq ft Price: GBP Description: The estate comprises a number of terraced warehouse and trade Size: 89431.00 sq ft counter properties of steel portal frame construction with shared service yards to Date Added: 17/01/2012 both the front and rear. Single storey brickwork office accommodation is provided Description: The premises comprise a steel portal frame industrial/warehouse unit at the front elevation which includes a rec... under a curved steel profile clad roof incorporating translucent panels. Externally

94 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Description: The property comprises a sub-divided facility providing warehouse/storage and office accommodation. It has a minimum eaves height of 5m and benefits from six 4m x 4m dock level loading doors fronting Durham Way. Six roller shutter doors are provided to the rear elevatio...

Hilton Road, Newton Aycliffe, County Durham Price: £129,000.00 (ONO for quick sale) Size: 0.67 Acres Description: Accessed off Hilton Road with frontage onto St Cuthberts Way, a busy road into the business park. Planning permission granted for 5 business/general industrial/storage or distribution and ancillary retail units with Redworth Way Aycliffe Business Park, Newton Aycliffe, County Durham associated car parking and landscaping. Total site ar... Size: 9296.00 - 37454.00 sq ft Description: The estate comprises a number of semi-detached/detached warehouse/industrial premises of steel portal frame with an eaves height of 6m. Externally there are shared service yards and designated car parking. Internally each unit benefits from single storey office accommod...

Hurworth Road Aycliffe Business Park, Newton Aycliffe, County Durham Size: 3100.00 - 10548.62 sq ft Description: The estate comprises a number of semi-detached and terraced warehouse/industrial premises of steel portal frame construction benefiting from an eaves height of 6m and shared service yards to both the front and rear elevations. Central Park, Newton Aycliffe, County Durham Two storey office accommodation is provided... Size: 1044.10 - 94356.35 sq ft Description: Central Park comprises a prominent development of adjoining modern industrial units. Internal eaves height varies from a minimum of 4.9 m in Unit 6, up to a maximum of 8.5 m within Units 3-5. Loading is via roller shutter doors measuring around 5.0 m high by 4.0 m wide....

D432 Langton Business Centre, Newton Aycliffe, County Durham Size: 9999.66 - 158519.96 sq ft

95 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Size: 29998.99 - 999966.31 sq ft Description: A 104 acre greenfield site with planning permission for up to 1.4 milion ft² of B1, B2, B8 and connectivity via road, rail, sea and rail.Flexibility in design with units from 30,000 ft² to 1,000,000 ft².Hitachi Rail Europe has confirmed it is to locate its UK train manu...

Unit 1, Grindon Way, Newton Aycliffe, Durham Price: POA Size: 41173 sq ft Unit 5 Beaumont Square, Durham Way South, Newton Aycliffe Date Updated: 25/06/2010 Price: GBP Description: The property comprises a modern detached industrial/warehouse unit Rent: £41250 / Annum of steel portal frame construction.To the front of the building is a two storey office Size: 1550.02 - 12685.16 sq ft block with stores and canteens.Externally the site is fenced and gated. Description: The property comprises an end terrace modern warehouse of steel portal framed construction with profile sheet cladding and pitched roof with skylights. Externally there is a forecourt providing staff/customer car parking, to the rear there is a shared service yard suita...

Grindon Way, Newton Aycliffe, County Durham Price: £775,000.00 Size: 0 - 30763 sq ft Date Updated: 10/04/2012 Unit 8, Maple Way, County Durham Description: The property comprises two separate purpose built industrial Rent: 35400.00 / Annum buildings, a set down/storage yard and associated car parking.The Size: 10123 sq ft factory/workshop building is of steel portal frame construction, clad in profile Description: Modern semi detached unit with office on well established estate. The sheeting to both its main elevations and the doublepitched roo... unit benefits from a secure yard area and the estate has CCTV. The estate has good access to the A1. Jubilee Road, Shildon, County Durham

Rent: £35000 - £35000 / Annum Size: 6739 - 6739 sq ft Date Added: 07/12/2011 Description:

Bishop Auckland

Amazon Park, Newton Aycliffe, County Durham Morland Street, Bishop Auckland, Durham Price: £500,000.00

96 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Size: 46098 sq ft Barnard Castle Description: The subject property comprises a former bus depot of steel brick infill construction.The site will be sold with a clawback overage for any future development for a fixed period of time by negotiation.A copy of the title plan is Wolsingham available upon request Consett

Unit H1, Roman Way Industrial Estate, Bishop Auckland, County Durham Rent: £13000 / Annum Linden Park , Werdohl Way, Consett, County Durham Size: 6854 - 6854 sq ft Rent: £18500 - £36500 / Annum Description: Versatile detached unit with gross internal area 637sq.m. (6854sq.ft.), Size: 3600 - 8366 sq ft eavees height 6m, ridge height 6.67m. Unit incorporates 2 offices and mezzanine Date Added: 21/09/2011 storage and wc facilities, self contained site approx 1 acre in total providing good Description: Linden Park lies within the established Number One Industrial Estate hard standing with the unit. and occupies an ideal location fronting onto Werdohl Way. Linden Park is located 13 miles from the A1(M). Neighbouring occupiers include CAV Aerospace Limited, St. Helen Way, Bishop Auckland Derwent Valley Food Group Limited and Nam... Price: POA Size: 12208 sq ft Description: Industrial Unit with yard. There is office accommodation to the front of the unit with 3 individual offices on the ground floor and additional office space on a first floor and mezzanine level. Externally, there is a large area of parking and loading

St. Helen Way, St. Helen Auckland, Bishop Auckland, County Durham Rent: 35000.00 / Annum Size: 12208 sq ft Description: Warehouse/workshop with first floor office/canteen and mezzanine Block 9, Number One Industrial Estate, Consett, County Durham storage. Available by way of a new FR&I lease for a term of years to be agreed. Price: POA Size: 12160 sq ft Jubilee Road, Shildon, County Durham Date Updated: 28/02/2012 Rent: £35000 - £35000 / Annum Description: Block 9 is a steel portal framed industrial unit of circa 5.0m eaves Size: 6739 - 6739 sq ft height. It measures 12,160 gross internal area with a high office content, offices Description: benefiting from gas fired radiator heating, suspended ceilings with Cat2 lights, air conditioning (not tested), cante...

97 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Small Industrial

Durham

Unit 39, Number One Industrial Estate, Consett, County Durham Rent: 39000.00 / Annum Size: 11191 sq ft Date Updated: 28/02/2012 Description: Modern detached unit with offices located within the well established Number One Industrial Estate. The estate is approximately 3/4 mile from Consett town centre. The unit benefits from an external yard area. Junction 62 Belmont Industrial Estate, Durham, County Durham Size: 4101.05 - 4122.57 sq ft Date Added: 16/04/2012 Description: A modern industrial development located within the heart of the Unit 1A, Linden Park, Consett, County Durham established Belmont Industrial Estate. The site offers a range of modern units with Rent: 36500.00 / Annum designated service yards or constructed around a central courtyard. Phase 1 & 2, Size: 8366 sq ft totalling 57,000 sqft in 12 units, have a... Date Updated: 28/02/2012 Description: New end terraced unit with office built October 2008. The unit has a Unit 2, Low Cocken Farm, CHESTER LE STREET, County Durham clear internal height of 6.0m and the estate benefits from security fencing and Rent: £6,000 / Annum CCTV. Linden Park is situated within the well established Number One Industrial Size: 2544 sq ft Estate which is approximately 3/4 mile f... Date Added: 05/01/2012 Description:

Unit 1B, Linden Park, Consett, County Durham Rent: 24750.00 / Annum Chester Le Street Size: 5488 sq ft Date Updated: 28/02/2012 Description: New terraced unit with offices built October 2008. The unit has a Unit 2, Low Cocken Farm, CHESTER LE STREET, County Durham clear internal height of 6.0m and the estate benefits from security fencing and Rent: £6,000 / Annum CCTV. Linden park is situated within the well established Number One Industrial Size: 2544 sq ft Estate which is approximately 3/4 miles fr... Date Added: 05/01/2012 New Search Description:

98 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Seaham

Wellmere Road, Sunderland, Tyne and Wear Size: 5186 - 11057 sq ft

Unit 1D, Chipchase Court,, Seaham Grange Industrial Estate, County Durham Date Added: 04/01/2012 Rent: 9516.00 / Annum Description: The premises comprise a detached factory originally constructed in Size: 1582 sq ft 1977 as two semi-detached units which have been linked by the previous Date Updated: 28/02/2012 occupiers. The units are of single storey, steel framed construction with cavity Description: Modern end terraced unit with office within fenced compound with brickwork and insulated profile steel cladding to ... tenant controlled access gates. The estate is located off Stockton Road B1285 close to its junction with the A1018 giving access to Sunderland and the A19. Peterlee

Unit 2B, Seaham Grange Industrial Estate, County Durham

Rent: 14612.00 / Annum Unit 2A, Thornley Station Industrial Estate, County Durham Size: 2519 sq ft Rent: 8632.00 / Annum Date Updated: 28/02/2012 Size: 2001 sq ft Description: Modern semi detached unit with office within fenced compound with Date Updated: 28/02/2012 tenant controlled access gates. The estate has good access to the A19. The unit is Description: End terraced unit within fenced compound with tenant controlled available on easy in - easy out tenancy agreement. acccess gates. The estate is close to the A181 giving access to the A19. The unit is available on an easy in - easy out tenancy agreement.

99 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Sedgefield both the front and rear. Single storey brickwork office accommodation is provided at the front elevation which includes a rec...

Newton Aycliffe Unit 19, I E S Centre, Horndale Avenue, Newton Aycliffe Price: POA Size: 3719 sq ft Date Updated: 10/09/2010 Description: The property comprises a single storey workshop unit divided into two beneath a flat roof. Elevations are of part brick, blockwork and glass. Access to the unit is via two roller shutter loading doors.

703A, Whinfield Drive, Newton Aycliffe, County Durham Rent: £11000 / Annum Size: 2500 - 3197 sq ft Date Updated: 18/08/2011 Description: Substantial workshop unit approx. 297.14 sq.m. (3197 sq.ft.) incorporating partition office, kitchen and W.C with electric roller shutter. Enclosed compound to front 160 sq.m. (1721 s.ft.) ample parking. Please note the premises Gurney Way, Newton Aycliffe, County Durham were re-roofed in september 2007 Rent: £4000 / Annum Size: 905 - 4525 sq ft Parsons Court, Newton Aycliffe, County Durham Date Updated: 03/04/2012 Price: POA Description: Gurney Way comprises a number of single storey units constructed Size: 1035 - 6100 sq ft of brick and blockwork cavity walls with a roof of built up mineral felt on metal Date Updated: 07/10/2011 decking. Internally the units benefit from solid concrete floors with an internal clear Description: height of approximately 6m (...

Northfield Way Aycliffe Business Park, Newton Aycliffe, County Durham Hurworth Road Aycliffe Business Park, Newton Aycliffe, County Durham Size: 3048.00 - 13328.00 sq ft Size: 3100.00 - 10548.62 sq ft Date Added: 16/04/2012 Date Added: 16/04/2012 Description: The estate comprises a number of terraced warehouse and trade Description: The estate comprises a number of semi-detached and terraced counter properties of steel portal frame construction with shared service yards to warehouse/industrial premises of steel portal frame construction benefiting from an

100 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

eaves height of 6m and shared service yards to both the front and rear elevations. Two storey office accommodation is provided...

Unit 5 Beaumont Square, Durham Way South, Newton Aycliffe Price: GBP Rent: £41250 / Annum Central Park, Newton Aycliffe, County Durham Size: 1550.02 - 12685.16 sq ft Size: 1044.10 - 94356.35 sq ft Date Updated: 26/02/2012 Date Added: 16/04/2012 Description: The property comprises an end terrace modern warehouse of steel Description: Central Park comprises a prominent development of adjoining portal framed construction with profile sheet cladding and pitched roof with modern industrial units. Internal eaves height varies from a minimum of 4.9 m in skylights. Externally there is a forecourt providing staff/customer car parking, to the Unit 6, up to a maximum of 8.5 m within Units 3-5. Loading is via roller shutter rear there is a shared service yard suita... doors measuring around 5.0 m high by 4.0 m wide....

Unit 4, Maple Way, County Durham Woodham Road, Newton Aycliffe, County Durham Rent: 18750.00 / Annum Size: 2108.00 - 4168.97 sq ft Size: 4986 sq ft Date Added: 16/04/2012 Date Updated: 28/02/2012 Description: Woodham Roadcomprises two terraces of brick built industrial/trade Description: Modern detached unit with office built in 2004 on well established counter units under a single pitched roof with flat roofed extensions. Internally, side estate. The unit benefits from a secure yard area and the estate has CCTV. The eaves height is 3.75 m rising to 5.77 m clear height in the centre of the units. The estate has good access to A1. units benefit from an excell...

Unit 1, Maple Way, Newton Aycliffe Rent: 21000.00 / Annum Size: 5031 sq ft Date Updated: 10/09/2010

101 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Description: The unit comprises an industrial/warehouse unit with ancillary offices. Bishop Auckland Externally, the unit benefits from an allocated yard, within a secure compound adjacent to the property.

22a Main Street, Shildon, County Durham Size: 1236 sq ft Whinfield Drive Aycliffe Business Park, Newton Aycliffe, County Durham Date Updated: 10/04/2012 Size: 3210.00 - 4963.00 sq ft Description: • GIA 114.90 sq.m (1,236 sq.ft)• Potential for alternative uses, subject 16/04/2012 Date Added: to necessary consents.• Town centre location• Grade II listed building Situated in a prominent roadside position, the estate comprises of Description: terraced trade counter/industrial premises of steel portal frame construction benefiting from an eaves height of 5m and secure service yards to the rear elevations. Single storey office accommodation is ...

Aptec Enterprise Park, Darlington Road, West Auckland, County Durham Rent: 0.50 / sq ft Size: 5330 sq ft Date Updated: 29/11/2010 Grindon Way, Newton Aycliffe, County Durham Description: Factory premises suitable for industrial/warehousing use £775,000.00 Price: approximately 57,368sq.ft. overall (5,330sq.m.). To let as a whole or in Size: 0 - 30763 sq ft parts.Asking rent from 50p per square foot, flexible lease terms available 10/04/2012 Date Updated: New Search The property comprises two separate purpose built industrial Description: buildings, a set down/storage yard and associated car parking.The factory/workshop building is of steel portal frame construction, clad in profile sheeting to both its main elevations and the doublepitched roo...

102 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Barnard Castle Date Updated: 28/02/2012 Description: Terraced unit within fenced compound with tenant controlled access gates located within well established estate approximately 3/4 mile from Consett Wolsingham town centre.

Consett

Linden Park , Werdohl Way, Consett, County Durham Rent: £18500 - £36500 / Annum Size: 3600 - 8366 sq ft Unit 41A, Number One Industrial Estate, County Durham Date Added: 21/09/2011 Rent: 19250.00 / Annum Description: Linden Park lies within the established Number One Industrial Estate Size: 5005 sq ft and occupies an ideal location fronting onto Werdohl Way. Linden Park is located Date Updated: 28/02/2012 13 miles from the A1(M). Neighbouring occupiers include CAV Aerospace Limited, Description: Semi detached unit with offices located on well established estate Derwent Valley Food Group Limited and Nam... approximately 3/4 mile from Consett town centre.

Unit 3B, Linden Park, Consett, County Durham Unit 3E, Linden Park, Consett, County Durham Rent: 9500.00 / Annum Rent: 25750.00 / Annum Size: 1604 sq ft Size: 4924 sq ft Date Updated: 28/02/2012 Date Updated: 28/02/2012 Description: New terraced unit built October 2008. The unit has a clear height of Description: New end terraced unit with office built October 2008. The unit has a 4.5m and has a gas fired warm air heater. The estate benefits from security fencing clear internal height of 4.5m and the estate benefits from security fencing and and CCTV. Linden Park is situated within the well established Number One CCTV. Linden Park is situated within the well established Number One Industrial Industrial Estate and is approximately 3/... Estate which is approximately 3/4 mile ...

Unit 8B, Number One Industrial Estate, County Durham Unit 7C, Number One Industrial Estate, Consett, County Durham Rent: 8060.00 / Annum Rent: 8060.00 / Annum Size: 1528 sq ft Size: 1528 sq ft Date Updated: 28/02/2012

103 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Description: Terraced unit within fenced compound with tenant controlled access Large Retail 2500m2 plus gates. Situated on well established estate approximately 3/4 mile from Consett town centre. The unit is available on an easy in - easy out tenancy agreement. Co Durham and wider

Unit 3D, Linden Park, Consett, County Durham Rent: 14000.00 / Annum Size: 2421 sq ft Date Updated: 28/02/2012 Description: New mid terraced unit with office built October 2008. The unit has a clear internal height of 4.5m and benefits from a gas fired warm air heater to the production area, the estate has security fencing and CCTV. Linden Park is situated within the well established Number...

Turbine Business Park, Sunderland Price: GBP Size: 10000.08 - 715006.23 sq ft Date Updated: 26/02/2012 Description: Turbine Business Park is an exciting new mixed use development incorporating hotels, retail, industrial and offices with units available on a design and build basis on new leases for a term of years to be agreed. (From Caldes Software. Property Ref: N7434. Nov 6 2011 ... RETAIL 500 to 2500 Unit 9D, Leadgate Industrial Estate, Consett, County Durham Rent: 10348.00 / Annum Size: 2772 sq ft 20 miles of Durham Date Updated: 28/02/2012 Description: End terraced unit with fenced compound to rear. The estate is located just off the A691 Consett to Durham road. The unit is available on an easy in - easy out tenancy agreement.

22-26 Front Street, Chester le Street Rent: £40000.00 / Annum Size: 5441 sq ft Description: The premises occupy a 100% prime position in the town centre on Front Street which is the principal retailing area in the town. Retailers in close proximity including M&Co, Boots, Select and Iceland as well as Dorothy Perkins, Bon March and Superdrug. ( Agency Pilot S...

104 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Size: 2542 - 9262 sq ft Description: The property presently comprises a three storey stone built former mill. The premises have previously been used as a car showroom and workshop. Planning permission granted for conservation and extension to existing car showroom, service areas to form retail and reside...

Unit 2 Thomsen Retail Park, Wessington Way, Sunderland, South Tyneside Rent: £115000 / Annum Size: 931.16 sq m Description: An out of town retail unit located approximately 3 miles to the north west of the city centre on Thomsen Retail Park. Located opposite Hylton Riverside Retail Park, which is the principle out of town retail scheme in Sunderland. 57 High Street, GATESHEAD, Tyne and Wear Price: POA Size: 25250 sq ft Description: The property is situated within Higher Felling town centre fronting the pedestrianised section of High Street, the principle retailing thoroughfare at its junction with Church Street. Other retailers represented in the immediate vicinity include Greggs Bakers, Heron fr...

Turbine Business Park, Sunderland Price: GBP Size: 10000.08 - 715006.23 sq ft Description: Turbine Business Park is an exciting new mixed use development incorporating hotels, retail, industrial and offices with units available on a design and build basis on new leases for a term of years to be agreed. (From Caldes Software. Property Ref: N7434. Nov 6 2011 ... Southwick Market, Southwick, Sunderland, Tyne and Wear Price: £300,000.00 (offers in the region of) Rent: £27500 / Annum Size: 8244 sq ft Description: Southwick Market Hall is a single storeyconstruction comprising 12 market stalls andmarket square. Entirely enclosed with access toThe Green, the property is available for sale or tolet.

The Old Mill, Station Road, Bishop Auckland Price: £110,000.00 (REDUCED FOR QUICK SALE)

105 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Description: The subject property is located on the entrance to the scheme adjacent to Abbey National and opposite Yates.

Unit 30A The Gates Shopping Centre, Millburngate, Durham Rent: £25,000 / Annum Size: 1316 sq ft Date Added: 11/10/2010 Description:

110 King Street, 1-1 110 King Street, King Street, Newcastle Upon Tyne Price: POA Size: 1628 Description: The subject property is located at the Western end of King Street in close proximity to various multiple retailers including Brighhouse, Gamestation, Greggs, Currys and the market. The premises is arranged on ground and basement levels.

Unit 4/5, 20-26 North Road, Durham, County Durham Rent: £55000 / Annum Size: 1013 - 2697 sq ft Small Retail Date Updated: 11/01/2012 Description: A ground floor retail unit with the benefit of A3 planniing consent. Situated mid way along North Road on the western side of the street, the property Durham comprises ground floor retail with first floor kitchen and ancillary.

10 Elvet Bridge, Durham Price: £35,000.00 Chester Le Street Rent: £35,000 / Annum Size: 1,572 sq ft Date Added: 06/03/2012 Description:

Unit 1 The Gates Shopping Centre, Millburngate, Durham Rent: £57,500 / Annum Size: 642 - 2833 sq ft Date Added: 11/10/2010 Description: 126 Front Street, Chester Le Street, County Durham Unit 38, Unit 38 The Gates Shopping Centre, Millburngate, Durham Rent: £36500 / Annum Rent: £40,000 / Annum Size: 1753 sq ft Size: 1672 sq ft Date Updated: 10/02/2011

106 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Description: A prominent ground floor corner retail unit located at the junction with Seaham High Chare. There is a possibility that the ground floor sales area and rear showroom could be let separately.

19 Adelaide Row, Seaham Price: GBP Chester-le-Street Railway Station, Station Road, Chester Le Street Rent: £8.18 / sq ft Price: GBP Size: 1100.01 sq ft Size: 2120.01 sq ft Description: The property is located at the junction of Adelaide Row and Back On behalf of Northern Rail. Two storey brick building, recently Description: South Railway Street within Seaham town centre, in close proximity to the main redecorated. Rental offers exclusive of rates and other outgoings invited. A full retail parade of Church Street. The property comprises a single storey former Post repairing and insuring lease for a term to be agreed is offered subject to superior Office hall, with a ground floor sales area... landlord's approval. (From Caldes Softwa...

31 Church Street, Seaham Unit 15, St. Cuthberts Walk, Chester Le Street Price: GBP Rent: £31000.00 / Annum Size: 1233.01 sq ft Size: 1889 sq ft Description: The subject premises comprise a two storey mid terrace property with Leasehold Retail Unit within the popular St Cuthberts Walk Shopping Description: offshoot to the rear. The property is of brickwork construction beneath a pitched Centre. Substantial Retail Unit with a net sales area of approximately 122.96m2 slate covered roof. The unit incorporates a full height glass display frontage . The [1,323 sq Ft]. The property comprises a single storey purpose built retail unit within premises are arranged with sales a... the St Cuthberts Walk development...

107 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Peterlee

The Old Mill, Station Road, Bishop Auckland Price: £110,000.00 (REDUCED FOR QUICK SALE)

Potto Street, Shotton Colliery, Durham Size: 2542 - 9262 sq ft Size: 1515 sq ft Description: The property presently comprises a three storey stone built former Description: - Fully fitted caf. - Self contained unit. - On street parking available. ( mill. The premises have previously been used as a car showroom and workshop. Agency Pilot Software Ref: 2717 ) Planning permission granted for conservation and extension to existing car showroom, service areas to form retail and reside...

Sedgefield

Newton Aycliffe

Bishop Auckland

86 Newgate Street, Bishop Auckland, County Durham 56 High Street, Spennymoor, County Durham Rent: £12,000 / Annum Price: £119,950.00 Size: 1164 sq ft Rent: 9750.00 / Annum Description: Size: 1550 sq ft

Description: Situated in the heart of Spennymoor town centre and opposite the local night club, two storey premises incorporating gas fired central heating and part UPVC double glazing incorporating cafe, kitchen and store on the ground floor, two first floor rooms. Total net inter...

43 Newgate Street, BISHOP AUCKLAND, County Durham Price: Asking Price £25,000 Size: 1852 sq ft Description: PB PB

108 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Barnard Castle 1 Broom Lane, Durham, County Durham Price: £10,500.00 (per annum) Rent: £10500 - £10500 / Annum Wolsingham Size: 498 - 498 sq ft Date Updated: 22/02/2012 Consett Description: Chester Le Street

24 Middle Street, Consett, County Durham Seaham Rent: £16,500 / Annum Size: 1121 sq ft Dalton Park Inn, Ada Street East , Seaham, Durham Date Added: 05/01/2012 Price: £320,000.00 Description: Size: 0

Date Updated: 19/08/2010 6 Front Street, Prudhoe, Northumberland Description: Substantial detached freehold. Ground floor bar, separate dining Rent: £9,000 / Annum area. First floor function room (120). 2 kitchens and car park. Traditionally Size: 1820 sq ft constructed with brick elevations under a pitched roof. The substantial detached Date Added: 01/03/2012 property stands in its own car park on the m...

Leisure

Durham

Former Easington Colliery School, Seaside Lane, Easington Size: 1.8000 Acres Date Added: 27/10/2011 Description: Excellent Development site.The property was constructed in 1911- 1913 and is the Former Easington Colliery School. Comprising a Grade II Listed building split into a number of blocks.

Unit 4/5, 20-26 North Road, Durham, County Durham 9-9 The Brewers Arms, Front Street, Houghton le Spring, Tyne and Wear Rent: £55000 / Annum Price: £175,000.00 Size: 1013 - 2697 sq ft Size: 0 Date Updated: 11/01/2012 Date Added: 30/04/2010 Description: A ground floor retail unit with the benefit of A3 planniing consent. Description: Prime position within the town centre, double fronted property, large Situated mid way along North Road on the western side of the street, the property open plan bar, spacious 2 bedroom owners accommodation, enclosed yard with comprises ground floor retail with first floor kitchen and ancillary. parking area.

109 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Sedgefield

Newton Aycliffe

38-39 FREDERICK STREET, SUNDERLAND, Tyne and Wear Rent: £1,950 - £6,600 / Annum Size: 324 - 3,292 sq ft Date Updated: 20/04/2012 Description: Sunderland is situated on the north east Coast of England at the mouth of the River Wear, approximately 12 miles south east of Newcastle-upon- Norland House, Hackworth Industrial Park, Shildon, County Durham Tyne and 13 miles north east of Durham. The A19 provides access to Newcastle- Price: £245,000.00 (ONO for quick sale) upon-Tyne via the Tyne Tunnel and also south to Mid... Size: 10884 - 10884 sq ft Date Updated: 30/08/2011 Description: Situated on a prominant site just off the Shildon/Bishop Auckland bypass and adjacent to the entrance to Hackworth Business Park. Bishop Auckland Peterlee lies approximately 3.5 miles distant and Shildon town centre less than 1 mile distant. The premises are currently occupied ...

Bishop Auckland

Royal George, The Village, PETERLEE, County Durham Price: £200,000.00 (Guide Price £200,000) Date Added: 16/04/2012 Description: Located in a residential area with planning permission for conversion to two dwellings. Large two storey brick constructed property, with beer garden. Eleven Arches Golf Club, Bishop Auckland, County Durham Price: GBP Size: 115.00 Date Added: 21/03/2012 Description: The property comprises a mixture of open space and buildings that has been developed into an 18 hole golf course with driving range, various residential properties and further development opportunities.- 18 hole golf course (nearly complete) with driving range, fishing ...

110 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

The Bridge, High Street, Spennymoor Price: £225,000.00 Size: 0 Date Updated: 19/08/2010 Description: Ground floor open plan bar and dining room. Preparation kitchen fully equipped. Rear smoking area. 3 bedroom owners' accommodation. Traditionally constructed with rendered elevations under a pitched roof, offers well planned accommodation with minimal expense required t...

Norland House, Hackworth Industrial Park, Shildon, County Durham

Price: £245,000.00 (ONO for quick sale) Size: 10884 - 10884 sq ft Date Updated: 30/08/2011 Description: Situated on a prominant site just off the Shildon/Bishop Auckland bypass and adjacent to the entrance to Hackworth Business Park. Bishop Auckland lies approximately 3.5 miles distant and Shildon town centre less than 1 mile distant. The premises are currently occupied ... Durham Gate, Spennymoor, County Durham Binchester Garage, Binchester Lane Ends , BISHOP AUCKLAND, County Durham Price: £335,000.00 Date Added: 16/04/2012 Size: 4742 - 4742 sq ft Description: Durham Gate is one of the North East's largest regeneration Date Added: 03/01/2012 schemes which is set to transform this key strategic gateway to the City of Durham. Description: This landmark project will comprise a major mixed-use development on a site of 53 acres, and will provide offices, hotel, pub,...

Barnard Castle

Wolsingham

Consett 56 High Street, Spennymoor, County Durham Price: £119,950.00 6-10 Newmarket Street, Consett, Durham Rent: 9750.00 / Annum Price: £350,000.00 Size: 1550 sq ft Size: 0 Date Updated: 11/01/2012 Date Updated: 19/08/2010 Description: Situated in the heart of Spennymoor town centre and opposite the Description: Vacant leisure unit, nightclub, restaurant and function room. This local night club, two storey premises incorporating gas fired central heating and unique leisure opportunity occupies a high profile position on Newmarket Street, part UPVC double glazing incorporating cafe, kitchen and store on the ground floor, Consett on the main circuit. Consett is situated approximately 15 miles to the south two first floor rooms. Total net inter... west of Newcastle upon Tyne and app...

111 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

ARMS PUBLIC HOUSE AND THE ATTACHED RETAIL UNIT AND FLAT. THE 24 Middle Street, Consett, County Durham PROPERTY ALSO HAS A LARGE REAR GARDEN WHICH IS DIRECTLY Rent: £16,500 / Annum ACCESSED OF FRONT STREET AND IS RECTNAGULAR IN S... Size: 1121 sq ft Date Added: 05/01/2012 Description:

SPRINGHOUSE COUNTRY PARK, HEXHAM, Northumberland Price: New Price - £1.4m Date Added: 16/04/2012 FORMER LANCHESTER ARMS, FRONT STREET, LANCHESTER, County Description: For Further Details: Significantly upgraded holiday static and touring Durham park.Extends to in total to approximately 17 acres (6.9 hectares).Developed with 79 Price: £400,000.00 static and 20 touring pitches.Includes 4 bedroom bungalow, reception, shop and Date Updated: 20/04/2012 owner’s lounge. Description: THE PROPERTY COMPRISES A TRADITIONALLY BUILT 2 STOREY TERRACED BUILDING FORMALLY KNOWN AS THE LANCHESTER

112 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Appendix 8: Non Residential Appraisals

Durham / Chester Le Street Greenfield Brownfield Large Industial Small Large Office Small Office Large Retail Smaller Retail Shop Large Industial Small Large Office Small Office Large Retail Smaller Retail Shop Industrial 4,000m2 1,000m2 Industrial 4,000m2 1,000m2

Income m2 1,500 200 500 150 4,000 1,000 1,500 200 500 150 4,000 1,000 150 £/m2 750 850 1,700 1,700 2,800 2,150 750 850 1,700 1,700 2,800 2,150 1,500 Capital Value 1,125,000 170,000 850,000 255,000 11,200,000 2,150,000 1,125,000 170,000 850,000 255,000 11,200,000 2,150,000 225,000

Costs Land Used ha 0.099 0.012 0.025 0.008 2.600 0.450 0.099 0.012 0.025 0.008 2.600 0.450 0.017 £/ha 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 2,000,000 Uplift £/ha 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20.00% 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 400,000 Cost 32,670 3,960 8,250 2,475 858,000 148,500 35,640 4,320 9,000 2,700 936,000 162,000 40,800 Strategic Promotion 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 Planning 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 Misc Land 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500

Construction /m2 529.00 725.00 963.00 963.00 1107.00 889.00 529.00 725.00 963.00 963.00 1107.00 889.00 610.00 £ 793,500 145,000 481,500 144,450 4,428,000 889,000 793,500 145,000 481,500 144,450 4,428,000 889,000 91,500 Infrastructure 15.00% 119,025 21,750 72,225 21,668 664,200 133,350 119,025 21,750 72,225 21,668 664,200 133,350 13,725 Abnormals 15.00% 119,025 21,750 72,225 21,668 664,200 133,350 13,725 Fees 8.00% 63,480 11,600 38,520 11,556 354,240 71,120 63,480 11,600 38,520 11,556 354,240 71,120 7,320 Contingency 2.5% & 5% 19,838 3,625 12,038 3,611 110,700 22,225 39,675 7,250 24,075 7,223 221,400 44,450 4,575

Finance Costs 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Sales 3.00% 33,750 5,100 25,500 7,650 336,000 64,500 33,750 5,100 25,500 7,650 336,000 64,500 6,750 Misc Financial 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000

Subtotal 1,079,763 208,535 655,533 208,910 6,768,640 1,346,195 1,221,595 234,270 740,545 234,414 7,621,540 1,515,270 195,895

Interest 7.00% 75,583 14,597 45,887 14,624 473,805 94,234 85,512 16,399 51,838 16,409 533,508 106,069 13,713 Profit % Costs 20.00% 231,069 44,626 140,284 44,707 1,448,489 288,086 261,421 50,134 158,477 50,164 1,631,010 324,268 41,922

COSTS 1,386,415 267,759 841,704 268,240 8,690,934 1,728,514 1,568,528 300,803 950,860 300,987 9,786,057 1,945,607 251,529

Additional Profit -261,415 -97,759 8,296 -13,240 2,509,066 421,486 -443,528 -130,803 -100,860 -45,987 1,413,943 204,393 -26,529 Residual Land Worth (APPROX) -221,245 -86,299 24,046 -3,265 3,374,566 577,486 -400,388 -118,983 -84,360 -35,787 2,357,443 373,893 21,771

£/m2 -174 -489 17 -88 627 421 -296 -654 -202 -307 353 204 -177

113 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Wider County Durham Greenfield Brownfield Large Industial Small Large Office Small Office Large Retail Smaller Retail Shop Large Industial Small Large Office Small Office Large Retail Smaller Retail Shop Industrial 4,000m2 1,000m2 Industrial 4,000m2 1,000m2

Income m2 1,500 200 500 150 4,000 1,000 0 1,500 200 500 150 4,000 1,000 150 £/m2 600 750 1,500 1,250 2,800 2,150 600 750 1,500 1,250 2,800 2,150 1,100 Capital Value 900,000 150,000 750,000 187,500 11,200,000 2,150,000 900,000 150,000 750,000 187,500 11,200,000 2,150,000 165,000

Costs Land Used ha 0.090 0.013 0.025 0.008 2.600 0.450 0.090 0.013 0.025 0.008 2.600 0.450 0.017 £/ha 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 2,000,000 Uplift £/ha 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20.00% 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 400,000 Cost 29,700 4,356 8,250 2,475 858,000 148,500 32,400 4,752 9,000 2,700 936,000 162,000 40,800 Strategic Promotion 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 Planning 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 Misc Land 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500

Finance Costs 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Sales 3.00% 27,000 4,500 22,500 5,625 336,000 64,500 27,000 4,500 22,500 5,625 336,000 64,500 4,950 Misc Financial 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000

Subtotal 1,070,043 208,331 652,533 206,885 6,768,640 1,346,195 1,211,605 234,102 737,545 232,389 7,621,540 1,515,270 194,095

Interest 7.00% 74,903 14,583 45,677 14,482 473,805 94,234 84,812 16,387 51,628 16,267 533,508 106,069 13,587 Profit % Costs 20.00% 228,989 44,583 139,642 44,273 1,448,489 288,086 259,283 50,098 157,835 49,731 1,631,010 324,268 41,536

COSTS 1,373,935 267,497 837,852 265,640 8,690,934 1,728,514 1,555,701 300,587 947,008 298,387 9,786,057 1,945,607 249,218

Additional Profit -473,935 -117,497 -87,852 -78,140 2,509,066 421,486 -655,701 -150,587 -197,008 -110,887 1,413,943 204,393 -84,218 Residual Land Worth (APPROX) -436,735 -105,641 -72,102 -68,165 3,374,566 577,486 -615,801 -138,335 -180,508 -100,687 2,357,443 373,893 -35,918

£/m2 -316 -587 -176 -521 627 421 -437 -753 -394 -739 353 204 -561

114 Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Budget Hotel Student Accomm Greenfield Brownfield Brownfield

Income m2 1,620 1,620 3,625 £/m2 2,150 2,150 2,225 Capital Value 3,483,000 3,483,000 8,065,625

Costs Land Used ha 0.40 0.40 0.3 £/ha 25,000 300,000 300,000 Uplift £/ha 250,000 0 0 20% 110,000 120,000 90,000 Cost 154,000 168,000 117,000 Strategic Promotion 2,500 2,500 2,500 Planning 2,500 2,500 2,500 Misc Land 2,500 2,500 2,500

Construction /m2 950 950 1,131 £ 1,539,000 1,539,000 4,099,875 Infrastructure 15.00% 230,850 230,850 614,981 Abnormals 10.00% 153,900 409,988 Fees 8.00% 123,120 123,120 327,990 Contingency 2.50% 38,475 38,475 204,994

Finance Costs 5,000 5,000 5,000 Sales 3.00% 104,490 104,490 241,969 Misc Financial 5,000 5,000 5,000

Subtotal 2,207,435 2,375,335 6,034,296

Interest 7.00% 154,520 166,273 422,401 Profit % Costs 20.00% 472,391 508,322 1,291,339

COSTS 2,834,347 3,049,930 7,748,036

Additional Profit 648,653 433,070 317,589 Residual Land Worth (APPROX) 810,153 608,570 442,089

£/m2 400 267 88

115

Durham County Council Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study. Appendices. July 2012

Appendix 9: Base Residential Appraisals

117 HDH Planning and Development

Durham CC Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Study

SHMA Affordable Options County Durham Area

Private and Confidential.

C:\Users\Simon Drummon-Hay\Documents\SDH Consultancy\Clients\SDH Clients\Durham\Apriasals\FINAL SET 10.8.12\County Durham SHMA Options Printed 10/08/2012 County Durham SHMA Options Inputs

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Site 8 Site 9 Site 10 Site 11 Site 12 Site 13 Site 14 Site 15 Site 16 Site Area ha 11.00 9.00 5.00 5.30 2.40 1.30 0.40 0.70 1.10 0.40 0.70 0.80 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 Units 288 243 149 121 70 68 42 30 26 18 12 10 5 3 2 2

Average Unit Size m2 93.00 109.00 92.00 101.00 105.00 77.00 134.00 75.00 140.00 86.00 274.00 121.00 104.00 110.00 95.00 140.00

Mix Intermediate to Buy Affordable Rent 25.00% 25.00% 20.00% 20.00% 20.00% 10.00% 20.00% 10.00% 10.00% 20.00% 20.00% 20.00% 25.00% 20.00% 10.00% 20.00% Social Rent

Price Market £/m2 1,875 1,550 1,400 1,900 1,722 1,406 2,042 1,270 1,539 1,650 1,700 1,450 1,753 2,185 2,271 2,300 Intermediate to Buy £/m2 Affordable Rent £/m2 925 925 925 925 925 925 925 925 925 925 925 925 925 925 925 925 Social Rent £/m2 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800

Grant and Subsidy Intermediate to Buy £/unit Affordable Rent £/unit Social Rent £/unit

Sales per Quarter 12 12 10 10 8 12 11 10 6 12 3 3 2 1 1 1 Unit Build Time 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Alternative Use Value £/ha 25,000 25,000 25,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 500,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 500,000 50,000 300,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 Up Lift % % 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% Additional Uplift £/ha 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000

Easements etc £ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legals Acquisition % land 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5%

Planning Fee <50 £/unit 335 335 335 335 335 335 335 335 335 335 335 335 335 335 335 335 >50 £/unit 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Architects % 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% QS / PM % 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% Planning Consultants % 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% Other Professional % 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50%

Build Cost - BCIS Based £/m2 901 904 905 904 866 856 1,010 866 867 866 904 904 941 1,155 1,109 1,109 Pre CIL s106 £/Unit 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 Post CIL s106 £/Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Contingency % 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 2.50% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 2.50% 2.50% 5.00% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% Abnormals % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% £/site 0 100,000 150,000 250,000 75,000 150,000 150,000 400,000

FINANCE Fees £ 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Interest % 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% Legal and Valuation £ 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500

SALES Agents % 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% Legals % 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% Misc. £ 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000

Developers Profit % of costs (before interest) 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% % of GDV 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% North Durham 1 Durham North 2 Durham North 1 Durham South Central Durham 1 2 Durham South 1 Durham East Central Durham 2 2 Durham East 3 Durham East Central Durham 3 4 Durham South Central Durham 4 3 Durham North 5 Durham South 4 Durham East Central Durham 5

10/08/2012 County Durham SHMA Options Site 1

Site 1

INCOME Av Size % Number Price GDV GIA DEVELOPMENT COSTS Planning fee calc m2 288 £/m2 £ m2 Planning app fee dwgs rate LAND /unit or m2 Total No dwgs 288 Market Housing 93.0 75% 216 1,875 37,665,000 20,088 Land 18,594 5,355,201 No dwgs under 5 238 335 79,730 Stamp Duty 267,760 No dwgs over 50 238 100 23,800 Shared Ownership 93.0 0% 0 0 0 0 Easements etc. 0 Total 103,530 Legals Acquisition 1.50% 80,328 348,088 Affordable Rent 93.0 25% 72 925 6,193,800 6,696 PLANNING Social Rent 93.0 0% 0 800 0 0 Planning Fee 103,530 Stamp duty calc - Residual Architects 6.00% 1,492,304 Land payment 5,355,201 Grant and Subsidy Shared Ownership 0 0 QS / PM 0.50% 124,359 125,000 0% 1% Affordable Rent 0 0 Planning Consultants 1.00% 248,717 250,000 1% 3% Social Rent 0 0 Other Professional 2.50% 621,793 2,590,703 500,000 3% 4% 1,000,000 4% 5% SITE AREA 11.00 ha 26 /ha 43,858,800 26,784 CONSTRUCTION above 5% 5% Build Cost - BCIS Based 901 24,124,617 Total 267,760 Sales per Quarter 12 s106 / CIL 500 144,000 Unit Build Time 3 Quarters Contingency 2.50% 603,115 Stamp duty calc - Add Profit Abnormals 0 24,871,732 Land payment 3,080,000 Whole Site Per ha 125,000 0% 1% Residual Land Value 5,355,201 486,836 RUN Residual MACRO ctrl+r FINANCE 250,000 1% 3% Alternative Use Value 275,000 25,000 Closing balance = 0 Fees 10,000 500,000 3% 4% Uplift 20% 55,000 5,000 Interest 7.00% 1,000,000 4% 5% Plus /ha 250,000 2,750,000 250,000 RUN CIL MACRO ctrl+l Legal and Valuation 7,500 17,500 above 5% 5% Viability Threshold 3,080,000 280,000 Closing balance = 0 Total 154,000 SALES Check on phasing dwgs nos Agents 2.0% 877,176 Additional Profit 2,641,383 131 £/m2 correct Legals 0.5% 219,294 Misc. 5,000 1,101,470 34,284,695

Developers Profit % of costs (before interest) 20.00% 6,856,939 Post CIL s106 0 £/ Unit (all) % of GDV 0.00% 0 Total 0

RESIDUAL CASH FLOW FOR INTEREST Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 INCOME UNITS Started 10 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 18 Market Housing 0 0 0 1,307,813 2,615,625 2,615,625 2,615,625 2,615,625 2,615,625 2,615,625 2,615,625 2,615,625 2,615,625 2,615,625 2,615,625 2,615,625 2,615,625 2,354,063 0 0 0 Shared Ownership 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Affordable Rent 0 0 0 215,063 430,125 430,125 430,125 430,125 430,125 430,125 430,125 430,125 430,125 430,125 430,125 430,125 430,125 387,113 0 0 0 Social Rent 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grant and Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INCOME 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,522,875 3,045,750 3,045,750 3,045,750 3,045,750 3,045,750 3,045,750 3,045,750 3,045,750 3,045,750 3,045,750 3,045,750 3,045,750 3,045,750 2,741,175 0 0 0

EXPENDITURE Stamp Duty 267,760 Easements etc. 0 Legals Acquisition 80,328

Planning Fee 103,530 Architects 746,152 746,152 QS 62,179 62,179 Planning Consultants 124,359 124,359 Other Professional 310,897 310,897

Build Cost - BCIS Base 0 279,220 837,660 1,396,101 1,675,321 1,675,321 1,675,321 1,675,321 1,675,321 1,675,321 1,675,321 1,675,321 1,675,321 1,675,321 1,675,321 1,619,477 1,061,036 502,596 0 0 0 0 0 s106/CIL 144,000 Contingency 0 6,981 20,942 34,903 41,883 41,883 41,883 41,883 41,883 41,883 41,883 41,883 41,883 41,883 41,883 40,487 26,526 12,565 0 0 0 0 0 Abnormals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Finance Fees 10,000 Legal and Valuation 7,500

Agents 0 0 0 0 0 0 30,458 60,915 60,915 60,915 60,915 60,915 60,915 60,915 60,915 60,915 60,915 60,915 60,915 60,915 54,824 0 0 0 Legals 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,614 15,229 15,229 15,229 15,229 15,229 15,229 15,229 15,229 15,229 15,229 15,229 15,229 15,229 13,706 0 0 0 Misc. 5,000 COSTS BEFORE LAND INT AND PROFIT 1,712,705 0 1,678,787 858,602 1,431,003 1,717,204 1,755,275 1,793,347 1,793,347 1,793,347 1,793,347 1,793,347 1,793,347 1,793,347 1,793,347 1,793,347 1,736,107 1,163,706 591,305 76,144 68,529 0 0 0

For Residual Valuation Land 5,355,201 Interest 123,688 125,853 157,434 175,215 203,324 236,933 245,146 227,519 209,584 191,334 172,766 153,872 134,648 115,087 95,184 74,933 53,325 21,323 0 0 0 0 0 Profit on Costs 6,856,939 Profit on GDV 0

Cash Flow -7,067,906 -123,688 -1,804,640 -1,016,036 -1,606,218 -1,920,527 -469,333 1,007,257 1,024,884 1,042,819 1,061,068 1,079,637 1,098,531 1,117,755 1,137,316 1,157,219 1,234,710 1,828,719 2,433,123 2,969,606 2,672,646 0 0 -6,856,939 Opening Balance 0 Closing Balance -7,067,906 -7,191,594 -8,996,235 -10,012,271 -11,618,488 -13,539,015 -14,008,349 -13,001,092 -11,976,209 -10,933,390 -9,872,321 -8,792,684 -7,694,154 -6,576,399 -5,439,083 -4,281,864 -3,047,154 -1,218,435 1,214,687 4,184,293 6,856,939 6,856,939 6,856,939 0

CASH FLOW FOR CIL ADDITIONAL PROFIT Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 INCOME As Above INCOME 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,522,875 3,045,750 3,045,750 3,045,750 3,045,750 3,045,750 3,045,750 3,045,750 3,045,750 3,045,750 3,045,750 3,045,750 3,045,750 3,045,750 2,741,175 0 0 0

EXPENDITURE Land 3,080,000

Stamp Duty 154,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Easements etc. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legals Acquisition 46,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Planning Fee 103,530 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Architects 746,152 0 746,152 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 QS 62,179 0 62,179 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Planning Consultants 124,359 0 124,359 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Professional 310,897 0 310,897 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Build Cost - BCIS Base 0 0 279,220 837,660 1,396,101 1,675,321 1,675,321 1,675,321 1,675,321 1,675,321 1,675,321 1,675,321 1,675,321 1,675,321 1,675,321 1,675,321 1,619,477 1,061,036 502,596 0 0 0 0 0 POTENTIAL CIL 2,641,383 Post CIL s106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Contingency 0 0 6,981 20,942 34,903 41,883 41,883 41,883 41,883 41,883 41,883 41,883 41,883 41,883 41,883 41,883 40,487 26,526 12,565 0 0 0 0 0 Abnormals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Finance Fees 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legal and Valuation 7,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Agents 0 0 0 0 0 0 30,458 60,915 60,915 60,915 60,915 60,915 60,915 60,915 60,915 60,915 60,915 60,915 60,915 60,915 54,824 0 0 0 Legals 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,614 15,229 15,229 15,229 15,229 15,229 15,229 15,229 15,229 15,229 15,229 15,229 15,229 15,229 13,706 0 0 0 Misc. 0 0 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COSTS BEFORE LAND INT AND PROFIT 4,644,817 0 4,176,170 858,602 1,431,003 1,717,204 1,755,275 1,793,347 1,793,347 1,793,347 1,793,347 1,793,347 1,793,347 1,793,347 1,793,347 1,793,347 1,736,107 1,163,706 591,305 76,144 68,529 0 0 0

For CIL calculation Interest 81,284 82,707 157,237 175,014 203,120 236,725 244,935 227,304 209,365 191,112 172,539 153,642 134,413 114,849 94,941 74,686 53,074 21,067 0 0 0 0 0 Profit on cost 6,871,798 Profit on GDV 0

Cash Flow -4,644,817 -81,284 -4,258,877 -1,015,839 -1,606,017 -1,920,323 -469,126 1,007,468 1,025,098 1,043,038 1,061,291 1,079,863 1,098,761 1,117,989 1,137,554 1,157,461 1,234,957 1,828,970 2,433,378 2,969,606 2,672,646 0 0 -6,871,798 Opening Balance 0 Closing Balance -4,644,817 -4,726,101 -8,984,977 -10,000,816 -11,606,834 -13,527,157 -13,996,283 -12,988,815 -11,963,717 -10,920,679 -9,859,388 -8,779,525 -7,680,764 -6,562,775 -5,425,221 -4,267,759 -3,032,802 -1,203,832 1,229,546 4,199,152 6,871,798 6,871,798 6,871,798 0

10/08/2012 County Durham SHMA Options Site 2

Site 2

INCOME Av Size % Number Price GDV GIA DEVELOPMENT COSTS Planning fee calc m2 243.00 £/m2 £ m2 Planning app fee dwgs rate LAND /unit or m2 Total No dwgs 243 Market Housing 109.0 75% 182 1,550 30,791,138 19,865 Land 4,772 1,159,548 No dwgs under 5 193 335.00 64,655 Stamp Duty 57,977 No dwgs over 50 193 100.00 19,300 Shared Ownership 109.0 0% 0 0 0 0 Easements etc. 0 Total 83,955 Legals Acquisition 1.50% 17,393 75,371 Affordable Rent 109.0 25% 61 925 6,125,119 6,622 PLANNING Social Rent 109.0 0% 0 800 0 0 Planning Fee 83,955 Stamp duty calc - Residual Architects 6.00% 1,479,210 Land payment 1,159,548 Grant and Subsidy Shared Ownership 0 0 QS / PM 0.50% 123,267 125,000 0% 1% Affordable Rent 0 0 Planning Consultants 1.00% 246,535 250,000 1% 3% Social Rent 0 0 Other Professional 2.50% 616,337 2,549,304 500,000 3% 4% 1,000,000 4% 5% SITE AREA 9.00 ha 27 /ha 36,916,256 26,487 CONSTRUCTION above 5% 5% Build Cost - BCIS Based 904 23,933,653 Total 57,977 Sales per Quarter 12 s106 / CIL 500 121,500 Unit Build Time 3 Quarters Contingency 2.50% 598,341 Stamp duty calc - Add Profit Abnormals 0 24,653,495 Land payment 2,520,000 Whole Site Per ha 125,000 0% 1% Residual Land Value 1,159,548 128,839 RUN Residual MACRO ctrl+r FINANCE 250,000 1% 3% Alternative Use Value 225,000 25,000 Closing balance = 0 Fees 10,000 500,000 3% 4% Uplift 20% 45,000 5,000 Interest 7.00% 1,000,000 4% 5% Plus /ha 250,000 2,250,000 250,000 RUN CIL MACRO ctrl+l Legal and Valuation 7,500 17,500 above 5% 5% Viability Threshold 2,520,000 280,000 Closing balance = 0 Total 126,000 SALES Check on phasing dwgs nos Agents 2.0% 738,325 Additional Profit -1,371,599 -69 £/m2 correct Legals 0.5% 184,581 Misc. 5,000 927,906 29,383,124

Developers Profit % of costs (before interest) 20.00% 5,876,625 Post CIL s106 0 £/ Unit (all) % of GDV 0.00% 0 Total 0

RESIDUAL CASH FLOW FOR INTEREST Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 INCOME UNITS Started 10 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 13 Market Housing 0 0 0 1,267,125 2,534,250 2,534,250 2,534,250 2,534,250 2,534,250 2,534,250 2,534,250 2,534,250 2,534,250 2,534,250 2,534,250 1,647,263 0 0 0 0 0 Shared Ownership 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Affordable Rent 0 0 0 252,063 504,125 504,125 504,125 504,125 504,125 504,125 504,125 504,125 504,125 504,125 504,125 327,681 0 0 0 0 0 Social Rent 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grant and Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INCOME 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,519,188 3,038,375 3,038,375 3,038,375 3,038,375 3,038,375 3,038,375 3,038,375 3,038,375 3,038,375 3,038,375 3,038,375 1,974,944 0 0 0 0 0

EXPENDITURE Stamp Duty 57,977 Easements etc. 0 Legals Acquisition 17,393

Planning Fee 83,955 Architects 739,605 739,605 QS 61,634 61,634 Planning Consultants 123,267 123,267 Other Professional 308,169 308,169

Build Cost - BCIS Base 0 328,308 984,924 1,641,540 1,969,848 1,969,848 1,969,848 1,969,848 1,969,848 1,969,848 1,969,848 1,969,848 1,969,848 1,740,032 1,083,416 426,800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s106/CIL 121,500 Contingency 0 8,208 24,623 41,039 49,246 49,246 49,246 49,246 49,246 49,246 49,246 49,246 49,246 43,501 27,085 10,670 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Abnormals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Finance Fees 10,000 Legal and Valuation 7,500

Agents 0 0 0 0 0 0 30,384 60,768 60,768 60,768 60,768 60,768 60,768 60,768 60,768 60,768 60,768 60,768 39,499 0 0 0 0 0 Legals 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,596 15,192 15,192 15,192 15,192 15,192 15,192 15,192 15,192 15,192 15,192 15,192 9,875 0 0 0 0 0 Misc. 5,000 COSTS BEFORE LAND INT AND PROFIT 1,409,500 0 1,695,690 1,009,547 1,682,579 2,019,094 2,057,074 2,095,054 2,095,054 2,095,054 2,095,054 2,095,054 2,095,054 2,095,054 1,859,493 1,186,461 513,430 75,959 49,374 0 0 0 0 0

For Residual Valuation Land 1,159,548 Interest 44,958 45,745 76,220 95,221 126,333 163,878 176,159 162,733 149,073 135,174 121,031 106,641 91,999 77,101 57,820 26,423 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Profit on Costs 5,876,625 Profit on GDV 0

Cash Flow -2,569,049 -44,958 -1,741,436 -1,085,767 -1,777,800 -2,145,427 -701,764 767,163 780,588 794,249 808,148 822,291 836,681 851,322 1,101,782 1,794,094 2,498,522 2,962,416 1,925,570 0 0 0 0 -5,876,625 Opening Balance 0 Closing Balance -2,569,049 -2,614,007 -4,355,442 -5,441,210 -7,219,009 -9,364,436 -10,066,200 -9,299,037 -8,518,449 -7,724,201 -6,916,053 -6,093,762 -5,257,082 -4,405,759 -3,303,977 -1,509,883 988,639 3,951,055 5,876,625 5,876,625 5,876,625 5,876,625 5,876,625 0

CASH FLOW FOR CIL ADDITIONAL PROFIT Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 INCOME As Above INCOME 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,519,188 3,038,375 3,038,375 3,038,375 3,038,375 3,038,375 3,038,375 3,038,375 3,038,375 3,038,375 3,038,375 3,038,375 1,974,944 0 0 0 0 0

EXPENDITURE Land 2,520,000

Stamp Duty 126,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Easements etc. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legals Acquisition 37,800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Planning Fee 83,955 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Architects 739,605 0 739,605 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 QS 61,634 0 61,634 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Planning Consultants 123,267 0 123,267 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Professional 308,169 0 308,169 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Build Cost - BCIS Base 0 0 328,308 984,924 1,641,540 1,969,848 1,969,848 1,969,848 1,969,848 1,969,848 1,969,848 1,969,848 1,969,848 1,969,848 1,740,032 1,083,416 426,800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 POTENTIAL CIL -1,371,599 Post CIL s106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Contingency 0 0 8,208 24,623 41,039 49,246 49,246 49,246 49,246 49,246 49,246 49,246 49,246 49,246 43,501 27,085 10,670 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Abnormals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Finance Fees 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legal and Valuation 7,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Agents 0 0 0 0 0 0 30,384 60,768 60,768 60,768 60,768 60,768 60,768 60,768 60,768 60,768 60,768 60,768 39,499 0 0 0 0 0 Legals 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,596 15,192 15,192 15,192 15,192 15,192 15,192 15,192 15,192 15,192 15,192 15,192 9,875 0 0 0 0 0 Misc. 0 0 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COSTS BEFORE LAND INT AND PROFIT 4,017,930 0 202,591 1,009,547 1,682,579 2,019,094 2,057,074 2,095,054 2,095,054 2,095,054 2,095,054 2,095,054 2,095,054 2,095,054 1,859,493 1,186,461 513,430 75,959 49,374 0 0 0 0 0

For CIL calculation Interest 70,314 71,544 76,342 95,345 126,458 164,006 176,289 162,866 149,208 135,311 121,170 106,783 92,143 77,248 57,969 26,575 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Profit on cost 5,867,781 Profit on GDV 0

Cash Flow -4,017,930 -70,314 -274,136 -1,085,889 -1,777,923 -2,145,553 -701,892 767,033 780,456 794,114 808,011 822,151 836,539 851,178 1,101,635 1,793,945 2,498,370 2,962,416 1,925,570 0 0 0 0 -5,867,781 Opening Balance 0 Closing Balance -4,017,930 -4,088,243 -4,362,379 -5,448,268 -7,226,191 -9,371,743 -10,073,635 -9,306,603 -8,526,147 -7,732,033 -6,924,022 -6,101,871 -5,265,332 -4,414,154 -3,312,519 -1,518,575 979,795 3,942,211 5,867,781 5,867,781 5,867,781 5,867,781 5,867,781 0

10/08/2012 County Durham SHMA Options Site 3

Site 3

INCOME Av Size % Number Price GDV GIA DEVELOPMENT COSTS Planning fee calc m2 149.00 £/m2 £ m2 Planning app fee dwgs rate LAND /unit or m2 Total No dwgs 149 Market Housing 92.0 80% 119 1,400 15,352,960 10,966 Land -1,462 -217,856 No dwgs under 5 99 335.00 33,165 Stamp Duty 0 No dwgs over 50 99 100.00 9,900 Shared Ownership 92.0 0% 0 0 0 0 Easements etc. 0 Total 43,065 Legals Acquisition 1.50% -3,268 -3,268 Affordable Rent 92.0 20% 30 925 2,535,980 2,742 PLANNING Social Rent 92.0 0% 0 800 0 0 Planning Fee 43,065 Stamp duty calc - Residual Architects 6.00% 767,254 Land payment -217,856 Grant and Subsidy Shared Ownership 0 0 QS / PM 0.50% 63,938 125,000 0% 0% Affordable Rent 0 0 Planning Consultants 1.00% 127,876 250,000 1% 0% Social Rent 0 0 Other Professional 2.50% 319,689 1,321,822 500,000 3% 0% 1,000,000 4% 0% SITE AREA 5.00 ha 30 /ha 17,888,940 13,708 CONSTRUCTION above 5% 0% Build Cost - BCIS Based 905 12,402,998 Total 0 Sales per Quarter 10 s106 / CIL 500 74,500 Unit Build Time 3 Quarters Contingency 2.50% 310,075 Stamp duty calc - Add Profit Abnormals 0 12,787,573 Land payment 1,400,000 Whole Site Per ha 125,000 0% 0% Residual Land Value -217,856 -43,571 RUN Residual MACRO ctrl+r FINANCE 250,000 1% 0% Alternative Use Value 125,000 25,000 Closing balance = 0 Fees 10,000 500,000 3% 0% Uplift 20% 25,000 5,000 Interest 7.00% 1,000,000 4% 0% Plus /ha 250,000 1,250,000 250,000 RUN CIL MACRO ctrl+l Legal and Valuation 7,500 17,500 above 5% 0% Viability Threshold 1,400,000 280,000 Closing balance = 0 Total 0 SALES Check on phasing dwgs nos Agents 2.0% 357,779 Additional Profit -1,617,972 -148 £/m2 correct Legals 0.5% 89,445 Misc. 5,000 452,224 14,357,995

Developers Profit % of costs (before interest) 20.00% 2,871,599 Post CIL s106 0 £/ Unit (all) % of GDV 0.00% 0 Total 0

RESIDUAL CASH FLOW FOR INTEREST Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 INCOME UNITS Started 5 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 4 Market Housing 0 0 0 515,200 1,030,400 1,030,400 1,030,400 1,030,400 1,030,400 1,030,400 1,030,400 1,030,400 1,030,400 1,030,400 1,030,400 1,030,400 1,030,400 1,030,400 412,160 0 0 Shared Ownership 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Affordable Rent 0 0 0 85,100 170,200 170,200 170,200 170,200 170,200 170,200 170,200 170,200 170,200 170,200 170,200 170,200 170,200 170,200 68,080 0 0 Social Rent 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grant and Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INCOME 0 0 0 0 0 0 600,300 1,200,600 1,200,600 1,200,600 1,200,600 1,200,600 1,200,600 1,200,600 1,200,600 1,200,600 1,200,600 1,200,600 1,200,600 1,200,600 1,200,600 480,240 0 0

EXPENDITURE Stamp Duty 0 Easements etc. 0 Legals Acquisition -3,268

Planning Fee 43,065 Architects 383,627 383,627 QS 31,969 31,969 Planning Consultants 63,938 63,938 Other Professional 159,845 159,845

Build Cost - BCIS Base 0 138,736 416,208 693,680 832,416 832,416 832,416 832,416 832,416 832,416 832,416 832,416 832,416 832,416 832,416 832,416 665,933 388,461 110,989 0 0 0 0 s106/CIL 74,500 Contingency 0 3,468 10,405 17,342 20,810 20,810 20,810 20,810 20,810 20,810 20,810 20,810 20,810 20,810 20,810 20,810 16,648 9,712 2,775 0 0 0 0 Abnormals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Finance Fees 10,000 Legal and Valuation 7,500

Agents 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,006 24,012 24,012 24,012 24,012 24,012 24,012 24,012 24,012 24,012 24,012 24,012 24,012 24,012 24,012 9,605 0 0 Legals 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,002 6,003 6,003 6,003 6,003 6,003 6,003 6,003 6,003 6,003 6,003 6,003 6,003 6,003 6,003 2,401 0 0 Misc. 5,000 COSTS BEFORE LAND INT AND PROFIT 696,676 0 861,083 426,613 711,022 853,226 868,234 883,241 883,241 883,241 883,241 883,241 883,241 883,241 883,241 883,241 883,241 712,596 428,187 143,779 30,015 12,006 0 0

For Residual Valuation Land -217,856 Interest 8,379 8,526 23,744 31,625 44,622 60,334 66,079 61,681 57,207 52,654 48,022 43,309 38,513 33,633 28,668 23,616 18,475 10,258 0 0 0 0 0 Profit on Costs 2,871,599 Profit on GDV 0

Cash Flow -478,820 -8,379 -869,609 -450,357 -742,647 -897,848 -328,268 251,280 255,677 260,152 264,704 269,337 274,050 278,846 283,726 288,691 293,743 469,529 762,154 1,056,821 1,170,585 468,234 0 -2,871,599 Opening Balance 0 Closing Balance -478,820 -487,199 -1,356,808 -1,807,166 -2,549,813 -3,447,661 -3,775,929 -3,524,649 -3,268,972 -3,008,820 -2,744,116 -2,474,780 -2,200,730 -1,921,884 -1,638,158 -1,349,467 -1,055,724 -586,196 175,959 1,232,780 2,403,365 2,871,599 2,871,599 0

CASH FLOW FOR CIL ADDITIONAL PROFIT Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 INCOME As Above INCOME 0 0 0 0 0 0 600,300 1,200,600 1,200,600 1,200,600 1,200,600 1,200,600 1,200,600 1,200,600 1,200,600 1,200,600 1,200,600 1,200,600 1,200,600 1,200,600 1,200,600 480,240 0 0

EXPENDITURE Land 1,400,000

Stamp Duty 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Easements etc. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legals Acquisition 21,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Planning Fee 43,065 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Architects 383,627 0 383,627 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 QS 31,969 0 31,969 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Planning Consultants 63,938 0 63,938 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Professional 159,845 0 159,845 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Build Cost - BCIS Base 0 0 138,736 416,208 693,680 832,416 832,416 832,416 832,416 832,416 832,416 832,416 832,416 832,416 832,416 832,416 832,416 665,933 388,461 110,989 0 0 0 0 POTENTIAL CIL -1,617,972 Post CIL s106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Contingency 0 0 3,468 10,405 17,342 20,810 20,810 20,810 20,810 20,810 20,810 20,810 20,810 20,810 20,810 20,810 20,810 16,648 9,712 2,775 0 0 0 0 Abnormals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Finance Fees 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legal and Valuation 7,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Agents 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,006 24,012 24,012 24,012 24,012 24,012 24,012 24,012 24,012 24,012 24,012 24,012 24,012 24,012 24,012 9,605 0 0 Legals 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,002 6,003 6,003 6,003 6,003 6,003 6,003 6,003 6,003 6,003 6,003 6,003 6,003 6,003 6,003 2,401 0 0 Misc. 0 0 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COSTS BEFORE LAND INT AND PROFIT 2,120,944 0 -831,389 426,613 711,022 853,226 868,234 883,241 883,241 883,241 883,241 883,241 883,241 883,241 883,241 883,241 883,241 712,596 428,187 143,779 30,015 12,006 0 0

For CIL calculation Interest 37,117 37,766 23,878 31,761 44,760 60,475 66,222 61,827 57,355 52,805 48,175 43,465 38,672 33,795 28,832 23,783 18,645 10,432 0 0 0 0 0 Profit on cost 2,861,529 Profit on GDV 0

Cash Flow -2,120,944 -37,117 793,623 -450,491 -742,783 -897,986 -328,409 251,137 255,532 260,003 264,553 269,183 273,894 278,687 283,564 288,526 293,576 469,358 761,981 1,056,821 1,170,585 468,234 0 -2,861,529 Opening Balance 0 Closing Balance -2,120,944 -2,158,060 -1,364,437 -1,814,928 -2,557,711 -3,455,698 -3,784,106 -3,532,969 -3,277,438 -3,017,434 -2,752,881 -2,483,698 -2,209,804 -1,931,117 -1,647,553 -1,359,026 -1,065,451 -596,092 165,889 1,222,710 2,393,295 2,861,529 2,861,529 0

10/08/2012 County Durham SHMA Options Site 4

Site 4

INCOME Av Size % Number Price GDV GIA DEVELOPMENT COSTS Planning fee calc m2 121.00 £/m2 £ m2 Planning app fee dwgs rate LAND /unit or m2 Total No dwgs 121 Market Housing 101.0 80% 97 1,900 18,575,920 9,777 Land 21,788 2,636,314 No dwgs under 5 71 335.00 23,785 Stamp Duty 131,816 No dwgs over 50 71 100.00 7,100 Shared Ownership 101.0 0% 0 0 0 0 Easements etc. 0 Total 30,885 Legals Acquisition 1.50% 39,545 171,360 Affordable Rent 101.0 20% 24 925 2,260,885 2,444 PLANNING Social Rent 101.0 0% 0 800 0 0 Planning Fee 30,885 Stamp duty calc - Residual Architects 6.00% 705,332 Land payment 2,636,314 Grant and Subsidy Shared Ownership 0 0 QS / PM 0.50% 58,778 125,000 0% 1% Affordable Rent 0 0 Planning Consultants 1.00% 117,555 250,000 1% 3% Social Rent 0 0 Other Professional 2.50% 293,889 1,206,439 500,000 3% 4% 1,000,000 4% 5% SITE AREA 5.30 ha 23 /ha 20,836,805 12,221 CONSTRUCTION above 5% 5% Build Cost - BCIS Based 904 11,042,896 Total 131,816 Sales per Quarter 10 s106 / CIL 500 60,500 Unit Build Time 3 Quarters Contingency 5.00% 552,145 Stamp duty calc - Add Profit Abnormals 100,000 11,755,540 Land payment 1,908,000 Whole Site Per ha 125,000 0% 1% Residual Land Value 2,636,314 497,418 RUN Residual MACRO ctrl+r FINANCE 250,000 1% 3% Alternative Use Value 1,590,000 300,000 Closing balance = 0 Fees 10,000 500,000 3% 4% Uplift 20% 318,000 60,000 Interest 7.00% 1,000,000 4% 5% Plus /ha 0 0 0 RUN CIL MACRO ctrl+l Legal and Valuation 7,500 17,500 above 5% 5% Viability Threshold 1,908,000 360,000 Closing balance = 0 Total 95,400 SALES Check on phasing dwgs nos Agents 2.0% 416,736 Additional Profit 859,827 88 £/m2 correct Legals 0.5% 104,184 Misc. 5,000 525,920 16,313,074

Developers Profit % of costs (before interest) 20.00% 3,262,615 Post CIL s106 0 £/ Unit (all) % of GDV 0.00% 0 Total 0

RESIDUAL CASH FLOW FOR INTEREST Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 INCOME UNITS Started 5 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 6 Market Housing 0 0 0 767,600 1,535,200 1,535,200 1,535,200 1,535,200 1,535,200 1,535,200 1,535,200 1,535,200 1,535,200 1,535,200 1,535,200 921,120 0 0 0 0 0 Shared Ownership 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Affordable Rent 0 0 0 93,425 186,850 186,850 186,850 186,850 186,850 186,850 186,850 186,850 186,850 186,850 186,850 112,110 0 0 0 0 0 Social Rent 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grant and Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INCOME 0 0 0 0 0 0 861,025 1,722,050 1,722,050 1,722,050 1,722,050 1,722,050 1,722,050 1,722,050 1,722,050 1,722,050 1,722,050 1,722,050 1,033,230 0 0 0 0 0

EXPENDITURE Stamp Duty 131,816 Easements etc. 0 Legals Acquisition 39,545

Planning Fee 30,885 Architects 352,666 352,666 QS 29,389 29,389 Planning Consultants 58,778 58,778 Other Professional 146,944 146,944

Build Cost - BCIS Base 0 152,106 456,318 760,530 912,636 912,636 912,636 912,636 912,636 912,636 912,636 912,636 912,636 790,951 486,739 182,527 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s106/CIL 60,500 Contingency 0 7,605 22,816 38,027 45,632 45,632 45,632 45,632 45,632 45,632 45,632 45,632 45,632 39,548 24,337 9,126 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Abnormals 0 1,377 4,132 6,887 8,264 8,264 8,264 8,264 8,264 8,264 8,264 8,264 8,264 7,163 4,408 1,653 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Finance Fees 10,000 Legal and Valuation 7,500

Agents 0 0 0 0 0 0 17,221 34,441 34,441 34,441 34,441 34,441 34,441 34,441 34,441 34,441 34,441 34,441 20,665 0 0 0 0 0 Legals 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,305 8,610 8,610 8,610 8,610 8,610 8,610 8,610 8,610 8,610 8,610 8,610 5,166 0 0 0 0 0 Misc. 5,000 COSTS BEFORE LAND INT AND PROFIT 807,522 0 814,366 483,266 805,444 966,532 988,058 1,009,584 1,009,584 1,009,584 1,009,584 1,009,584 1,009,584 1,009,584 880,713 558,535 236,358 43,051 25,831 0 0 0 0 0

For Residual Valuation Land 2,636,314 Interest 60,267 61,322 76,646 86,445 102,053 120,753 125,089 114,810 104,351 93,709 82,881 71,863 60,653 49,246 35,384 15,642 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Profit on Costs 3,262,615 Profit on GDV 0

Cash Flow -3,443,837 -60,267 -875,688 -559,912 -891,888 -1,068,585 -247,786 587,377 597,656 608,115 618,757 629,585 640,603 651,814 792,091 1,128,131 1,470,050 1,678,999 1,007,399 0 0 0 0 -3,262,615 Opening Balance 0 Closing Balance -3,443,837 -3,504,104 -4,379,792 -4,939,704 -5,831,592 -6,900,178 -7,147,964 -6,560,586 -5,962,930 -5,354,815 -4,736,058 -4,106,472 -3,465,869 -2,814,055 -2,021,964 -893,833 576,217 2,255,216 3,262,615 3,262,615 3,262,615 3,262,615 3,262,615 0

CASH FLOW FOR CIL ADDITIONAL PROFIT Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 INCOME As Above INCOME 0 0 0 0 0 0 861,025 1,722,050 1,722,050 1,722,050 1,722,050 1,722,050 1,722,050 1,722,050 1,722,050 1,722,050 1,722,050 1,722,050 1,033,230 0 0 0 0 0

EXPENDITURE Land 1,908,000

Stamp Duty 95,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Easements etc. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legals Acquisition 28,620 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Planning Fee 30,885 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Architects 352,666 0 352,666 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 QS 29,389 0 29,389 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Planning Consultants 58,778 0 58,778 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Professional 146,944 0 146,944 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Build Cost - BCIS Base 0 0 152,106 456,318 760,530 912,636 912,636 912,636 912,636 912,636 912,636 912,636 912,636 912,636 790,951 486,739 182,527 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 POTENTIAL CIL 859,827 Post CIL s106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Contingency 0 0 7,605 22,816 38,027 45,632 45,632 45,632 45,632 45,632 45,632 45,632 45,632 45,632 39,548 24,337 9,126 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Abnormals 0 0 1,377 4,132 6,887 8,264 8,264 8,264 8,264 8,264 8,264 8,264 8,264 8,264 7,163 4,408 1,653 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Finance Fees 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legal and Valuation 7,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Agents 0 0 0 0 0 0 17,221 34,441 34,441 34,441 34,441 34,441 34,441 34,441 34,441 34,441 34,441 34,441 20,665 0 0 0 0 0 Legals 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,305 8,610 8,610 8,610 8,610 8,610 8,610 8,610 8,610 8,610 8,610 8,610 5,166 0 0 0 0 0 Misc. 0 0 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COSTS BEFORE LAND INT AND PROFIT 2,668,182 0 1,613,693 483,266 805,444 966,532 988,058 1,009,584 1,009,584 1,009,584 1,009,584 1,009,584 1,009,584 1,009,584 880,713 558,535 236,358 43,051 25,831 0 0 0 0 0

For CIL calculation Interest 46,693 47,510 76,581 86,379 101,986 120,685 125,020 114,739 104,279 93,636 82,806 71,787 60,575 49,167 35,304 15,561 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Profit on cost 3,267,349 Profit on GDV 0

Cash Flow -2,668,182 -46,693 -1,661,203 -559,847 -891,822 -1,068,518 -247,718 587,447 597,727 608,187 618,831 629,660 640,679 651,891 792,170 1,128,211 1,470,132 1,678,999 1,007,399 0 0 0 0 -3,267,349 Opening Balance 0 Closing Balance -2,668,182 -2,714,875 -4,376,078 -4,935,926 -5,827,748 -6,896,266 -7,143,983 -6,556,536 -5,958,809 -5,350,622 -4,731,791 -4,102,131 -3,461,452 -2,809,561 -2,017,391 -889,180 580,951 2,259,950 3,267,349 3,267,349 3,267,349 3,267,349 3,267,349 0

10/08/2012 County Durham SHMA Options Site 5

Site 5

INCOME Av Size % Number Price GDV GIA DEVELOPMENT COSTS Planning fee calc m2 70.00 £/m2 £ m2 Planning app fee dwgs rate LAND /unit or m2 Total No dwgs 70 Market Housing 105.0 80% 56 1,722 10,125,360 5,880 Land 16,520 1,156,430 No dwgs under 5 20 335.00 6,700 Stamp Duty 57,821 No dwgs over 50 20 100.00 2,000 Shared Ownership 105.0 0% 0 0 0 0 Easements etc. 0 Total 8,700 Legals Acquisition 1.50% 17,346 75,168 Affordable Rent 105.0 20% 14 925 1,359,750 1,470 PLANNING Social Rent 105.0 0% 0 800 0 0 Planning Fee 8,700 Stamp duty calc - Residual Architects 6.00% 409,243 Land payment 1,156,430 Grant and Subsidy Shared Ownership 0 0 QS / PM 0.50% 34,104 125,000 0% 1% Affordable Rent 0 0 Planning Consultants 1.00% 68,207 250,000 1% 3% Social Rent 0 0 Other Professional 2.50% 170,518 690,772 500,000 3% 4% 1,000,000 4% 5% SITE AREA 2.40 ha 29 /ha 11,485,110 7,350 CONSTRUCTION above 5% 5% Build Cost - BCIS Based 901 6,620,219 Total 57,821 Sales per Quarter 8 s106 / CIL 500 35,000 Unit Build Time 3 Quarters Contingency 2.50% 165,505 Stamp duty calc - Add Profit Abnormals 0 6,820,724 Land payment 864,000 Whole Site Per ha 125,000 0% 1% Residual Land Value 1,156,430 481,846 RUN Residual MACRO ctrl+r FINANCE 250,000 1% 3% Alternative Use Value 720,000 300,000 Closing balance = 0 Fees 10,000 500,000 3% 4% Uplift 20% 144,000 60,000 Interest 7.00% 1,000,000 4% 5% Plus /ha 0 0 0 RUN CIL MACRO ctrl+l Legal and Valuation 7,500 17,500 above 5% 5% Viability Threshold 864,000 360,000 Closing balance = 0 Total 43,200 SALES Check on phasing dwgs nos Agents 2.0% 229,702 Additional Profit 355,874 61 £/m2 correct Legals 0.5% 57,426 Misc. 5,000 292,128 9,052,722

Developers Profit % of costs (before interest) 20.00% 1,810,544 Post CIL s106 0 £/ Unit (all) % of GDV 0.00% 0 Total 0

RESIDUAL CASH FLOW FOR INTEREST Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 INCOME UNITS Started 4 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 2 Market Housing 0 0 0 578,592 1,157,184 1,157,184 1,157,184 1,157,184 1,157,184 1,157,184 1,157,184 1,157,184 289,296 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shared Ownership 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Affordable Rent 0 0 0 77,700 155,400 155,400 155,400 155,400 155,400 155,400 155,400 155,400 38,850 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Social Rent 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grant and Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INCOME 0 0 0 0 0 0 656,292 1,312,584 1,312,584 1,312,584 1,312,584 1,312,584 1,312,584 1,312,584 1,312,584 328,146 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

EXPENDITURE Stamp Duty 57,821 Easements etc. 0 Legals Acquisition 17,346

Planning Fee 8,700 Architects 204,622 204,622 QS 17,052 17,052 Planning Consultants 34,104 34,104 Other Professional 85,259 85,259

Build Cost - BCIS Base 0 126,099 378,298 630,497 756,596 756,596 756,596 756,596 756,596 756,596 567,447 315,249 63,050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s106/CIL 35,000 Contingency 0 3,152 9,457 15,762 18,915 18,915 18,915 18,915 18,915 18,915 14,186 7,881 1,576 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Abnormals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Finance Fees 10,000 Legal and Valuation 7,500

Agents 0 0 0 0 0 0 13,126 26,252 26,252 26,252 26,252 26,252 26,252 26,252 26,252 6,563 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legals 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,281 6,563 6,563 6,563 6,563 6,563 6,563 6,563 6,563 1,641 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Misc. 5,000 COSTS BEFORE LAND INT AND PROFIT 442,404 0 510,288 387,756 646,259 775,511 791,919 808,326 808,326 808,326 808,326 614,448 355,944 97,441 32,815 8,204 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

For Residual Valuation Land 1,156,430 Interest 27,980 28,469 37,897 45,346 57,450 72,026 75,660 68,160 60,528 52,763 44,862 33,429 17,273 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Profit on Costs 1,810,544 Profit on GDV 0

Cash Flow -1,598,834 -27,980 -538,757 -425,653 -691,606 -832,961 -207,653 428,598 436,098 443,730 451,495 653,274 923,210 1,197,870 1,279,769 319,942 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1,810,544 Opening Balance 0 Closing Balance -1,598,834 -1,626,814 -2,165,571 -2,591,224 -3,282,830 -4,115,791 -4,323,444 -3,894,846 -3,458,748 -3,015,018 -2,563,522 -1,910,248 -987,038 210,833 1,490,602 1,810,544 1,810,544 1,810,544 1,810,544 1,810,544 1,810,544 1,810,544 1,810,544 0

CASH FLOW FOR CIL ADDITIONAL PROFIT Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 INCOME As Above INCOME 0 0 0 0 0 0 656,292 1,312,584 1,312,584 1,312,584 1,312,584 1,312,584 1,312,584 1,312,584 1,312,584 328,146 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

EXPENDITURE Land 864,000

Stamp Duty 43,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Easements etc. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legals Acquisition 12,960 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Planning Fee 8,700 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Architects 204,622 0 204,622 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 QS 17,052 0 17,052 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Planning Consultants 34,104 0 34,104 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Professional 85,259 0 85,259 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Build Cost - BCIS Base 0 0 126,099 378,298 630,497 756,596 756,596 756,596 756,596 756,596 756,596 567,447 315,249 63,050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 POTENTIAL CIL 355,874 Post CIL s106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Contingency 0 0 3,152 9,457 15,762 18,915 18,915 18,915 18,915 18,915 18,915 14,186 7,881 1,576 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Abnormals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Finance Fees 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legal and Valuation 7,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Agents 0 0 0 0 0 0 13,126 26,252 26,252 26,252 26,252 26,252 26,252 26,252 26,252 6,563 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legals 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,281 6,563 6,563 6,563 6,563 6,563 6,563 6,563 6,563 1,641 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Misc. 0 0 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COSTS BEFORE LAND INT AND PROFIT 1,287,396 0 831,162 387,756 646,259 775,511 791,919 808,326 808,326 808,326 808,326 614,448 355,944 97,441 32,815 8,204 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

For CIL calculation Interest 22,529 22,924 37,870 45,319 57,421 71,998 75,631 68,130 60,498 52,732 44,830 33,397 17,241 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Profit on cost 1,812,432 Profit on GDV 0

Cash Flow -1,287,396 -22,529 -854,086 -425,626 -691,578 -832,933 -207,624 428,627 436,128 443,760 451,526 653,306 923,242 1,197,903 1,279,769 319,942 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1,812,432 Opening Balance 0 Closing Balance -1,287,396 -1,309,926 -2,164,012 -2,589,637 -3,281,215 -4,114,148 -4,321,772 -3,893,145 -3,457,017 -3,013,257 -2,561,731 -1,908,425 -985,183 212,720 1,492,489 1,812,432 1,812,432 1,812,432 1,812,432 1,812,432 1,812,432 1,812,432 1,812,432 0

10/08/2012 County Durham SHMA Options Site 6

Site 6

INCOME Av Size % Number Price GDV GIA DEVELOPMENT COSTS Planning fee calc m2 68.00 £/m2 £ m2 Planning app fee dwgs rate LAND /unit or m2 Total No dwgs 68 Market Housing 77.0 90% 61 1,406 6,625,634 4,712 Land 1,174 79,837 No dwgs under 5 18 335.00 6,030 Stamp Duty 0 No dwgs over 50 18 100.00 1,800 Shared Ownership 77.0 0% 0 0 0 0 Easements etc. 0 Total 7,830 Legals Acquisition 1.50% 1,198 1,198 Affordable Rent 77.0 10% 7 925 484,330 524 PLANNING Social Rent 77.0 0% 0 800 0 0 Planning Fee 7,830 Stamp duty calc - Residual Architects 6.00% 293,433 Land payment 79,837 Grant and Subsidy Shared Ownership 0 0 QS / PM 0.50% 24,453 125,000 0% 0% Affordable Rent 0 0 Planning Consultants 1.00% 48,906 250,000 1% 0% Social Rent 0 0 Other Professional 2.50% 122,264 496,886 500,000 3% 0% 1,000,000 4% 0% SITE AREA 1.30 ha 52 /ha 7,109,964 5,236 CONSTRUCTION above 5% 0% Build Cost - BCIS Based 856 4,482,435 Total 0 Sales per Quarter 12 s106 / CIL 500 34,000 Unit Build Time 3 Quarters Contingency 5.00% 224,122 Stamp duty calc - Add Profit Abnormals 150,000 4,890,557 Land payment 468,000 Whole Site Per ha 125,000 0% 0% Residual Land Value 79,837 61,413 RUN Residual MACRO ctrl+r FINANCE 250,000 1% 0% Alternative Use Value 390,000 300,000 Closing balance = 0 Fees 10,000 500,000 3% 0% Uplift 20% 78,000 60,000 Interest 7.00% 1,000,000 4% 0% Plus /ha 0 0 0 RUN CIL MACRO ctrl+l Legal and Valuation 7,500 17,500 above 5% 0% Viability Threshold 468,000 360,000 Closing balance = 0 Total 0 SALES Check on phasing dwgs nos Agents 2.0% 142,199 Additional Profit -371,863 -79 £/m2 correct Legals 0.5% 35,550 Misc. 5,000 182,749 5,668,726

Developers Profit % of costs (before interest) 20.00% 1,133,745 Post CIL s106 0 £/ Unit (all) % of GDV 0.00% 0 Total 0

RESIDUAL CASH FLOW FOR INTEREST Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 INCOME UNITS Started 6 12 12 12 12 12 2 Market Housing 0 0 0 584,615 1,169,230 1,169,230 1,169,230 1,169,230 1,169,230 194,872 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shared Ownership 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Affordable Rent 0 0 0 42,735 85,470 85,470 85,470 85,470 85,470 14,245 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Social Rent 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grant and Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INCOME 0 0 0 0 0 0 627,350 1,254,700 1,254,700 1,254,700 1,254,700 1,254,700 209,117 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

EXPENDITURE Stamp Duty 0 Easements etc. 0 Legals Acquisition 1,198

Planning Fee 7,830 Architects 146,717 146,717 QS 12,226 12,226 Planning Consultants 24,453 24,453 Other Professional 61,132 61,132

Build Cost - BCIS Base 0 131,836 395,509 659,182 791,018 791,018 791,018 571,291 307,618 43,945 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s106/CIL 34,000 Contingency 0 6,592 19,775 32,959 39,551 39,551 39,551 28,565 15,381 2,197 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Abnormals 0 4,412 13,235 22,059 26,471 26,471 26,471 19,118 10,294 1,471 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Finance Fees 10,000 Legal and Valuation 7,500

Agents 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,547 25,094 25,094 25,094 25,094 25,094 4,182 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legals 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,137 6,273 6,273 6,273 6,273 6,273 1,046 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Misc. 5,000 COSTS BEFORE LAND INT AND PROFIT 271,055 0 426,368 428,520 714,200 857,039 872,723 888,407 650,340 364,661 78,981 31,367 5,228 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

For Residual Valuation Land 79,837 Interest 6,141 6,248 13,819 21,560 34,436 50,036 55,206 49,762 40,057 25,182 5,047 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Profit on Costs 1,133,745 Profit on GDV 0

Cash Flow -350,892 -6,141 -432,616 -442,339 -735,759 -891,475 -295,410 311,087 554,597 849,982 1,150,537 1,218,285 203,889 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1,133,745 Opening Balance 0 Closing Balance -350,892 -357,033 -789,649 -1,231,987 -1,967,747 -2,859,222 -3,154,631 -2,843,545 -2,288,947 -1,438,965 -288,428 929,856 1,133,745 1,133,745 1,133,745 1,133,745 1,133,745 1,133,745 1,133,745 1,133,745 1,133,745 1,133,745 1,133,745 0

CASH FLOW FOR CIL ADDITIONAL PROFIT Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 INCOME As Above INCOME 0 0 0 0 0 0 627,350 1,254,700 1,254,700 1,254,700 1,254,700 1,254,700 209,117 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

EXPENDITURE Land 468,000

Stamp Duty 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Easements etc. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legals Acquisition 7,020 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Planning Fee 7,830 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Architects 146,717 0 146,717 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 QS 12,226 0 12,226 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Planning Consultants 24,453 0 24,453 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Professional 61,132 0 61,132 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Build Cost - BCIS Base 0 0 131,836 395,509 659,182 791,018 791,018 791,018 571,291 307,618 43,945 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 POTENTIAL CIL -371,863 Post CIL s106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Contingency 0 0 6,592 19,775 32,959 39,551 39,551 39,551 28,565 15,381 2,197 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Abnormals 0 0 4,412 13,235 22,059 26,471 26,471 26,471 19,118 10,294 1,471 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Finance Fees 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legal and Valuation 7,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Agents 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,547 25,094 25,094 25,094 25,094 25,094 4,182 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legals 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,137 6,273 6,273 6,273 6,273 6,273 1,046 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Misc. 0 0 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COSTS BEFORE LAND INT AND PROFIT 744,878 0 20,504 428,520 714,200 857,039 872,723 888,407 650,340 364,661 78,981 31,367 5,228 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

For CIL calculation Interest 13,035 13,263 13,854 21,596 34,472 50,074 55,244 49,801 40,096 25,222 5,088 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Profit on cost 1,131,370 Profit on GDV 0

Cash Flow -744,878 -13,035 -33,768 -442,374 -735,795 -891,512 -295,447 311,049 554,558 849,943 1,150,497 1,218,244 203,889 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1,131,370 Opening Balance 0 Closing Balance -744,878 -757,913 -791,681 -1,234,055 -1,969,851 -2,861,362 -3,156,810 -2,845,761 -2,291,203 -1,441,260 -290,763 927,481 1,131,370 1,131,370 1,131,370 1,131,370 1,131,370 1,131,370 1,131,370 1,131,370 1,131,370 1,131,370 1,131,370 0

10/08/2012 County Durham SHMA Options Site 7

Site 7

INCOME Av Size % Number Price GDV GIA DEVELOPMENT COSTS Planning fee calc m2 42.00 £/m2 £ m2 Planning app fee dwgs rate LAND /unit or m2 Total No dwgs 42 Market Housing 134.0 80% 34 2,042 9,193,901 4,502 Land 24,407 1,025,111 No dwgs under 5 42 335.00 14,070 Stamp Duty 51,256 No dwgs over 50 0 100.00 0 Shared Ownership 134.0 0% 0 0 0 0 Easements etc. 0 Total 14,070 Legals Acquisition 1.50% 15,377 66,632 Affordable Rent 134.0 20% 8 925 1,041,180 1,126 PLANNING Social Rent 134.0 0% 0 800 0 0 Planning Fee 14,070 Stamp duty calc - Residual Architects 6.00% 365,878 Land payment 1,025,111 Grant and Subsidy Shared Ownership 0 0 QS / PM 0.50% 30,490 125,000 0% 1% Affordable Rent 0 0 Planning Consultants 1.00% 60,980 250,000 1% 3% Social Rent 0 0 Other Professional 2.50% 152,449 623,866 500,000 3% 4% 1,000,000 4% 5% SITE AREA 0.40 ha 105 /ha 10,235,081 5,628 CONSTRUCTION above 5% 5% Build Cost - BCIS Based 1,010 5,684,843 Total 51,256 Sales per Quarter 11 s106 / CIL 500 21,000 Unit Build Time 3 Quarters Contingency 2.50% 142,121 Stamp duty calc - Add Profit Abnormals 250,000 6,097,964 Land payment 240,000 Whole Site Per ha 125,000 0% 1% Residual Land Value 1,025,111 2,562,778 RUN Residual MACRO ctrl+r FINANCE 250,000 1% 3% Alternative Use Value 200,000 500,000 Closing balance = 0 Fees 10,000 500,000 3% 4% Uplift 20% 40,000 100,000 Interest 7.00% 1,000,000 4% 5% Plus /ha 0 0 0 RUN CIL MACRO ctrl+l Legal and Valuation 7,500 17,500 above 5% 5% Viability Threshold 240,000 600,000 Closing balance = 0 Total 12,000 SALES Check on phasing dwgs nos Agents 2.0% 204,702 Additional Profit 882,222 196 £/m2 correct Legals 0.5% 51,175 Misc. 5,000 260,877 8,091,951

Developers Profit % of costs (before interest) 20.00% 1,618,390 Post CIL s106 0 £/ Unit (all) % of GDV 0.00% 0 Total 0

RESIDUAL CASH FLOW FOR INTEREST Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 INCOME UNITS Started 6 11 11 11 3 Market Housing 0 0 0 1,313,414 2,407,926 2,407,926 2,407,926 656,707 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shared Ownership 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Affordable Rent 0 0 0 148,740 272,690 272,690 272,690 74,370 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Social Rent 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grant and Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INCOME 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,462,154 2,680,616 2,680,616 2,680,616 731,077 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

EXPENDITURE Stamp Duty 51,256 Easements etc. 0 Legals Acquisition 15,377

Planning Fee 14,070 Architects 182,939 182,939 QS 15,245 15,245 Planning Consultants 30,490 30,490 Other Professional 76,225 76,225

Build Cost - BCIS Base 0 270,707 767,003 1,263,298 1,488,887 1,127,945 631,649 135,353 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s106/CIL 21,000 Contingency 0 6,768 19,175 31,582 37,222 28,199 15,791 3,384 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Abnormals 0 11,905 33,730 55,556 65,476 49,603 27,778 5,952 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Finance Fees 10,000 Legal and Valuation 7,500

Agents 0 0 0 0 0 0 29,243 53,612 53,612 53,612 14,622 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legals 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,311 13,403 13,403 13,403 3,655 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Misc. 5,000 COSTS BEFORE LAND INT AND PROFIT 403,100 0 620,277 819,908 1,350,436 1,591,586 1,242,301 742,234 211,705 67,015 18,277 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

For Residual Valuation Land 1,025,111 Interest 24,994 25,431 36,731 51,722 76,260 105,447 103,445 71,334 29,376 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Profit on Costs 1,618,390 Profit on GDV 0

Cash Flow -1,428,211 -24,994 -645,709 -856,639 -1,402,159 -1,667,846 114,406 1,834,938 2,397,578 2,584,225 712,800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1,618,390 Opening Balance 0 Closing Balance -1,428,211 -1,453,205 -2,098,914 -2,955,553 -4,357,711 -6,025,557 -5,911,150 -4,076,213 -1,678,635 905,590 1,618,390 1,618,390 1,618,390 1,618,390 1,618,390 1,618,390 1,618,390 1,618,390 1,618,390 1,618,390 1,618,390 1,618,390 1,618,390 0

CASH FLOW FOR CIL ADDITIONAL PROFIT Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 INCOME As Above INCOME 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,462,154 2,680,616 2,680,616 2,680,616 731,077 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

EXPENDITURE Land 240,000

Stamp Duty 12,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Easements etc. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legals Acquisition 3,600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Planning Fee 14,070 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Architects 182,939 0 182,939 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 QS 15,245 0 15,245 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Planning Consultants 30,490 0 30,490 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Professional 76,225 0 76,225 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Build Cost - BCIS Base 0 0 270,707 767,003 1,263,298 1,488,887 1,127,945 631,649 135,353 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 POTENTIAL CIL 882,222 Post CIL s106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Contingency 0 0 6,768 19,175 31,582 37,222 28,199 15,791 3,384 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Abnormals 0 0 11,905 33,730 55,556 65,476 49,603 27,778 5,952 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Finance Fees 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legal and Valuation 7,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Agents 0 0 0 0 0 0 29,243 53,612 53,612 53,612 14,622 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legals 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,311 13,403 13,403 13,403 3,655 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Misc. 0 0 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COSTS BEFORE LAND INT AND PROFIT 592,068 0 1,481,500 819,908 1,350,436 1,591,586 1,242,301 742,234 211,705 67,015 18,277 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

For CIL calculation Interest 10,361 10,543 36,653 51,643 76,179 105,365 103,362 71,249 29,290 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Profit on cost 1,623,406 Profit on GDV 0

Cash Flow -592,068 -10,361 -1,492,042 -856,561 -1,402,079 -1,667,765 114,488 1,835,021 2,397,662 2,584,311 712,800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1,623,406 Opening Balance 0 Closing Balance -592,068 -602,429 -2,094,472 -2,951,033 -4,353,112 -6,020,877 -5,906,389 -4,071,368 -1,673,706 910,606 1,623,406 1,623,406 1,623,406 1,623,406 1,623,406 1,623,406 1,623,406 1,623,406 1,623,406 1,623,406 1,623,406 1,623,406 1,623,406 0

10/08/2012 County Durham SHMA Options Site 8

Site 8

INCOME Av Size % Number Price GDV GIA DEVELOPMENT COSTS Planning fee calc m2 30.00 £/m2 £ m2 Planning app fee dwgs rate LAND /unit or m2 Total No dwgs 30 Market Housing 75.0 90% 27 1,270 2,571,750 2,025 Land -7,413 -222,395 No dwgs under 5 30 335.00 10,050 Stamp Duty 0 No dwgs over 50 0 100.00 0 Shared Ownership 75.0 0% 0 0 0 0 Easements etc. 0 Total 10,050 Legals Acquisition 1.50% -3,336 -3,336 Affordable Rent 75.0 10% 3 925 208,125 225 PLANNING Social Rent 75.0 0% 0 800 0 0 Planning Fee 10,050 Stamp duty calc - Residual Architects 6.00% 128,148 Land payment -222,395 Grant and Subsidy Shared Ownership 0 0 QS / PM 0.50% 10,679 125,000 0% 0% Affordable Rent 0 0 Planning Consultants 1.00% 21,358 250,000 1% 0% Social Rent 0 0 Other Professional 2.50% 53,395 223,631 500,000 3% 0% 1,000,000 4% 0% SITE AREA 0.70 ha 43 /ha 2,779,875 2,250 CONSTRUCTION above 5% 0% Build Cost - BCIS Based 866 1,948,388 Total 0 Sales per Quarter 10 s106 / CIL 500 15,000 Unit Build Time 3 Quarters Contingency 5.00% 97,419 Stamp duty calc - Add Profit Abnormals 75,000 2,135,807 Land payment 252,000 Whole Site Per ha 125,000 0% 0% Residual Land Value -222,395 -317,707 RUN Residual MACRO ctrl+r FINANCE 250,000 1% 0% Alternative Use Value 210,000 300,000 Closing balance = 0 Fees 10,000 500,000 3% 0% Uplift 20% 42,000 60,000 Interest 7.00% 1,000,000 4% 0% Plus /ha 0 0 0 RUN CIL MACRO ctrl+l Legal and Valuation 7,500 17,500 above 5% 0% Viability Threshold 252,000 360,000 Closing balance = 0 Total 0 SALES Check on phasing dwgs nos Agents 2.0% 55,598 Additional Profit -478,181 -236 £/m2 correct Legals 0.5% 13,899 Misc. 5,000 74,497 2,225,704

Developers Profit % of costs (before interest) 20.00% 445,141 Post CIL s106 0 £/ Unit (all) % of GDV 0.00% 0 Total 0

RESIDUAL CASH FLOW FOR INTEREST Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 INCOME UNITS Started 10 10 10 Market Housing 0 0 0 857,250 857,250 857,250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shared Ownership 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Affordable Rent 0 0 0 69,375 69,375 69,375 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Social Rent 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grant and Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INCOME 0 0 0 0 0 0 926,625 926,625 926,625 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

EXPENDITURE Stamp Duty 0 Easements etc. 0 Legals Acquisition -3,336

Planning Fee 10,050 Architects 64,074 64,074 QS 5,340 5,340 Planning Consultants 10,679 10,679 Other Professional 26,698 26,698

Build Cost - BCIS Base 0 216,488 432,975 649,463 432,975 216,488 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s106/CIL 15,000 Contingency 0 10,824 21,649 32,473 21,649 10,824 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Abnormals 0 8,333 16,667 25,000 16,667 8,333 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Finance Fees 10,000 Legal and Valuation 7,500

Agents 0 0 0 0 0 0 18,533 18,533 18,533 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legals 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,633 4,633 4,633 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Misc. 5,000 COSTS BEFORE LAND INT AND PROFIT 131,004 0 362,436 471,290 706,936 471,290 258,811 23,166 23,166 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

For Residual Valuation Land -222,395 Interest 0 0 4,743 13,074 25,674 34,371 23,286 7,883 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Profit on Costs 445,141 Profit on GDV 0

Cash Flow 91,390 0 -362,436 -476,034 -720,010 -496,964 633,443 880,174 895,577 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -445,141 Opening Balance 0 Closing Balance 91,390 91,390 -271,045 -747,079 -1,467,088 -1,964,053 -1,330,610 -450,436 445,141 445,141 445,141 445,141 445,141 445,141 445,141 445,141 445,141 445,141 445,141 445,141 445,141 445,141 445,141 0

CASH FLOW FOR CIL ADDITIONAL PROFIT Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 INCOME As Above INCOME 0 0 0 0 0 0 926,625 926,625 926,625 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

EXPENDITURE Land 252,000

Stamp Duty 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Easements etc. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legals Acquisition 3,780 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Planning Fee 10,050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Architects 64,074 0 64,074 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 QS 5,340 0 5,340 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Planning Consultants 10,679 0 10,679 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Professional 26,698 0 26,698 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Build Cost - BCIS Base 0 0 216,488 432,975 649,463 432,975 216,488 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 POTENTIAL CIL -478,181 Post CIL s106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Contingency 0 0 10,824 21,649 32,473 21,649 10,824 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Abnormals 0 0 8,333 16,667 25,000 16,667 8,333 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Finance Fees 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legal and Valuation 7,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Agents 0 0 0 0 0 0 18,533 18,533 18,533 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legals 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,633 4,633 4,633 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Misc. 0 0 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COSTS BEFORE LAND INT AND PROFIT 390,120 0 -130,745 471,290 706,936 471,290 258,811 23,166 23,166 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

For CIL calculation Interest 6,827 6,947 4,780 13,111 25,712 34,410 23,325 7,923 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Profit on cost 442,807 Profit on GDV 0

Cash Flow -390,120 -6,827 123,799 -476,071 -720,047 -497,003 633,404 880,134 895,537 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -442,807 Opening Balance 0 Closing Balance -390,120 -396,947 -273,149 -749,219 -1,469,266 -1,966,269 -1,332,864 -452,730 442,807 442,807 442,807 442,807 442,807 442,807 442,807 442,807 442,807 442,807 442,807 442,807 442,807 442,807 442,807 0

10/08/2012 County Durham SHMA Options Site 9

Site 9

INCOME Av Size % Number Price GDV GIA DEVELOPMENT COSTS Planning fee calc m2 26.00 £/m2 £ m2 Planning app fee dwgs rate LAND /unit or m2 Total No dwgs 26 Market Housing 140.0 90% 23 1,539 5,041,764 3,276 Land 10,224 265,813 No dwgs under 5 26 335.00 8,710 Stamp Duty 7,974 No dwgs over 50 0 100.00 0 Shared Ownership 140.0 0% 0 0 0 0 Easements etc. 0 Total 8,710 Legals Acquisition 1.50% 3,987 11,962 Affordable Rent 140.0 10% 3 925 336,700 364 PLANNING Social Rent 140.0 0% 0 800 0 0 Planning Fee 8,710 Stamp duty calc - Residual Architects 6.00% 208,623 Land payment 265,813 Grant and Subsidy Shared Ownership 0 0 QS / PM 0.50% 17,385 125,000 0% 1% Affordable Rent 0 0 Planning Consultants 1.00% 34,771 250,000 1% 3% Social Rent 0 0 Other Professional 2.50% 86,926 356,416 500,000 3% 0% 1,000,000 4% 0% SITE AREA 1.10 ha 24 /ha 5,378,464 3,640 CONSTRUCTION above 5% 3% Build Cost - BCIS Based 867 3,156,244 Total 7,974 Sales per Quarter 6 s106 / CIL 500 13,000 Unit Build Time 3 Quarters Contingency 5.00% 157,812 Stamp duty calc - Add Profit Abnormals 150,000 3,477,056 Land payment 396,000 Whole Site Per ha 125,000 0% 1% Residual Land Value 265,813 241,648 RUN Residual MACRO ctrl+r FINANCE 250,000 1% 3% Alternative Use Value 330,000 300,000 Closing balance = 0 Fees 10,000 500,000 3% 0% Uplift 20% 66,000 60,000 Interest 7.00% 1,000,000 4% 0% Plus /ha 0 0 0 RUN CIL MACRO ctrl+l Legal and Valuation 7,500 17,500 above 5% 3% Viability Threshold 396,000 360,000 Closing balance = 0 Total 11,880 SALES Check on phasing dwgs nos Agents 2.0% 107,569 Additional Profit -127,136 -39 £/m2 correct Legals 0.5% 26,892 Misc. 5,000 139,462 4,268,208

Developers Profit % of costs (before interest) 20.00% 853,642 Post CIL s106 0 £/ Unit (all) % of GDV 0.00% 0 Total 0

RESIDUAL CASH FLOW FOR INTEREST Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 INCOME UNITS Started 2 6 6 6 6 Market Housing 0 0 0 387,828 1,163,484 1,163,484 1,163,484 1,163,484 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shared Ownership 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Affordable Rent 0 0 0 25,900 77,700 77,700 77,700 77,700 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Social Rent 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grant and Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INCOME 0 0 0 0 0 0 413,728 1,241,184 1,241,184 1,241,184 1,241,184 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

EXPENDITURE Stamp Duty 7,974 Easements etc. 0 Legals Acquisition 3,987

Planning Fee 8,710 Architects 104,312 104,312 QS 8,693 8,693 Planning Consultants 17,385 17,385 Other Professional 43,463 43,463

Build Cost - BCIS Base 0 80,929 323,717 566,505 728,364 728,364 485,576 242,788 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s106/CIL 13,000 Contingency 0 4,046 16,186 28,325 36,418 36,418 24,279 12,139 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Abnormals 0 3,846 15,385 26,923 34,615 34,615 23,077 11,538 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Finance Fees 10,000 Legal and Valuation 7,500

Agents 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,275 24,824 24,824 24,824 24,824 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legals 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,069 6,206 6,206 6,206 6,206 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Misc. 5,000 COSTS BEFORE LAND INT AND PROFIT 212,024 0 280,675 355,288 621,754 799,398 809,741 563,961 297,495 31,030 31,030 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

For Residual Valuation Land 265,813 Interest 8,362 8,508 13,569 20,024 31,255 45,792 53,523 42,609 26,840 6,132 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Profit on Costs 853,642 Profit on GDV 0

Cash Flow -477,837 -8,362 -289,183 -368,857 -641,778 -830,653 -441,805 623,699 901,080 1,183,315 1,204,023 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -853,642 Opening Balance 0 Closing Balance -477,837 -486,200 -775,383 -1,144,240 -1,786,018 -2,616,671 -3,058,475 -2,434,776 -1,533,696 -350,381 853,642 853,642 853,642 853,642 853,642 853,642 853,642 853,642 853,642 853,642 853,642 853,642 853,642 0

CASH FLOW FOR CIL ADDITIONAL PROFIT Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 INCOME As Above INCOME 0 0 0 0 0 0 413,728 1,241,184 1,241,184 1,241,184 1,241,184 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

EXPENDITURE Land 396,000

Stamp Duty 11,880 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Easements etc. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legals Acquisition 5,940 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Planning Fee 8,710 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Architects 104,312 0 104,312 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 QS 8,693 0 8,693 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Planning Consultants 17,385 0 17,385 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Professional 43,463 0 43,463 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Build Cost - BCIS Base 0 0 80,929 323,717 566,505 728,364 728,364 485,576 242,788 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 POTENTIAL CIL -127,136 Post CIL s106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Contingency 0 0 4,046 16,186 28,325 36,418 36,418 24,279 12,139 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Abnormals 0 0 3,846 15,385 26,923 34,615 34,615 23,077 11,538 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Finance Fees 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legal and Valuation 7,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Agents 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,275 24,824 24,824 24,824 24,824 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legals 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,069 6,206 6,206 6,206 6,206 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Misc. 0 0 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COSTS BEFORE LAND INT AND PROFIT 613,883 0 140,538 355,288 621,754 799,398 809,741 563,961 297,495 31,030 31,030 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

For CIL calculation Interest 10,743 10,931 13,582 20,037 31,268 45,805 53,537 42,622 26,854 6,146 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Profit on cost 852,823 Profit on GDV 0

Cash Flow -613,883 -10,743 -151,469 -368,869 -641,791 -830,666 -441,818 623,686 901,066 1,183,301 1,204,009 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -852,823 Opening Balance 0 Closing Balance -613,883 -624,626 -776,095 -1,144,965 -1,786,755 -2,617,421 -3,059,239 -2,435,553 -1,534,486 -351,185 852,823 852,823 852,823 852,823 852,823 852,823 852,823 852,823 852,823 852,823 852,823 852,823 852,823 0

10/08/2012 County Durham SHMA Options Site 10

Site 10

INCOME Av Size % Number Price GDV GIA DEVELOPMENT COSTS Planning fee calc m2 18.00 £/m2 £ m2 Planning app fee dwgs rate LAND /unit or m2 Total No dwgs 18 Market Housing 86.0 80% 14 1,650 2,043,360 1,238 Land 2,331 41,954 No dwgs under 5 18 335.00 6,030 Stamp Duty 0 No dwgs over 50 0 100.00 0 Shared Ownership 86.0 0% 0 0 0 0 Easements etc. 0 Total 6,030 Legals Acquisition 1.50% 629 629 Affordable Rent 86.0 20% 4 925 286,380 310 PLANNING Social Rent 86.0 0% 0 800 0 0 Planning Fee 6,030 Stamp duty calc - Residual Architects 6.00% 93,991 Land payment 41,954 Grant and Subsidy Shared Ownership 0 0 QS / PM 0.50% 7,833 125,000 0% 0% Affordable Rent 0 0 Planning Consultants 1.00% 15,665 250,000 1% 0% Social Rent 0 0 Other Professional 2.50% 39,163 162,682 500,000 3% 0% 1,000,000 4% 0% SITE AREA 0.40 ha 45 /ha 2,329,740 1,548 CONSTRUCTION above 5% 0% Build Cost - BCIS Based 866 1,340,491 Total 0 Sales per Quarter 12 s106 / CIL 500 9,000 Unit Build Time 3 Quarters Contingency 5.00% 67,025 Stamp duty calc - Add Profit Abnormals 150,000 1,566,515 Land payment 144,000 Whole Site Per ha 125,000 0% 0% Residual Land Value 41,954 104,886 RUN Residual MACRO ctrl+r FINANCE 250,000 1% 0% Alternative Use Value 120,000 300,000 Closing balance = 0 Fees 10,000 500,000 3% 0% Uplift 20% 24,000 60,000 Interest 7.00% 1,000,000 4% 0% Plus /ha 0 0 0 RUN CIL MACRO ctrl+l Legal and Valuation 7,500 17,500 above 5% 0% Viability Threshold 144,000 360,000 Closing balance = 0 Total 0 SALES Check on phasing dwgs nos Agents 2.0% 46,595 Additional Profit -97,667 -79 £/m2 correct Legals 0.5% 11,649 Misc. 5,000 63,244 1,852,524

Developers Profit % of costs (before interest) 20.00% 370,505 Post CIL s106 0 £/ Unit (all) % of GDV 0.00% 0 Total 0

RESIDUAL CASH FLOW FOR INTEREST Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 INCOME UNITS Started 6 12 Market Housing 0 0 0 681,120 1,362,240 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shared Ownership 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Affordable Rent 0 0 0 95,460 190,920 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Social Rent 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grant and Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INCOME 0 0 0 0 0 0 776,580 1,553,160 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

EXPENDITURE Stamp Duty 0 Easements etc. 0 Legals Acquisition 629

Planning Fee 6,030 Architects 46,995 46,995 QS 3,916 3,916 Planning Consultants 7,833 7,833 Other Professional 19,581 19,581

Build Cost - BCIS Base 0 148,943 446,830 446,830 297,887 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s106/CIL 9,000 Contingency 0 7,447 22,342 22,342 14,894 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Abnormals 0 16,667 50,000 50,000 33,333 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Finance Fees 10,000 Legal and Valuation 7,500

Agents 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,532 31,063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legals 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,883 7,766 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Misc. 5,000 COSTS BEFORE LAND INT AND PROFIT 102,485 0 265,383 519,172 519,172 346,114 19,415 38,829 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

For Residual Valuation Land 41,954 Interest 2,528 2,572 7,261 16,474 25,848 32,357 19,673 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Profit on Costs 370,505 Profit on GDV 0

Cash Flow -144,439 -2,528 -267,955 -526,433 -535,645 -371,962 724,809 1,494,658 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -370,505 Opening Balance 0 Closing Balance -144,439 -146,967 -414,922 -941,355 -1,477,000 -1,848,962 -1,124,154 370,505 370,505 370,505 370,505 370,505 370,505 370,505 370,505 370,505 370,505 370,505 370,505 370,505 370,505 370,505 370,505 0

CASH FLOW FOR CIL ADDITIONAL PROFIT Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 INCOME As Above INCOME 0 0 0 0 0 0 776,580 1,553,160 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

EXPENDITURE Land 144,000

Stamp Duty 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Easements etc. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legals Acquisition 2,160 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Planning Fee 6,030 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Architects 46,995 0 46,995 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 QS 3,916 0 3,916 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Planning Consultants 7,833 0 7,833 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Professional 19,581 0 19,581 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Build Cost - BCIS Base 0 0 148,943 446,830 446,830 297,887 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 POTENTIAL CIL -97,667 Post CIL s106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Contingency 0 0 7,447 22,342 22,342 14,894 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Abnormals 0 0 16,667 50,000 50,000 33,333 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Finance Fees 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legal and Valuation 7,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Agents 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,532 31,063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legals 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,883 7,766 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Misc. 0 0 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COSTS BEFORE LAND INT AND PROFIT 248,016 0 158,716 519,172 519,172 346,114 19,415 38,829 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

For CIL calculation Interest 4,340 4,416 7,271 16,484 25,858 32,367 19,683 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Profit on cost 369,887 Profit on GDV 0

Cash Flow -248,016 -4,340 -163,133 -526,443 -535,656 -371,972 724,798 1,494,648 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -369,887 Opening Balance 0 Closing Balance -248,016 -252,356 -415,489 -941,931 -1,477,587 -1,849,559 -1,124,761 369,887 369,887 369,887 369,887 369,887 369,887 369,887 369,887 369,887 369,887 369,887 369,887 369,887 369,887 369,887 369,887 0

10/08/2012 County Durham SHMA Options Site 11

Site 11

INCOME Av Size % Number Price GDV GIA DEVELOPMENT COSTS Planning fee calc m2 12.00 £/m2 £ m2 Planning app fee dwgs rate LAND /unit or m2 Total No dwgs 12 Market Housing 274.0 80% 10 1,700 4,471,680 2,630 Land 40,821 489,856 No dwgs under 5 12 335.00 4,020 Stamp Duty 14,696 No dwgs over 50 0 100.00 0 Shared Ownership 274.0 0% 0 0 0 0 Easements etc. 0 Total 4,020 Legals Acquisition 1.50% 7,348 22,044 Affordable Rent 274.0 20% 2 925 608,280 658 PLANNING Social Rent 274.0 0% 0 800 0 0 Planning Fee 4,020 Stamp duty calc - Residual Architects 6.00% 183,079 Land payment 489,856 Grant and Subsidy Shared Ownership 0 0 QS / PM 0.50% 15,257 125,000 0% 1% Affordable Rent 0 0 Planning Consultants 1.00% 30,513 250,000 1% 3% Social Rent 0 0 Other Professional 2.50% 76,283 309,151 500,000 3% 0% 1,000,000 4% 0% SITE AREA 0.70 ha 17 /ha 5,079,960 3,288 CONSTRUCTION above 5% 3% Build Cost - BCIS Based 904 2,971,037 Total 14,696 Sales per Quarter 3 s106 / CIL 500 6,000 Unit Build Time 3 Quarters Contingency 2.50% 74,276 Stamp duty calc - Add Profit Abnormals 0 3,051,313 Land payment 420,000 Whole Site Per ha 125,000 0% 1% Residual Land Value 489,856 699,795 RUN Residual MACRO ctrl+r FINANCE 250,000 1% 3% Alternative Use Value 350,000 500,000 Closing balance = 0 Fees 10,000 500,000 3% 0% Uplift 20% 70,000 100,000 Interest 7.00% 1,000,000 4% 0% Plus /ha 0 0 0 RUN CIL MACRO ctrl+l Legal and Valuation 7,500 17,500 above 5% 3% Viability Threshold 420,000 600,000 Closing balance = 0 Total 12,600 SALES Check on phasing dwgs nos Agents 2.0% 101,599 Additional Profit 81,189 31 £/m2 correct Legals 0.5% 25,400 Misc. 5,000 131,999 4,021,863

Developers Profit % of costs (before interest) 20.00% 804,373 Post CIL s106 0 £/ Unit (all) % of GDV 0.00% 0 Total 0

RESIDUAL CASH FLOW FOR INTEREST Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 INCOME UNITS Started 3 3 3 3 Market Housing 0 0 0 1,117,920 1,117,920 1,117,920 1,117,920 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shared Ownership 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Affordable Rent 0 0 0 152,070 152,070 152,070 152,070 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Social Rent 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grant and Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INCOME 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,269,990 1,269,990 1,269,990 1,269,990 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

EXPENDITURE Stamp Duty 14,696 Easements etc. 0 Legals Acquisition 7,348

Planning Fee 4,020 Architects 91,539 91,539 QS 7,628 7,628 Planning Consultants 15,257 15,257 Other Professional 38,141 38,141

Build Cost - BCIS Base 0 247,586 495,173 742,759 742,759 495,173 247,586 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s106/CIL 6,000 Contingency 0 6,190 12,379 18,569 18,569 12,379 6,190 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Abnormals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Finance Fees 10,000 Legal and Valuation 7,500

Agents 0 0 0 0 0 0 25,400 25,400 25,400 25,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legals 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,350 6,350 6,350 6,350 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Misc. 5,000 COSTS BEFORE LAND INT AND PROFIT 196,129 0 417,342 507,552 761,328 761,328 539,302 285,526 31,750 31,750 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

For Residual Valuation Land 489,856 Interest 12,005 12,215 19,732 28,960 42,790 56,862 45,070 28,630 7,462 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Profit on Costs 804,373 Profit on GDV 0

Cash Flow -685,986 -12,005 -429,557 -527,284 -790,288 -804,118 673,826 939,395 1,209,610 1,230,778 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -804,373 Opening Balance 0 Closing Balance -685,986 -697,990 -1,127,547 -1,654,831 -2,445,119 -3,249,237 -2,575,410 -1,636,016 -426,406 804,373 804,373 804,373 804,373 804,373 804,373 804,373 804,373 804,373 804,373 804,373 804,373 804,373 804,373 0

CASH FLOW FOR CIL ADDITIONAL PROFIT Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 INCOME As Above INCOME 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,269,990 1,269,990 1,269,990 1,269,990 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

EXPENDITURE Land 420,000

Stamp Duty 12,600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Easements etc. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legals Acquisition 6,300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Planning Fee 4,020 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Architects 91,539 0 91,539 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 QS 7,628 0 7,628 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Planning Consultants 15,257 0 15,257 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Professional 38,141 0 38,141 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Build Cost - BCIS Base 0 0 247,586 495,173 742,759 742,759 495,173 247,586 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 POTENTIAL CIL 81,189 Post CIL s106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Contingency 0 0 6,190 12,379 18,569 18,569 12,379 6,190 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Abnormals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Finance Fees 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legal and Valuation 7,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Agents 0 0 0 0 0 0 25,400 25,400 25,400 25,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legals 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,350 6,350 6,350 6,350 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Misc. 0 0 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COSTS BEFORE LAND INT AND PROFIT 612,986 0 492,531 507,552 761,328 761,328 539,302 285,526 31,750 31,750 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

For CIL calculation Interest 10,727 10,915 19,725 28,953 42,783 56,854 45,062 28,623 7,455 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Profit on cost 804,810 Profit on GDV 0

Cash Flow -612,986 -10,727 -503,446 -527,277 -790,281 -804,111 673,834 939,402 1,209,617 1,230,786 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -804,810 Opening Balance 0 Closing Balance -612,986 -623,713 -1,127,159 -1,654,436 -2,444,717 -3,248,828 -2,574,994 -1,635,593 -425,975 804,810 804,810 804,810 804,810 804,810 804,810 804,810 804,810 804,810 804,810 804,810 804,810 804,810 804,810 0

10/08/2012 County Durham SHMA Options Site 12

Site 12

INCOME Av Size % Number Price GDV GIA DEVELOPMENT COSTS Planning fee calc m2 10.00 £/m2 £ m2 Planning app fee dwgs rate LAND /unit or m2 Total No dwgs 10 Market Housing 121.0 80% 8 1,450 1,403,600 968 Land -42,665 -426,651 No dwgs under 5 10 335.00 3,350 Stamp Duty 0 No dwgs over 50 0 100.00 0 Shared Ownership 121.0 0% 0 0 0 0 Easements etc. 0 Total 3,350 Legals Acquisition 1.50% -6,400 -6,400 Affordable Rent 121.0 20% 2 925 223,850 242 PLANNING Social Rent 121.0 0% 0 800 0 0 Planning Fee 3,350 Stamp duty calc - Residual Architects 6.00% 91,541 Land payment -426,651 Grant and Subsidy Shared Ownership 0 0 QS / PM 0.50% 7,628 125,000 0% 0% Affordable Rent 0 0 Planning Consultants 1.00% 15,257 250,000 1% 0% Social Rent 0 0 Other Professional 2.50% 38,142 155,919 500,000 3% 0% 1,000,000 4% 0% SITE AREA 0.80 ha 13 /ha 1,627,450 1,210 CONSTRUCTION above 5% 0% Build Cost - BCIS Based 904 1,093,356 Total 0 Sales per Quarter 3 s106 / CIL 500 5,000 Unit Build Time 3 Quarters Contingency 2.50% 27,334 Stamp duty calc - Add Profit Abnormals 400,000 1,525,690 Land payment 248,000 Whole Site Per ha 125,000 0% 0% Residual Land Value -426,651 -533,314 RUN Residual MACRO ctrl+r FINANCE 250,000 1% 0% Alternative Use Value 40,000 50,000 Closing balance = 0 Fees 10,000 500,000 3% 0% Uplift 20% 8,000 10,000 Interest 7.00% 1,000,000 4% 0% Plus /ha 250,000 200,000 250,000 RUN CIL MACRO ctrl+l Legal and Valuation 7,500 17,500 above 5% 0% Viability Threshold 248,000 310,000 Closing balance = 0 Total 0 SALES Check on phasing dwgs nos Agents 2.0% 32,549 Additional Profit -690,207 -713 £/m2 correct Legals 0.5% 8,137 Misc. 5,000 45,686 1,311,744

Developers Profit % of costs (before interest) 20.00% 262,349 Post CIL s106 0 £/ Unit (all) % of GDV 0.00% 0 Total 0

RESIDUAL CASH FLOW FOR INTEREST Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 INCOME UNITS Started 1 3 3 3 Market Housing 0 0 0 140,360 421,080 421,080 421,080 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shared Ownership 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Affordable Rent 0 0 0 22,385 67,155 67,155 67,155 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Social Rent 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grant and Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INCOME 0 0 0 0 0 0 162,745 488,235 488,235 488,235 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

EXPENDITURE Stamp Duty 0 Easements etc. 0 Legals Acquisition -6,400

Planning Fee 3,350 Architects 45,771 45,771 QS 3,814 3,814 Planning Consultants 7,628 7,628 Other Professional 19,071 19,071

Build Cost - BCIS Base 0 36,445 145,781 255,116 328,007 218,671 109,336 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s106/CIL 5,000 Contingency 0 911 3,645 6,378 8,200 5,467 2,733 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Abnormals 0 13,333 53,333 93,333 120,000 80,000 40,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Finance Fees 10,000 Legal and Valuation 7,500

Agents 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,255 9,765 9,765 9,765 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legals 0 0 0 0 0 0 814 2,441 2,441 2,441 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Misc. 5,000 COSTS BEFORE LAND INT AND PROFIT 90,735 0 136,974 202,759 354,828 456,207 308,207 164,275 12,206 12,206 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

For Residual Valuation Land -426,651 Interest 0 0 0 67 6,277 14,371 17,168 11,799 3,675 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Profit on Costs 262,349 Profit on GDV 0

Cash Flow 335,917 0 -136,974 -202,759 -354,894 -462,484 -159,833 306,792 464,230 472,354 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -262,349 Opening Balance 0 Closing Balance 335,917 335,917 198,943 -3,816 -358,710 -821,195 -981,027 -674,235 -210,005 262,349 262,349 262,349 262,349 262,349 262,349 262,349 262,349 262,349 262,349 262,349 262,349 262,349 262,349 0

CASH FLOW FOR CIL ADDITIONAL PROFIT Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 INCOME As Above INCOME 0 0 0 0 0 0 162,745 488,235 488,235 488,235 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

EXPENDITURE Land 248,000

Stamp Duty 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Easements etc. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legals Acquisition 3,720 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Planning Fee 3,350 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Architects 45,771 0 45,771 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 QS 3,814 0 3,814 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Planning Consultants 7,628 0 7,628 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Professional 19,071 0 19,071 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Build Cost - BCIS Base 0 0 36,445 145,781 255,116 328,007 218,671 109,336 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 POTENTIAL CIL -690,207 Post CIL s106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Contingency 0 0 911 3,645 6,378 8,200 5,467 2,733 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Abnormals 0 0 13,333 53,333 93,333 120,000 80,000 40,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Finance Fees 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legal and Valuation 7,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Agents 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,255 9,765 9,765 9,765 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legals 0 0 0 0 0 0 814 2,441 2,441 2,441 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Misc. 0 0 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COSTS BEFORE LAND INT AND PROFIT 348,854 0 -558,233 202,759 354,828 456,207 308,207 164,275 12,206 12,206 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

For CIL calculation Interest 6,105 6,212 0 100 6,311 14,405 17,203 11,834 3,711 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Profit on cost 260,262 Profit on GDV 0

Cash Flow -348,854 -6,105 552,021 -202,759 -354,927 -462,518 -159,867 306,757 464,195 472,318 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -260,262 Opening Balance 0 Closing Balance -348,854 -354,959 197,062 -5,697 -360,624 -823,142 -983,009 -676,251 -212,057 260,262 260,262 260,262 260,262 260,262 260,262 260,262 260,262 260,262 260,262 260,262 260,262 260,262 260,262 0

10/08/2012 County Durham SHMA Options Site 13

Site 13

INCOME Av Size % Number Price GDV GIA DEVELOPMENT COSTS Planning fee calc m2 5.00 £/m2 £ m2 Planning app fee dwgs rate LAND /unit or m2 Total No dwgs 5 Market Housing 104.0 75% 4 1,753 683,670 390 Land 5,063 25,314 No dwgs under 5 5 335.00 1,675 Stamp Duty 0 No dwgs over 50 0 100.00 0 Shared Ownership 104.0 0% 0 0 0 0 Easements etc. 0 Total 1,675 Legals Acquisition 1.50% 380 380 Affordable Rent 104.0 25% 1 925 120,250 130 PLANNING Social Rent 104.0 0% 0 800 0 0 Planning Fee 1,675 Stamp duty calc - Residual Architects 6.00% 30,985 Land payment 25,314 Grant and Subsidy Shared Ownership 0 0 QS / PM 0.50% 2,582 125,000 0% 0% Affordable Rent 0 0 Planning Consultants 1.00% 5,164 250,000 1% 0% Social Rent 0 0 Other Professional 2.50% 12,911 53,317 500,000 3% 0% 1,000,000 4% 0% SITE AREA 0.10 ha 50 /ha 803,920 520 CONSTRUCTION above 5% 0% Build Cost - BCIS Based 941 489,450 Total 0 Sales per Quarter 2 s106 / CIL 500 2,500 Unit Build Time 3 Quarters Contingency 5.00% 24,473 Stamp duty calc - Add Profit Abnormals 0 516,423 Land payment 36,000 Whole Site Per ha 125,000 0% 0% Residual Land Value 25,314 253,144 RUN Residual MACRO ctrl+r FINANCE 250,000 1% 0% Alternative Use Value 30,000 300,000 Closing balance = 0 Fees 10,000 500,000 3% 0% Uplift 20% 6,000 60,000 Interest 7.00% 1,000,000 4% 0% Plus /ha 0 0 0 RUN CIL MACRO ctrl+l Legal and Valuation 7,500 17,500 above 5% 0% Viability Threshold 36,000 360,000 Closing balance = 0 Total 0 SALES Check on phasing dwgs nos Agents 2.0% 16,078 Additional Profit -8,670 -22 £/m2 correct Legals 0.5% 4,020 Misc. 5,000 25,098 638,032

Developers Profit % of costs (before interest) 20.00% 127,606 Post CIL s106 0 £/ Unit (all) % of GDV 0.00% 0 Total 0

RESIDUAL CASH FLOW FOR INTEREST Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 INCOME UNITS Started 1 2 2 Market Housing 0 0 0 136,734 273,468 273,468 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shared Ownership 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Affordable Rent 0 0 0 24,050 48,100 48,100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Social Rent 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grant and Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INCOME 0 0 0 0 0 0 160,784 321,568 321,568 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

EXPENDITURE Stamp Duty 0 Easements etc. 0 Legals Acquisition 380

Planning Fee 1,675 Architects 15,493 15,493 QS 1,291 1,291 Planning Consultants 2,582 2,582 Other Professional 6,455 6,455

Build Cost - BCIS Base 0 32,630 97,890 163,150 130,520 65,260 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s106/CIL 2,500 Contingency 0 1,632 4,895 8,158 6,526 3,263 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Abnormals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Finance Fees 10,000 Legal and Valuation 7,500

Agents 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,216 6,431 6,431 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legals 0 0 0 0 0 0 804 1,608 1,608 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Misc. 5,000 COSTS BEFORE LAND INT AND PROFIT 45,376 0 67,583 102,785 171,308 137,046 72,543 8,039 8,039 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

For Residual Valuation Land 25,314 Interest 1,237 1,259 2,463 4,305 7,379 9,906 8,535 3,198 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Profit on Costs 127,606 Profit on GDV 0

Cash Flow -70,690 -1,237 -68,841 -105,248 -175,613 -144,425 78,335 304,994 310,331 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -127,606 Opening Balance 0 Closing Balance -70,690 -71,927 -140,769 -246,017 -421,629 -566,054 -487,718 -182,725 127,606 127,606 127,606 127,606 127,606 127,606 127,606 127,606 127,606 127,606 127,606 127,606 127,606 127,606 127,606 0

CASH FLOW FOR CIL ADDITIONAL PROFIT Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 INCOME As Above INCOME 0 0 0 0 0 0 160,784 321,568 321,568 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

EXPENDITURE Land 36,000

Stamp Duty 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Easements etc. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legals Acquisition 540 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Planning Fee 1,675 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Architects 15,493 0 15,493 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 QS 1,291 0 1,291 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Planning Consultants 2,582 0 2,582 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Professional 6,455 0 6,455 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Build Cost - BCIS Base 0 0 32,630 97,890 163,150 130,520 65,260 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 POTENTIAL CIL -8,670 Post CIL s106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Contingency 0 0 1,632 4,895 8,158 6,526 3,263 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Abnormals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Finance Fees 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legal and Valuation 7,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Agents 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,216 6,431 6,431 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legals 0 0 0 0 0 0 804 1,608 1,608 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Misc. 0 0 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COSTS BEFORE LAND INT AND PROFIT 81,536 0 56,412 102,785 171,308 137,046 72,543 8,039 8,039 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

For CIL calculation Interest 1,427 1,452 2,464 4,306 7,380 9,907 8,536 3,199 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Profit on cost 127,541 Profit on GDV 0

Cash Flow -81,536 -1,427 -57,864 -105,249 -175,614 -144,426 78,334 304,993 310,330 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -127,541 Opening Balance 0 Closing Balance -81,536 -82,963 -140,827 -246,076 -421,690 -566,116 -487,781 -182,789 127,541 127,541 127,541 127,541 127,541 127,541 127,541 127,541 127,541 127,541 127,541 127,541 127,541 127,541 127,541 0

10/08/2012 County Durham SHMA Options Site 14

Site 14

INCOME Av Size % Number Price GDV GIA DEVELOPMENT COSTS Planning fee calc m2 3.00 £/m2 £ m2 Planning app fee dwgs rate LAND /unit or m2 Total No dwgs 3 Market Housing 110.0 80% 2 2,185 576,840 264 Land 11,455 34,366 No dwgs under 5 3 335.00 1,005 Stamp Duty 0 No dwgs over 50 0 100.00 0 Shared Ownership 110.0 0% 0 0 0 0 Easements etc. 0 Total 1,005 Legals Acquisition 1.50% 515 515 Affordable Rent 110.0 20% 1 925 61,050 66 PLANNING Social Rent 110.0 0% 0 800 0 0 Planning Fee 1,005 Stamp duty calc - Residual Architects 6.00% 23,534 Land payment 34,366 Grant and Subsidy Shared Ownership 0 0 QS / PM 0.50% 1,961 125,000 0% 0% Affordable Rent 0 0 Planning Consultants 1.00% 3,922 250,000 1% 0% Social Rent 0 0 Other Professional 2.50% 9,806 40,228 500,000 3% 0% 1,000,000 4% 0% SITE AREA 0.10 ha 30 /ha 637,890 330 CONSTRUCTION above 5% 0% Build Cost - BCIS Based 1,155 381,200 Total 0 Sales per Quarter 1 s106 / CIL 500 1,500 Unit Build Time 3 Quarters Contingency 2.50% 9,530 Stamp duty calc - Add Profit Abnormals 0 392,229 Land payment 31,000 Whole Site Per ha 125,000 0% 0% Residual Land Value 34,366 343,660 RUN Residual MACRO ctrl+r FINANCE 250,000 1% 0% Alternative Use Value 5,000 50,000 Closing balance = 0 Fees 10,000 500,000 3% 0% Uplift 20% 1,000 10,000 Interest 7.00% 1,000,000 4% 0% Plus /ha 250,000 25,000 250,000 RUN CIL MACRO ctrl+l Legal and Valuation 7,500 17,500 above 5% 0% Viability Threshold 31,000 310,000 Closing balance = 0 Total 0 SALES Check on phasing dwgs nos Agents 2.0% 12,758 Additional Profit 5,019 19 £/m2 correct Legals 0.5% 3,189 Misc. 5,000 20,947 505,786

Developers Profit % of costs (before interest) 20.00% 101,157 Post CIL s106 0 £/ Unit (all) % of GDV 0.00% 0 Total 0

RESIDUAL CASH FLOW FOR INTEREST Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 INCOME UNITS Started 1 1 1 Market Housing 0 0 0 192,280 192,280 192,280 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shared Ownership 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Affordable Rent 0 0 0 20,350 20,350 20,350 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Social Rent 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grant and Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INCOME 0 0 0 0 0 0 212,630 212,630 212,630 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

EXPENDITURE Stamp Duty 0 Easements etc. 0 Legals Acquisition 515

Planning Fee 1,005 Architects 11,767 11,767 QS 981 981 Planning Consultants 1,961 1,961 Other Professional 4,903 4,903

Build Cost - BCIS Base 0 42,356 84,711 127,067 84,711 42,356 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s106/CIL 1,500 Contingency 0 1,059 2,118 3,177 2,118 1,059 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Abnormals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Finance Fees 10,000 Legal and Valuation 7,500

Agents 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,253 4,253 4,253 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legals 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,063 1,063 1,063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Misc. 5,000 COSTS BEFORE LAND INT AND PROFIT 38,632 0 69,526 86,829 130,243 86,829 48,730 5,316 5,316 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

For Residual Valuation Land 34,366 Interest 1,277 1,300 2,539 4,103 6,454 8,087 5,360 1,826 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Profit on Costs 101,157 Profit on GDV 0

Cash Flow -72,998 -1,277 -70,826 -89,368 -134,346 -93,283 155,813 201,954 205,488 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -101,157 Opening Balance 0 Closing Balance -72,998 -74,275 -145,101 -234,469 -368,816 -462,099 -306,285 -104,331 101,157 101,157 101,157 101,157 101,157 101,157 101,157 101,157 101,157 101,157 101,157 101,157 101,157 101,157 101,157 0

CASH FLOW FOR CIL ADDITIONAL PROFIT Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 INCOME As Above INCOME 0 0 0 0 0 0 212,630 212,630 212,630 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

EXPENDITURE Land 31,000

Stamp Duty 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Easements etc. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legals Acquisition 465 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Planning Fee 1,005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Architects 11,767 0 11,767 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 QS 981 0 981 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Planning Consultants 1,961 0 1,961 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Professional 4,903 0 4,903 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Build Cost - BCIS Base 0 0 42,356 84,711 127,067 84,711 42,356 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 POTENTIAL CIL 5,019 Post CIL s106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Contingency 0 0 1,059 2,118 3,177 2,118 1,059 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Abnormals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Finance Fees 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legal and Valuation 7,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Agents 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,253 4,253 4,253 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legals 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,063 1,063 1,063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Misc. 0 0 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COSTS BEFORE LAND INT AND PROFIT 69,581 0 73,045 86,829 130,243 86,829 48,730 5,316 5,316 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

For CIL calculation Interest 1,218 1,239 2,539 4,103 6,454 8,086 5,360 1,825 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Profit on cost 101,178 Profit on GDV 0

Cash Flow -69,581 -1,218 -74,284 -89,368 -134,346 -93,283 155,813 201,955 205,489 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -101,178 Opening Balance 0 Closing Balance -69,581 -70,799 -145,083 -234,450 -368,796 -462,079 -306,266 -104,311 101,178 101,178 101,178 101,178 101,178 101,178 101,178 101,178 101,178 101,178 101,178 101,178 101,178 101,178 101,178 0

10/08/2012 County Durham SHMA Options Site 15

Site 15

INCOME Av Size % Number Price GDV GIA DEVELOPMENT COSTS Planning fee calc m2 2.00 £/m2 £ m2 Planning app fee dwgs rate LAND /unit or m2 Total No dwgs 2 Market Housing 95.0 90% 2 2,271 388,341 171 Land 23,780 47,560 No dwgs under 5 2 335.00 670 Stamp Duty 0 No dwgs over 50 0 100.00 0 Shared Ownership 95.0 0% 0 0 0 0 Easements etc. 0 Total 670 Legals Acquisition 1.50% 713 713 Affordable Rent 95.0 10% 0 925 17,575 19 PLANNING Social Rent 95.0 0% 0 800 0 0 Planning Fee 670 Stamp duty calc - Residual Architects 6.00% 13,019 Land payment 47,560 Grant and Subsidy Shared Ownership 0 0 QS / PM 0.50% 1,085 125,000 0% 0% Affordable Rent 0 0 Planning Consultants 1.00% 2,170 250,000 1% 0% Social Rent 0 0 Other Professional 2.50% 5,424 22,368 500,000 3% 0% 1,000,000 4% 0% SITE AREA 0.10 ha 20 /ha 405,916 190 CONSTRUCTION above 5% 0% Build Cost - BCIS Based 1,109 210,710 Total 0 Sales per Quarter 1 s106 / CIL 500 1,000 Unit Build Time 3 Quarters Contingency 2.50% 5,268 Stamp duty calc - Add Profit Abnormals 0 216,978 Land payment 31,000 Whole Site Per ha 125,000 0% 0% Residual Land Value 47,560 475,597 RUN Residual MACRO ctrl+r FINANCE 250,000 1% 0% Alternative Use Value 5,000 50,000 Closing balance = 0 Fees 10,000 500,000 3% 0% Uplift 20% 1,000 10,000 Interest 7.00% 1,000,000 4% 0% Plus /ha 250,000 25,000 250,000 RUN CIL MACRO ctrl+l Legal and Valuation 7,500 17,500 above 5% 0% Viability Threshold 31,000 310,000 Closing balance = 0 Total 0 SALES Check on phasing dwgs nos Agents 2.0% 8,118 Additional Profit 18,310 107 £/m2 correct Legals 0.5% 2,030 Misc. 5,000 15,148 320,267

Developers Profit % of costs (before interest) 20.00% 64,053 Post CIL s106 0 £/ Unit (all) % of GDV 0.00% 0 Total 0

RESIDUAL CASH FLOW FOR INTEREST Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 INCOME UNITS Started 1 1 Market Housing 0 0 0 194,171 194,171 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shared Ownership 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Affordable Rent 0 0 0 8,788 8,788 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Social Rent 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grant and Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INCOME 0 0 0 0 0 0 202,958 202,958 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

EXPENDITURE Stamp Duty 0 Easements etc. 0 Legals Acquisition 713

Planning Fee 670 Architects 6,509 6,509 QS 542 542 Planning Consultants 1,085 1,085 Other Professional 2,712 2,712

Build Cost - BCIS Base 0 35,118 70,237 70,237 35,118 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s106/CIL 1,000 Contingency 0 878 1,756 1,756 878 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Abnormals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Finance Fees 10,000 Legal and Valuation 7,500

Agents 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,059 4,059 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legals 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,015 1,015 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Misc. 5,000 COSTS BEFORE LAND INT AND PROFIT 29,732 0 52,845 71,993 71,993 35,996 5,074 5,074 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

For Residual Valuation Land 47,560 Interest 1,353 1,376 2,325 3,626 4,949 5,666 2,302 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Profit on Costs 64,053 Profit on GDV 0

Cash Flow -77,292 -1,353 -54,221 -74,318 -75,618 -40,945 192,218 195,582 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -64,053 Opening Balance 0 Closing Balance -77,292 -78,645 -132,866 -207,184 -282,802 -323,747 -131,529 64,053 64,053 64,053 64,053 64,053 64,053 64,053 64,053 64,053 64,053 64,053 64,053 64,053 64,053 64,053 64,053 0

CASH FLOW FOR CIL ADDITIONAL PROFIT Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 INCOME As Above INCOME 0 0 0 0 0 0 202,958 202,958 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

EXPENDITURE Land 31,000

Stamp Duty 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Easements etc. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legals Acquisition 465 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Planning Fee 670 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Architects 6,509 0 6,509 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 QS 542 0 542 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Planning Consultants 1,085 0 1,085 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Professional 2,712 0 2,712 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Build Cost - BCIS Base 0 0 35,118 70,237 70,237 35,118 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 POTENTIAL CIL 18,310 Post CIL s106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Contingency 0 0 878 1,756 1,756 878 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Abnormals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Finance Fees 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legal and Valuation 7,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Agents 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,059 4,059 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legals 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,015 1,015 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Misc. 0 0 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COSTS BEFORE LAND INT AND PROFIT 60,484 0 70,155 71,993 71,993 35,996 5,074 5,074 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

For CIL calculation Interest 1,058 1,077 2,324 3,624 4,947 5,664 2,300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Profit on cost 64,154 Profit on GDV 0

Cash Flow -60,484 -1,058 -71,232 -74,316 -75,617 -40,944 192,220 195,584 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -64,154 Opening Balance 0 Closing Balance -60,484 -61,542 -132,774 -207,090 -282,707 -323,651 -131,430 64,154 64,154 64,154 64,154 64,154 64,154 64,154 64,154 64,154 64,154 64,154 64,154 64,154 64,154 64,154 64,154 0

10/08/2012 County Durham SHMA Options Site 16

Site 16

INCOME Av Size % Number Price GDV GIA DEVELOPMENT COSTS Planning fee calc m2 2.00 £/m2 £ m2 Planning app fee dwgs rate LAND /unit or m2 Total No dwgs 2 Market Housing 140.0 80% 2 2,300 515,200 224 Land 29,354 58,708 No dwgs under 5 2 335.00 670 Stamp Duty 0 No dwgs over 50 0 100.00 0 Shared Ownership 140.0 0% 0 0 0 0 Easements etc. 0 Total 670 Legals Acquisition 1.50% 881 881 Affordable Rent 140.0 20% 0 925 51,800 56 PLANNING Social Rent 140.0 0% 0 800 0 0 Planning Fee 670 Stamp duty calc - Residual Architects 6.00% 19,157 Land payment 58,708 Grant and Subsidy Shared Ownership 0 0 QS / PM 0.50% 1,596 125,000 0% 0% Affordable Rent 0 0 Planning Consultants 1.00% 3,193 250,000 1% 0% Social Rent 0 0 Other Professional 2.50% 7,982 32,598 500,000 3% 0% 1,000,000 4% 0% SITE AREA 0.10 ha 20 /ha 567,000 280 CONSTRUCTION above 5% 0% Build Cost - BCIS Based 1,109 310,520 Total 0 Sales per Quarter 1 s106 / CIL 500 1,000 Unit Build Time 3 Quarters Contingency 2.50% 7,763 Stamp duty calc - Add Profit Abnormals 0 319,283 Land payment 31,000 Whole Site Per ha 125,000 0% 0% Residual Land Value 58,708 587,077 RUN Residual MACRO ctrl+r FINANCE 250,000 1% 0% Alternative Use Value 5,000 50,000 Closing balance = 0 Fees 10,000 500,000 3% 0% Uplift 20% 1,000 10,000 Interest 7.00% 1,000,000 4% 0% Plus /ha 250,000 25,000 250,000 RUN CIL MACRO ctrl+l Legal and Valuation 7,500 17,500 above 5% 0% Viability Threshold 31,000 310,000 Closing balance = 0 Total 0 SALES Check on phasing dwgs nos Agents 2.0% 11,340 Additional Profit 29,962 134 £/m2 correct Legals 0.5% 2,835 Misc. 5,000 19,175 448,145

Developers Profit % of costs (before interest) 20.00% 89,629 Post CIL s106 0 £/ Unit (all) % of GDV 0.00% 0 Total 0

RESIDUAL CASH FLOW FOR INTEREST Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 INCOME UNITS Started 1 1 Market Housing 0 0 0 257,600 257,600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shared Ownership 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Affordable Rent 0 0 0 25,900 25,900 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Social Rent 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grant and Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INCOME 0 0 0 0 0 0 283,500 283,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

EXPENDITURE Stamp Duty 0 Easements etc. 0 Legals Acquisition 881

Planning Fee 670 Architects 9,578 9,578 QS 798 798 Planning Consultants 1,596 1,596 Other Professional 3,991 3,991

Build Cost - BCIS Base 0 51,753 103,507 103,507 51,753 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s106/CIL 1,000 Contingency 0 1,294 2,588 2,588 1,294 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Abnormals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Finance Fees 10,000 Legal and Valuation 7,500

Agents 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,670 5,670 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legals 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,418 1,418 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Misc. 5,000 COSTS BEFORE LAND INT AND PROFIT 35,015 0 75,011 106,094 106,094 53,047 7,088 7,088 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

For Residual Valuation Land 58,708 Interest 1,640 1,669 3,011 4,920 6,863 7,911 3,212 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Profit on Costs 89,629 Profit on GDV 0

Cash Flow -93,722 -1,640 -76,680 -109,105 -111,014 -59,910 268,501 273,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -89,629 Opening Balance 0 Closing Balance -93,722 -95,363 -172,043 -281,148 -392,162 -452,072 -183,571 89,629 89,629 89,629 89,629 89,629 89,629 89,629 89,629 89,629 89,629 89,629 89,629 89,629 89,629 89,629 89,629 0

CASH FLOW FOR CIL ADDITIONAL PROFIT Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 INCOME As Above INCOME 0 0 0 0 0 0 283,500 283,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

EXPENDITURE Land 31,000

Stamp Duty 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Easements etc. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legals Acquisition 465 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Planning Fee 670 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Architects 9,578 0 9,578 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 QS 798 0 798 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Planning Consultants 1,596 0 1,596 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Professional 3,991 0 3,991 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Build Cost - BCIS Base 0 0 51,753 103,507 103,507 51,753 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 POTENTIAL CIL 29,962 Post CIL s106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Contingency 0 0 1,294 2,588 2,588 1,294 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Abnormals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Finance Fees 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legal and Valuation 7,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Agents 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,670 5,670 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legals 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,418 1,418 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Misc. 0 0 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COSTS BEFORE LAND INT AND PROFIT 65,599 0 103,974 106,094 106,094 53,047 7,088 7,088 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

For CIL calculation Interest 1,148 1,168 3,008 4,917 6,860 7,908 3,210 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Profit on cost 89,797 Profit on GDV 0

Cash Flow -65,599 -1,148 -105,142 -109,102 -111,012 -59,907 268,504 273,203 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -89,797 Opening Balance 0 Closing Balance -65,599 -66,747 -171,889 -280,991 -392,003 -451,910 -183,406 89,797 89,797 89,797 89,797 89,797 89,797 89,797 89,797 89,797 89,797 89,797 89,797 89,797 89,797 89,797 89,797 0

10/08/2012 County Durham SHMA Options Results

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Site 8 Site 9 Site 10 Site 11 Site 12 Site 13 Site 14 Site 15 Site 16 North Durham North Durham 2South Durham 1Central DurhamSouth Durham 2East Durham 1 Central DurhamEast Durham 2 East Durham 3 Central DurhamSouth Durham 4Central DurhamNorth Durham 3South Durham 5East Durham 4 Central Durham

Site Area ha 11.00 9.00 5.00 5.30 2.40 1.30 0.40 0.70 1.10 0.40 0.70 0.80 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 Units 288 243 149 121 70 68 42 30 26 18 12 10 5 3 2 2

Mix Market 75.00% 75.00% 80.00% 80.00% 80.00% 90.00% 80.00% 90.00% 90.00% 80.00% 80.00% 80.00% 75.00% 80.00% 90.00% 80.00% Intermediate to Buy 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Affordable Rent 25.00% 25.00% 20.00% 20.00% 20.00% 10.00% 20.00% 10.00% 10.00% 20.00% 20.00% 20.00% 25.00% 20.00% 10.00% 20.00% Social Rent 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Alternative Land Valu£/ha 25,000 25,000 25,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 500,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 500,000 50,000 300,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 £ site 275,000 225,000 125,000 1,590,000 720,000 390,000 200,000 210,000 330,000 120,000 350,000 40,000 30,000 5,000 5,000 5,000

Uplift £/ha 255,000 255,000 255,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 100,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 100,000 260,000 60,000 260,000 260,000 260,000 £ site 2,805,000 2,295,000 1,275,000 318,000 144,000 78,000 40,000 42,000 66,000 24,000 70,000 208,000 6,000 26,000 26,000 26,000

Viability Threshold £/ha 280,000 280,000 280,000 360,000 360,000 360,000 600,000 360,000 360,000 360,000 600,000 310,000 360,000 310,000 310,000 310,000 £ site 3,080,000 2,520,000 1,400,000 1,908,000 864,000 468,000 240,000 252,000 396,000 144,000 420,000 248,000 36,000 31,000 31,000 31,000

Residual Value £/ha 486,836 128,839 -43,571 497,418 481,846 61,413 2,562,778 -317,707 241,648 104,886 699,795 -533,314 253,144 343,660 475,597 587,077 £ site 5,355,201 1,159,548 -217,856 2,636,314 1,156,430 79,837 1,025,111 -222,395 265,813 41,954 489,856 -426,651 25,314 34,366 47,560 58,708

Additional Profit £/ha 240,126 -152,400 -323,594 162,231 148,281 -286,049 2,205,555 -683,116 -115,579 -244,166 115,985 -862,759 -86,703 50,187 183,096 299,624 £ site 2,641,383 -1,371,599 -1,617,972 859,827 355,874 -371,863 882,222 -478,181 -127,136 -97,667 81,189 -690,207 -8,670 5,019 18,310 29,962 £/Unit 9,171 -5,644 -10,859 7,106 5,084 -5,469 21,005 -15,939 -4,890 -5,426 6,766 -69,021 -1,734 1,673 9,155 14,981 £/m2 131 -69 -148 88 61 -79 196 -236 -39 -79 31 -713 -22 19 107 134

10/08/2012