WHOLE PLAN & COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE
LEVY VIABILITY ASSESSMENT
______
PREPARED ON BEHALF OF HAMBLETON DISTRICT COUNCIL
By
JUNE | 2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS ______
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2.0 PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT ...... 6 3.0 METHODOLOGY ...... 16 4.0 OVERVIEW OF HAMBLETON ...... 36 5.0 FINANCIAL APPRAISAL ASSUMPTIONS ...... 72 6.0 VIABILITY RESULTS AND POLICY IMPACTS ...... 92 7.0 PLAN VIABILITY AND DELIVERY ...... 136
Appendices
Appendix 1 Stakeholder Presentation and Attendees Appendix 2 Stakeholder Comments Appendix 3 Responses to Stakeholder Comments Appendix 4 Analysis of Planning Consents Appendix 5 New Housing Developments – Sales and Asking Prices Appendix 6 CoStar Office Market Report Appendix 7 CoStar Industrial Market Report Appendix 8 Allocations Testing Assumptions Appendix 9 Quantity Surveyor Report Appendix 10 S106 Analysis
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
______
1.1 Hambleton District Council (‘the Council’) is in the process of preparing a new Local Plan for the District which will guide development up to 2035. The new Local Plan will include a strategy for growth, detailed policies to deliver it and site allocations. It will set out how much land should be provided to accommodate new homes and jobs and where this should be located, alongside the need for associated infrastructure such as shops, community facilities, transport, open space, sport and recreation. The plan will also seek to protect and enhance the countryside, historic buildings and the character of the District’s market towns and villages.
1.2 The Local Plan is being prepared in two parts, as follows:
Part 1: Spatial Strategy and Development Policies - A vision and objectives for the Plan Area containing both strategic policies to implement the strategy and detailed policies for determining development proposals.
Part 2: Site Allocations - sets out details of sites where the development needs identified in Part 1 will take place and the form it will take.
1.3 The Council undertook public consultation on the Issues and Options stage of the plan during the early part of 2016. During October – December 2016 consultation took place regarding a Preferred Options version of the plan and a consultation on Alternative Sites and Local Green Space Designations was undertaken in April to June 2017.
1.4 A number of the Local Plan policies may impact on the viability of development and in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) the Council needs to be satisfied that these policies do not undermine the delivery of the plan. Similarly the Council needs to be satisfied that the site allocations contained within the plan are deliverable and are not subject to such a scale of policy burdens that they are unable to be developed viably.
1.5 Alongside the preparation of the Local Plan, the Council is also intending to review its Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to help the delivery of the District’s known infrastructure needs.
Page | 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.6 In order to ensure a robust and realistic Plan a viability evidence base which assesses and tests the policies contained in the emerging Local Plan is required, this will also inform any revisions that are required to the current CIL charging schedule. Keppie Massie has been commissioned by the Council to establish the economic viability and deliverability implications of the emerging Local Plan policies and allocations. This is to ensure that they are realistic and can deliver sustainable development without putting the delivery of the Plan at risk. The study has been prepared to satisfy the tests of viability and deliverability laid down in the NPPF and the National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). This report therefore provides an assessment of the overall viability of development in the District, considering the viability implications of emerging plan policies. It also provides a viability framework within which to consider the proposed site allocations. Ultimately the study provides conclusions about ‘whole plan viability’ and any adjustments that may be required to the existing CIL charging schedule.
Format of Report
1.7 The report is presented to provide an overview of the Local Plan and its key policies, details of the study methodology, a property market commentary, the financial appraisal assumptions, the results of the viability testing and conclusions regarding Plan viability and delivery.
1.8 For ease of reference the report is structured based on the following sections:
Section 2 – Planning Policy Context 1.9 This section provides an overview of the strategic policies and the development management policies which could impact on viability and delivery. In addition a summary of the site allocations is provided.
Section 3 – Methodology 1.10 This section outlines the methodology that has been adopted for the study and the viability assessments, together with the rationale for the development scenarios tested.
Section 4 – Overview of Hambleton 1.11 This section provides general information about the social and economic characteristics of Hambleton, together with an overview of the residential and commercial property markets.
Section 5 – Financial Appraisal Assumptions 1.12 This section outlines the key assumptions that have been made in preparing the financial assessments including details of how specific Local Plan policies have been addressed.
Page | 2
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Section 6 – Viability Results and Policy Impacts 1.13 This section provides an overview of the results of the viability testing together with a commentary on the results and also the impact of the Local Plan policies on viability. The viability of the proposed allocations is also considered.
Section 7 – Plan Viability and Delivery 1.14 Within Section 7 conclusions are provided about the key policies that have implications for economic viability and the viability and deliverability of the Hambleton Local Plan.
Keppie Massie
1.15 Keppie Massie is an established firm of Chartered Surveyors and Property Consultants with offices in Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow and London and is at the forefront of development economics, regeneration and strategic development. It is regulated by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS). In September 2004 Keppie Massie opened a Residential division called Keppie Massie Residential.
1.16 The Practice deals with all major aspects of commercial and residential property consultancy including valuation, development, development economics, cost consultancy advice, investment, strategic land assembly, compulsory purchase, investment and development funding, S106 negotiations and affordable housing policy and provision, landlord and tenant advice, regeneration, national and local taxation, insolvency advice, acquisition, disposal, agency and property management.
1.17 We have extensive experience in the preparation of Local Plan and CIL Viability Assessments, and have provided studies for many Local Planning Authorities including the following:
o Knowsley – Local Plan Viability Assessment o Sefton – Local Plan and Site Allocations Viability Assessment o High Peak – Local Plan Viability Study (including site allocations) o Fylde – Local Plan and CIL Viability Study o Hyndburn – Development Management DPD Viability Study o Barrow – Local Plan Viability Study (including site allocations) o Wyre – Local Plan Viability Study (including site allocations) o Staffordshire Moorlands – Local Plan and CIL Viability Study (including site allocations) o Cheshire West and Chester – CIL Viability Assessment and then subsequent Local Plan Part Two Viability Assessment o Allerdale – Site Allocations DPD and CIL Viability Study o Liverpool City Council – Local Plan Viability Study (including site allocations)
Page | 3
1.0 INTRODUCTION
o West Lancashire – CIL Viability Assessment o Cheshire East – CIL Viability Assessment o Mansfield – Local Plan Viability Assessment Update o St Helens – Local Plan Viability Assessment
1.18 Keppie Massie is also currently preparing Local Plan Viability Assessments for Rossendale, Wirral and West Lancashire Councils.
1.19 The Practice has extensive knowledge and experience in dealing with viability in relation to development management matters and provides advice to many Local Planning Authorities across the North and Midlands. We have also been appointed by Lancashire County Council to provide development viability advice to Lancashire Enterprise Partnership, Preston City Council, South Ribble Council and Lancashire City Deal.
Timeline
1.20 Following consultation by the Council in relation to the Preferred Options Version of the Plan we were commissioned at the beginning of 2017 to start the preparation of a Viability Assessment as part of the Local Plan Evidence Base.
1.21 The initial property market research was undertaken during the spring and summer of 2017. This research was used to compile our transactional and construction cost evidence base for the District and inform our initial assumptions for the viability testing. As part of the evidence base a consultation event was undertaken which was attended by Stakeholders including developers and registered providers who were active in the District.
1.22 During the summer and autumn of 2017 we undertook preliminary viability testing for the Council based on the emerging policies and sites at that time. This was used to assist the Council in formulating the Publication Version of the Plan.
1.23 In July 2018 a new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was introduced together with updated Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). The later was further updated in relation to viability matters in May 2019.
1.24 The Council is now finalising the Publication Draft of the Local Plan. Building on the earlier work undertaken the current Study has regard to the April 2019 version of this Publication Draft Local Plan. The viability testing is based on the Policies contained in this document together with the proposed site allocations. The evidence base for the study was updated during the autumn of 2018.
Page | 4
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Viability Consultation
1.25 On 3 March 2017 the Council held a Stakeholder event and as part of this we undertook a presentation to explain the methodology that we were proposing to adopt in preparing the Local Plan and CIL Viability Assessment and obtain stakeholders views regarding this. In addition the event allowed us to explain the development typologies that we were intending to adopt for testing and the respective financial appraisal inputs. The format of the session included a presentation regarding these key elements and an opportunity for stakeholder questions and discussion both during and at the end of the presentation.
1.26 A copy of the presentation together with details of the stakeholders who attended on the day and their details are also contained at Appendix 1. Following the stakeholder event a copy of the presentation was sent to both the attendees and also the full list of stakeholders who had previously been invited to the event. Stakeholders were asked to provide their comments about the presentation and in particular the approach, methodology, the development typologies that were proposed for testing and the financial appraisal assumptions. A total of 8 responses were received in relation to the presentation and these are contained at Appendix 2. A further late response is also contained in Appendix 2.
1.27 The responses that were received all related to viability testing of new residential development. We have provided at Appendix 3 a summary of the comments that were received under the respective topic headings and our response based on the then current Preferred Options Version of the Plan and also the 2012 version of the NPPF and relevant PPG.
Page | 5
2.0 PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT
2.0 PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT
______
Background
2.1 To meet the requirements of the NPPF, the Council is presently preparing a new Local Plan. Once adopted, the new plan will replace the current plan, the Local Development Framework, which runs to 2026, with a single document containing district wide policies and land allocations. The new Local Plan will guide development in the District to 2035.
2.2 Public consultation on the Issues and Options Draft Local Plan took place from 11 January 2016 until 19 February 2016. The comments received from this consultation and the Call for Sites informed the Preferred Options version of the Plan along with consultation involving Duty to Co-operate partners, such as other local planning authorities and key stakeholders.
2.3 Consultation in relation to the Preferred Options version of the Plan commenced on 31 October and finished on Monday 12 December 2016. A consultation on Alternative Sites and Local Green Space Designations was undertaken in April to June 2017.
2.4 This report has regard to the New Local Plan for Hambleton: Publication Draft (April 2019) as the most up to date version of the plan. This section identifies the key policies contained within the Publication Draft (April 2019) that could potentially impact on development within the District. These impacts may be in terms of location, physical form or the level of planning contributions.
New Local Plan for Hambleton: Publication Draft (April 2019)
2.5 With reference to the proposed policies contained in the new Local Plan, we have provided a short summary of those most relevant to the study in the paragraphs below.
Vision and Spatial Development Strategy for Hambleton
2.6 The Plan identifies a Vision for Hambleton which places emphasis on making the most of opportunities for economic growth and maximising the tourist potential offered through the unique location of Hambleton. Housing is to be of an amount, scale, quality, size and type that reflects the changing needs of Hambleton’s communities and workforce. Hambleton's natural and historic assets are to be preserved and enhanced, providing support for the health and wellbeing of its communities and the five market towns will provide a strong retail offer, a good range of well paid jobs and good access to leisure facilities.
Page | 6
2.0 PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT
2.7 To inform the Spatial Development Strategy, the Plan contains a number of polices that guide the location and scale of new development in the District. Those polices most relevant to the study are summarised in the paragraphs that follow.
Policy S 2: Strategic Development Needs 2.8 In order to meet the Council's aspiration for Hambleton to be a place to grow, provision is to be made over the plan period (2014 to 2035) for:
a) Approximately 77.6 hectares of employment land; and b) At least 6,615 new homes, made up of both market and affordable
Policy S 3: Spatial Distribution 2.9 The overall approach to the spatial distribution of development will be to focus growth at Northallerton and Thirsk, where the majority of development will be located so that it benefits from and supports the wide range of services and facilities and good transport connections of these two main towns.
2.10 Growth will also be focused at key employment locations within the central transport corridor, in order to provide opportunities for expansion and inward investment along the A19/A1 corridor.
2.11 In the market towns of Bedale, Easingwold and Stokesley and also the villages, growth will be focused commensurate with their size, character and the concentration of services and facilities in these locations and their role in providing services to residents of other nearby communities.
2.12 In identified rural communities, limited development will help address affordable housing need and can support social and economic sustainability.
2.13 The policy also contains a settlement hierarchy which identifies the market towns, service villages, secondary villages and small villages.
Page | 7
2.0 PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT
Policy: EG 1 Meeting Hambleton's Employment Need 2.14 The policy states that the Council will seek to deliver sustainable economic growth within the district by supporting development of the sites allocated for business use and protecting and upgrading existing employment land. Table 2.1 contains a summary of the allocations across the strategic locations and the market towns.
Hectares
Strategic Locations Leeming Bar (LB 3: Aiskew Moor, East of Leeming Bar) 20.65 Dalton Bridge (DL 1: Dalton Industrial Estate, Dalton) 24.57 Sowerby Gateway 11.6 Sub Total 56.82
Market Towns Easingwold (EA 4:Shires Bridge Mill, Easingwold) 2.55 Northallerton (NR 2: West of Darlington Road) 8.74 Stokesley (SK 2: East of Stokesley Business Park and SK 3: 4.93 and 4.57 South East of Terry Dicken Industrial Estate, Stokesley) Sub Total 20.79
Overall Total 77.61 Table 2.1: Summary of Employment Land Allocations
2.15 NR 3: Northallerton Former Prison Site is identified for mixed commercial redevelopment to support the retail and leisure role of Northallerton Town Centre.
Policy EG 2: Protection and Enhancement of Employment Land 2.16 This policy identifies the following sites as Key Employment Locations for protection and upgrading:
a) Dalton Old Airfield Industrial Estate b) Leeming Bar Industrial Estate c) Sowerby Gateway d) Northallerton Industrial Area, east and west of Darlington Road (including County Business Park, Darlington Road Business Park, Mile House Business Park, Northallerton Business Park, Standard Way Business Park and Thornfield Business Park) e) Stokesley Business Park (including Station Road Industrial Estate and Terry Dicken Industrial Estate) f) Thirsk Industrial Park
Page | 8
2.0 PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT
Policy EG 3: Town Centre Retail and Leisure Provision 2.17 The requirements of Policy EG 3 seek to maintain and enhance the vitality and viability of Hambleton’s Town Centres. The policy contains a hierarchy with Northallerton identified as a main town centre serving the district. Thirsk is a classified as a town centre serving a wide rural catchment area whilst Bedale, Easingwold and Stokesley are town centres serving the day to day needs of their rural catchments.
2.18 Within the town centres support will be given to retail and other main town centre uses that are appropriate to the size, role and function of the centre concerned. Outside the town centres the Council will seek to maintain and, where appropriate, enhance retail facilities that provide for local need subject to certain criteria being met.
Policy HG 1: Housing Delivery 2.19 This policy addresses the delivery of sustainable housing growth within the District by supporting development of the sites which are allocated for housing and mixed uses as set out in 'Part 2: Site Allocations'. This is to meet the need for housing identified in S 2: Strategic Development Needs.
2.20 Table 2.2 summarises the distribution of housing delivery from allocated sites across the main towns and villages, whilst table 2.3 contains details of the allocations.
Location Number of Homes Northallerton 840 (640 net) Thirsk and Sowerby 205 Bedale with Aiskew 145 Easingwold 125 Stokesley 205 (105 net) Service and Secondary Villages 424 Table 2.2: HG1: Housing Delivery Distribution of New Housing Development
Page | 9
2.0 PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT
Settlement Ref Address Area No Dwellings
Market Town NOR 1 Winton Road, Northallerton Northallerton 640 (840 gross)
TIS 1 Station Road, Thirsk Thirsk 110 TIS 2 Back Lane, Sowerby Thirsk 50
TIS 3 Green Lane West, Sowerby Thirsk 45
AIB 1 North East of Ashgrove, Aiskew Bedale 85
AIB 2 South of Lyngarth Farm, Bedale Bedale 60
EAS 1 Northeast of Easingwold Community Primary School, Easingwold Easingwold 125
STK 1 North of The Stripe, Stokesley Stokesley 105 (205 gross)
Service Village BRO 1 Danes Crescent, Brompton Northallerton 17
CAM 1 Ripon Way, Carlton Miniott Thirsk 55
CRK 1 North of Crakehall Water Mill, Little Crakehall Bedale 18
GTA 1 Skottowe Crescent, Great Ayton Stokesley 30
HUB 1 South of Stillington Road, Huby Easingwold 28
STL 1 North of Stillington Social Club, Stillington Easingwold 35 WST 1 Bridge View, Back Lane, West Tanfield Bedale 11 Secondary BUR 1 St Lamberts, Burneston Bedale 25 Village LEB 1 Harkness Drive, Leeming Bar Bedale 85
LEB 2 Foundry Way, Leeming Bar Bedale 80
SO 1 Beechfield, South Otterington Thirsk 40 Table 2.3: Summary of Housing Allocations (HG 1: Housing Delivery)
Page | 10
2.0 PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT
Development Management Policies Related to Viability Testing
2.21 The emerging Local Plan also contains the Development Management Policies that will guide the delivery of new development in Hambleton. Having regard to the development management policies contained within the Publication Draft of the Local Plan, the paragraphs that follow contain a summary of the key policies that are likely to have an impact on development viability.
Policy HG 2: Delivering the Right Type of Homes 2.22 This policy seeks to create sustainable and inclusive communities through the provision of an appropriate mix of dwellings in terms of size, type and tenure.
2.23 Particular aspects of the policy that are relevant to the viability assessment include:
2.24 Size and Type of New Market Housing - the policy will set out requirements for new residential development to deliver a range of house types and sizes that reflect and respond to the existing and future needs of the district’s households as identified in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) or successor documents. The agreed mix of house types is to be subject to negotiation having regard to evidence of local housing need or market conditions and the ability of the site to accommodate a mix of housing. The justification to the policy notes that almost half of the existing housing stock comprises larger four bedroom detached properties that are unaffordable to many local people. The Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) identifies an urgent need for smaller and more affordable dwellings. To address this issue the Council will therefore seek to achieve a mix of predominantly two and three bedroom homes, including the provision of two bedroom bungalows.
2.25 National Described Space Standards (NDSS) – new housing development will be supported where it meets the NDSS across all tenures provided.
2.26 Building Regulation Requirement M4 (2) and M4 (3) - new housing development will be supported where it meets Building Regulation requirement M4 (2) ‘accessible and adaptable dwellings’ (or replacement standards), across all tenures provided. Within a large scale development proposal (200 or more dwellings) a proportion of new market homes are to be further enhanced to meet Building Regulation requirement M4 (3) ‘wheelchair adaptable dwellings’ (or replacement standards), according to identified need.
Page | 11
2.0 PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT
2.27 The justification to the policy notes that homes meeting M4 (3) wheelchair dwellings include further design features so that homes are capable of meeting or being adapted to meet the needs of most wheelchair users. It is currently anticipated that the proportion for M4 (3) should be 9% of new market homes, where its delivery is viable, and around 30% overall for affordable homes but precise levels of need will vary in response to circumstances at the time a planning application is determined.
2.28 Provision of Bungalows - ensuring there is increased housing choice for older people by requiring that on developments of 10 or more dwelling houses at least 10% of dwellings are two bedroom bungalows.
Policy HG 3: Affordable Housing Requirements 2.29 On all developments for new market housing, including mixed-use schemes, conversions and housing development that forms part of a wider development, the Council will seek the provision of 30% affordable housing unless the proposal is for:
a) 9 units or fewer, or has a combined gross floorspace of no more than 1,000 sq.m (gross internal area); or b) 4 units or fewer and is located within a parish defined as a designated rural area.
2.30 Where a proposal of between 6 and 10 homes is located within a designated rural area a financial contribution for the provision of affordable housing will be sought unless on-site provision is made.
2.31 The policy goes on to say that affordable housing provision will be expected to consist of a mix of tenures, comprising of a third of intermediate dwellings (shared ownership) and two thirds affordable rented and social rented.
2.32 Where it can be demonstrated that this is not viable, due to specific site conditions or other material considerations affecting development of the site, an alternative dwelling or tenure mix that meets local need or a lower level of provision may be supported. When amending the level of provision the preference will be to reduce the proportion of intermediate housing first, then affordable rented housing and finally social rented housing. A development viability assessment will be required to justify a lower level of affordable housing provision.
2.33 The justification to the policy makes reference to the Transfer Prices of the affordable homes and the fact that these Transfer Prices ensure that affordable homes are transferred to Registered Providers (housing associations) at a price that allows the homes to be let or sold to those who cannot afford to rent or purchase on the open market. Based on the findings of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment the Council will continue to apply Transfer Prices to the affordable dwellings delivered as part of new development. Page | 12
2.0 PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT
2.34 Where a viability assessment is necessary the expectation is that there will be independent checking of viability assessments, in which the land price must take account of Local Plan policy objectives, reflect the condition of the land and reflect the local market.
2.35 The Council will apply a 'vacant building credit' in appropriate circumstances to applicable developments where a vacant building is either converted or demolished. The credit will be equivalent to the gross floorspace of the building to be demolished or brought back to use.
Policy E1: Design 2.36 This policy sets out the mechanisms for achieving high standards of design for all development. The policy requires that all development should be of a high quality, integrating successfully with its surroundings in terms of form and function, reinforcing local distinctiveness, high quality design and helping to create a strong sense of place.
2.37 Particular aspects of the policy of relevance to the viability testing include supporting proposals for new development that respect and contribute positively to local character, identity and distinctiveness in terms of form, scale, layout, height, density, appearance, use of materials and landscaping, having regard to relevant national and local policies, advice or guidance that promotes high quality design. New development is also expected to make efficient use of a site consistent with achieving a high quality design and layout, and the protection of local character and amenity.
2.38 The policy requires that any proposal for large scale development, will be expected to be supported by a masterplanning process proportionate to the scale and complexity of the site and development proposed.
2.39 The justification to the policy also addresses the requirement for broadband infrastructure. It recognises that the availability of broadband infrastructure will vary across the District however the expectation is that where such infrastructure is not readily available nearby, provision is made in new development for ducting and cabinets to enable easy connection at a later date.
Policy CI 1: Infrastructure Delivery 2.40 The purpose of this policy is to ensure that development is supported by the timely provision of the social and physical infrastructure necessary for sustainable communities to function effectively. Particular aspects of the policy relevant to the study include requiring developers to provide, or meet the costs of providing, the infrastructure, facilities and/or mitigation necessary to make their proposed developments acceptable in planning terms and also ensuring suitable arrangements are made for ongoing maintenance where infrastructure and facilities are directly provided as part of the development concerned.
Page | 13
2.0 PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT
2.41 The justification to the policy makes reference to a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). It states that although CIL will be an important source of funding for the delivery of larger strategic infrastructure facilities, planning obligations in the form of Section 106 Agreements will continue to be used for the direct mitigation of site-specific impacts, for example affordable housing, on-site infrastructure requirements and open space provision, including appropriate arrangements for ongoing maintenance.
Policy CI 2: Transport and Accessibility 2.42 The justification to this policy suggests that for non-residential development one electric vehicle charging point is provided for every twenty spaces. For residential developments it is suggested that provision is made within all garages for charging points to be fitted.
Policy CI 3: Open Space, Sport and Recreation 2.43 This policy deals with a number of aspects in particular it states that new housing development will be supported where it incorporates or otherwise makes provision for open space, sport and recreational facilities to meet the needs arising from the development in line with the standards set out in Appendix E: 'Open Space, Sport and Recreation Standards'. The policy justification notes the fact that the approach taken in Policy CI 3 is to protect existing open space, sport and recreation facilities and to ensure development that increases the demand for such facilities makes appropriate provision, either on-site, or, where this is not practicable, through developer contributions.
Policy RM 1: Water Quality and Supply 2.44 The purpose of this policy is to ensure water quality and quantity is appropriately addressed in development. Particular requirements relevant to viability assessment include that all new homes comply with the optional building regulation for water efficiency, and that non- residential uses met Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) standards (or successor or equivalent standards) 'Good', with regards to water efficiency, as a minimum.
Policy RM 3: Surface Water Management 2.45 This policy sets out the Council’s approach to ensuring that surface water is managed in a sustainable manner. A number of aspects are relevant to viability assessment and include requirements for sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) and ensuring that wherever possible these are integrated with the provision of green infrastructure on and around a development site.
Page | 14
2.0 PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT
Part 2 – Site Allocations
2.46 Part 2 of the Local Plan deals with site allocations. In particular the section provides details of general site requirements in dealing with matters such as access and highways, drainage and utility provision. Information is also provided about CIL and developer contributions requirements through a S106 Agreement. For the housing allocations there is also further guidance back to relevant polices HG 2 and 3 dealing with housing mix and tenure.
2.47 It states that there is some flexibility in the level of development proposed on most of the allocations. Residential capacities have been conservatively estimated to ensure the overall district wide development requirements are achieved. There is scope for variation in the proposed numbers through the planning application process and it is expected that in many cases somewhat higher capacities may be achieved on sites as a result of individual design processes, as such the capacity stated for each allocation is an approximate figure. A guide figure of 5% tolerance either side of the approximate figure set out is considered to be reasonable.
2.48 Part 2 then provides further specific information in relation to each allocation. A summary of the proposed housing allocations is contained at table 2.3 whilst details of the employment allocations are contained at table 2.1.
2.49 In formulating the development typologies for viability testing we have had regard to both the strategic and development management policies contained in the Publication Draft of the Local Plan and also the proposed allocations. These policies have informed the location, size, mix and form of development for testing, together with the planning contributions policies that need to be accounted for in our modelling. Section 3 explains how the relevant local plan policies have been addressed in our methodology.
Page | 15
3.0 METHODOLOGY
3.0 METHODOLOGY
______
Economic Viability Framework
3.1 The National Planning Policy Framework July 2018 (NPPF) states that:
“Plans should set out the contributions expected from development. This should include setting out the levels and types of affordable housing provision required, along with other infrastructure (such as the need for education, health, transport, flood and water management, green and digital infrastructure). Such policies should not undermine the delivery of the plan.” (para 34).
3.2 In addition to the above the NPPF requires that:
“The preparation and review of all policies should be underpinned by relevant and up to date evidence. This should be adequate and proportionate, focused tightly on supporting and justifying the policies concerned, and take into account relevant market signals.” (para 31).
3.3 In comparison to the previous version (2012), the current NPPF places a greater emphasis on establishing viability at plan making stage and at paragraph 57 confirms that:
“Where up-to-date policies have set out the contributions expected from development, planning applications that comply with them should be assumed to be viable. It is up to the applicant to demonstrate whether particular circumstances justify the need for a viability assessment at the application stage. The weight to be given to a viability assessment is a matter for the decision maker, having regard to all the circumstances in the case, including whether the plan and the viability evidence underpinning it is up to date, and any change in site circumstances since the plan was brought into force. All viability assessments, including any undertaken at the plan-making stage, should reflect the recommended approach in national planning guidance, including standardised inputs, and should be made publicly available.”
Page | 16
3.0 METHODOLOGY
3.4 The National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) has also been revised to support the new NPPF. It similarly reinforces the role of Viability Assessment at plan making stage by stating the following (Paragraph: 002 Reference ID:10-002-20190509):
“The role for viability assessment is primarily at the plan making stage. Viability assessment should not compromise sustainable development but should be used to ensure that policies are realistic, and that the total cumulative cost of all relevant policies will not undermine deliverability of the plan.”
3.5 It goes on to say that:
“Policy requirements, particularly for affordable housing, should be set at a level that takes account of affordable housing and infrastructure needs and allows for the planned types of sites and development to be deliverable, without the need for further viability assessment at the decision making stage.”
3.6 The PPG confirms that:
“…..policy requirements should be informed by evidence of infrastructure and affordable housing need, and a proportionate assessment of viability that takes into account all relevant policies, and local and national standards, including the cost implications of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and section 106.” (Paragraph:001 Reference ID:10-001-20190509)
3.7 It places a responsibility on plan makers in collaboration with the Local Community, developers and other stakeholders to create realistic and deliverable policies, whilst advising that it is the responsibility of site promoters is to:
“…..engage in plan making, take into account any costs including their own profit expectations and risks, and ensure that proposals for development are policy compliant. ……..It is important for developers and other parties buying (or interested in buying) land to have regard to the total cumulative cost of all relevant policies when agreeing a price for the land. Under no circumstances will the price paid for land be a relevant justification for failing to accord with relevant policies in the plan.” (Paragraph:006 Reference ID:10-006-20190509)
3.8 This report provides a proportionate assessment of viability (satisfying the requirements of the NPPF and PPG) of the future development sites in Hambleton, taking into account all relevant policies contained in the Local Plan together with local and national standards.
Page | 17
3.0 METHODOLOGY
3.9 The Local Housing Delivery Group has published advice for planning practitioners titled ‘Viability Testing Local Plans’. This guidance recommends that (page 10):
“The approach to assessing plan viability should recognise that it can only provide high level assurance that the policies within the plan are set in a way that is compatible with the likely economic viability. It cannot guarantee that every development in the plan period will be viable, only that the plan policies will be viable for the sufficient number of sites upon which the plan relies in order to fulfil its objectively assessed needs.”
3.10 The guidance states that:
“An individual development can be said to be viable if, after taking account of all costs, including central and local government Policy and regulatory costs and the cost and availability of development finance, the scheme provides a competitive return to the developer to ensure that development takes place and generates a land value sufficient to persuade the land owner to sell the land for the development proposed. If these conditions are not met, a scheme will not be delivered.”
3.11 The new PPG provides clarification on the role of viability by stating that:
“In plan making and decision making viability helps to strike a balance between the aspirations of developers and landowners, in terms of returns against risk, and the aims of the planning system to secure maximum benefits in the public interest through the granting of planning permission.” (Paragraph:010 Reference ID:10-010-20180724)
Appraisal Methodology
3.12 The PPG provides a useful definition of what viability assessment actually is, by stating that:
“Viability assessment is a process of assessing whether a site is financially viable, by looking at whether the value generated by a development is more than the cost of developing it. This includes looking at the key elements of gross development value, costs, land value, landowner premium, and developer return.” (Paragraph:010 Reference ID:10-010-20180724)
Page | 18
3.0 METHODOLOGY
3.13 Having regard to this definition a residual approach to determine viability has been adopted in relation to both the generic development typologies and the site allocations that have been tested. This is where the value of the completed development is assessed and the cost of undertaking the development (including the cost of land, finance and planning obligations) is deducted, along with a target developer’s profit return. The residual sum that is left represents the development surplus or “headroom”. Consideration of this then allows an informed decision to be made about the viability of the development in general, and in particular, the ability to fund Local Plan policies involving additional costs for development such as developer contributions policies and CIL.
3.14 Table 3.1 provides a simple diagram illustrating this approach:
Gross Development Value (value of the completed development scheme)
Less
Cost of Development (inclusive of build costs, fees, finance, land cost)
Less
Other Costs (inclusive of planning obligations)
Less
Developers Target Profit
= Development Surplus or “Headroom”
Table 3.1: Approach to Viability Testing
3.15 This methodology is recognised and supported by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) in relation to the valuation of development land. The RICS Guidance Note ‘Financial Viability in Planning’ defines viability for planning purposes as (paragraph 2.1.1):
“an objective financial viability test of the ability of a development project to meet its costs including the cost of planning obligations, whilst ensuring an appropriate site value for the land owner and a market risk adjusted return to the developer in delivering that project”.
Page | 19
3.0 METHODOLOGY
Sites and Typologies
3.16 In establishing the sites and typologies to test the PPG suggests that:
“Assessing the viability of plans does not require individual testing of every site or assurance that individual sites are viable. Plan makers can use site typologies to determine viability at the plan making stage. Assessment of samples of sites may be helpful to support evidence. In some circumstances more detailed assessment may be necessary for particular areas or key sites on which the delivery of the plan relies.” (Paragraph:003 Reference ID:10-003-20180724)
3.17 In this context a typology approach can be used that groups together sites with shared characteristics. However, in terms of strategic sites the PPG is clear that:
“It is important to consider the specific circumstances of strategic sites. Plan makers can undertake site specific viability assessment for sites that are critical to delivering the strategic priorities of the plan.” (Paragraph:005 Reference ID:10-005-20180724)
3.18 The document ‘Viability Testing Local Plans’ suggests that viability testing of Local Plans does not require a detailed viability appraisal of every site anticipated to come forward over the plan period. As a consequence of the potentially widely different economic profiles of sites within the local area, it suggests:
“A more proportionate and practical approach in which local authorities create and test a range of appropriate site typologies reflecting the mix of sites upon which the plan relies.”
3.19 In preparing the residual appraisals, it has been necessary to make certain assumptions, both in relation to the form of development and also the variables adopted in each of the appraisals based upon a significant quantity of data. Inevitably, given the characteristics of the property market in Hambleton, the data does not necessarily fit all eventualities and every development site will be unique. It has therefore been necessary to draw upon our development experience and use our professional knowledge to derive a data set that best fits the typical characteristics of the proposed site allocations, likely future development sites and form of development in the District and can be considered reasonable.
Page | 20
3.0 METHODOLOGY
3.20 It should be noted that when adopting the Residual Appraisal Approach, the end result is sensitive to even the smallest of changes in any of the assumptions which feed into the appraisal process. We are satisfied however that our approach and the assumptions that we have made are appropriate to the property market characteristics within Hambleton and represent the most reasonable and proportionate approach given the available evidence at the time of preparing this study.
Residential Development Scenarios
Typologies
3.21 The Publication Draft of the Local Plan identifies the delivery of 6,615 new homes over the plan period. The majority of new development will be met from development located in Northallerton and Thirsk as well of the other market towns of Bedale, Stokesley and Easingwold. In addition new housing development will also be provided in a number of the service and secondary villages where there is a good range of services. Growth is expected to come forward through windfall sites which contribute additional diversity and flexibility to the supply of new properties.
3.22 Part 2 of the Local Plan identifies 19 housing allocations (which are summarised at table 2.3). These sites will deliver a minimum of 1,644 dwellings and range in size from 11 up to 840 (640 net) dwellings. The allocations are all greenfield sites, many currently in agricultural use, and situated on the edge of existing settlements.
3.23 With reference to the proposed allocations, table 3.2 categorises the number of sites by size band.
Capacity <11 11-25 26-50 51-100 101-200 >200 No Sites 0 4 6 5 3 1 Table 3.2: Analysis of Proposed Allocations
3.24 Having regard to the policies and sites contained within the Local Plan, it is likely that future residential development will take place predominantly on greenfield sites. There may also be a small number of previously developed windfall sites. The analysis contained at table 3.2 shows that the majority of new development sites (79%) will have a capacity of up to 100 dwellings, although there are 3 sites with capacities of 101 to 200 dwellings and indeed one site in Northallerton has an identified capacity of 840 dwellings (gross).
Page | 21
3.0 METHODOLOGY
3.25 The Planning Advisory Service in the note ‘Successful Plan Making – Advice for Practitioners’ suggests that:
“Under the NPPF, authorities need to test the whole plan and all its policies together to show its impact on viability; however, separate viability testing of strategic sites is also recommended if they are key to the delivery of the plan.”
3.26 The Harman Guidance suggests that:
“Planning Authorities may build up data based on the assessment of a number of specific local sites included within the land supply, or they may create a number of hypothetical sites, typologies or reasonable assumptions about the likely flow of development sites.”
“What is important is that partners have confidence that the profile of sites included within an assessment is a good match with likely future supply over the plan period, and avoid making assumptions that could be contested.”
“The appraisal should be able to provide a profile of viability across a geographical range and/or range of different types of site.”
“Once this profile is established, it may also help to include some tests of case study sites, based on more detailed examples of actual sites likely to come forward for development if this information is available.”
3.27 The new PPG also suggests the use of site typologies to determine viability at the plan making stage and also recommends that in some circumstances a more detailed assessment may be necessary for particular areas or key sites on which the delivery of the plan relies.
3.28 The emerging Local Plan does not identify a minimum density for development and seeks to ensure efficient use of a site (Policy E 1: Design). The residential capacities of allocations have been conservatively estimated to ensure the overall district wide requirements are achieved and it is noted that there is scope for variation in the proposed numbers with a 5% tolerance either side of the approximate figure set out considered to be reasonable.
3.29 As part of the initial evidence base for this study we undertook an analysis of planning permissions granted for residential developments in the District of 10 dwellings or more over the period since 2011. This analysis is contained at Appendix 4. For completeness we have updated this analysis with a further 7 full or reserved matters applications that have received consent since this date. This is also contained at Appendix 4.
Page | 22
3.0 METHODOLOGY
3.30 Based on the information available with the planning application we have been able to consider a number of aspects including development density, dwelling size and mix and the overall floorspace per net developable acre. The latter is used by housebuilders as a measure of the efficiency of the site, with the optimum coverage per net developable acre generally being in the region of 13,000 to 15,000 sq.ft dependent of course on the type of housing product being provided. With reference to the information contained at Appendix 4 we have prepared table 3.3.
Page | 23
3.0 METHODOLOGY
Gross Site Net Dev Density Floorspace Gross to No Developer Application Ref Address Sub Area Area Area (Net Dev Net Dev Net Ratio Dwellings (Hec) (Hec) Hec) Acre (sq.ft) Yorvik Homes 14/00370/FUL Benkhill Drive Bedale 0.4 0.4 100% 14 35 12,333
Berkeley DeVeer 15/01073/REM Mulberry Vale Northallerton 0.7 0.7 100% 23 33 13,760 Daniel Garth South Back Lane, 14/02389/FUL Easingwold 1.03 1.03 100% 24 23 11,113 Homes Stillington Garbutts Lane, 16/01836/FUL Stokesley 1.19 1.05 88% 25 24 11,906 Hutton Rudby Station Yard, West Berkeley DeVeer 16/00529/FUL Bedale 1.31 1.22 93% 42 34 15,756 Tanfield Taylor Wimpey 14/01228/FUL Fox Covert Close Bedale 1.32 1.32 100% 41 31 12,146 Land off Ripon Taylor Wimpey 13/01770/FUL Thirsk 1.46 1.23 84% 40 33 13,145 Way Sowerby Gateway Taylor Wimpey 15/02389/REM Thirsk 1.49 1.33 89% 44 33 13,864 (Lime Gardens) Linden Homes 15/00175/REM Stillington Road Easingwold 1.58 1.40 88% 48 34 14,609 Willow Bridge Lane Whitfield Homes 16/00511/FUL Thirsk 1.67 1.67 100% 43 26 13,138 Dalton The Dales, Morton Linden Homes 15/00741/FUL Northallerton 2.01 1.48 74% 48 32 13,278 on Swale Bedale Road Cecil M Yuill 11/02543/FUL (South East of Bedale 2.3 2.04 89% 59 29 12,794 Aiskew) Persimmon 15/00006/FUL South End Bedale 2.48 1.92 77% 79 41 14,125
Redrow 11/01661/FUL York Road Easingwold 3.47 3.04 88% 93 31 12,210 Austin Reed, Bellway 18/00331/FUL Thirsk 4.03 3.45 86% 112 32 14,080 Station Road North of Stillington Kier 17/00519/REM Easingwold 6.69 5.50 82% 175 32 13,625 Road Taylor Wimpey 15/01943/REM White House Farm Stokesley 6.90 5.33 77% 178 33 15,155 Mowberry Barratt/DWH 13/01956/FUL Northallerton 8.1 6.77 84% 244 36 16,177 Park/Castlegate Kier 16/02756/REM Tanton Road Stokesley 9.06 6.19 68% 225 36 15,270
Average 32 13,604 Table 3.3: Summary Analysis of Planning Applications – Gross to Net Area, Development Density and Floorspace per net Acre
Page | 24
3.0 METHODOLOGY
3.31 The data shows an average development density across the applications of 32 dwellings per net developable hectare, and an average floor area (coverage) per net developable acre of 13,604 sq.ft. In terms of density, 14 of the 19 schemes are at densities of 31 to 36 dwellings per net developable hectare, with one scheme in excess of 40 dwellings per hectare and four at less than 30 dwellings per hectare.
3.32 This analysis suggests that typical development density in the District is likely to be at between 30 and 35 dwellings per net hectare. This variation allows a range of densities to be developed and applied to best suit the character and requirements of different parts of the District ie. rural village locations in comparison with town centre sites.
3.33 The larger allocations are significant to the delivery of new housing in the District and with reference to table 2.3 our approach is to undertake site specific viability assessments of the larger proposed allocations in excess of 40 dwellings.
3.34 For the smaller allocations and potential windfall sites, we have prepared a framework of development typologies for viability testing. Tables 3.4 and 3.5 provide details of the development typologies that we have adopted. In each case we have undertaken viability testing based on assumed development densities of 30 and 35 dwellings per net developable hectare. The suite of viability assessments identified at table 3.4 have been prepared principally in relation to the main market towns and immediately surrounding villages (ie Carlton Miniott and Brompton) reflecting the house prices in these market locations. The viability testing is based on greenfield and also previously developed (brownfield) site typologies, although development of brownfield sites is likely to be more limited.
Scheme Ref No of Dwellings 1 5 2 10 3 25 4 50 5 75 6 100 7 250 Table 3.4: Generic Housing Typologies Assumed for Testing in Market Towns (greenfield and brownfield)
Page | 25
3.0 METHODOLOGY
3.35 A proportion of the new housing development proposed is to be provided on small sites in the service and secondary villages with some windfall development in other villages. It is likely that the characteristics of the development and also the nature of the housebuilder in these locations will be different from in the main centres. We anticipate that these forms of development may be undertaken by the smaller regional and local housebuilders rather than national developers. It is probable that in some cases sales rates may be slower and it may be necessary to adjust some of the appraisal assumptions to address specific factors relating to smaller scale developments in the villages.
3.36 Given the significance of new housing development in the villages we have prepared some generic development typologies which are intended to be used in the viability modelling of new housing development in the service and secondary villages. The testing is undertaken based on development densities of 30 and 35 dwellings per hectare, and is based on different value bands reflecting the house prices within the respective service and secondary villages.
3.37 Table 3.5 contains details of the generic typologies that we have adopted for viability testing of housing sites in the service and secondary villages. The majority of sites are likely to be greenfield in these cases and our testing reflects this.
Scheme Ref No of Dwellings 8 5 9 10 10 15 11 25 Table 3.5: Generic Housing Typologies Assumed for Testing in Secondary and Service Villages
3.38 Although it is not anticipated that there will be any significant development of standalone apartments in the District, we have for completeness also undertaken viability testing in relation to two forms of apartment development, namely a small apartment scheme of 15 units (Scheme Ref 12) and a larger development of 50 units (Scheme Ref 13).
Page | 26
3.0 METHODOLOGY
3.39 For site specific viability tests we have adopted the sites areas and capacity identified for the proposed allocation in Part 2 of the Local Plan. In relation to the generic testing, the net developable site area has been calculated at the respective density. We have then calculated the gross site area to reflect open space and landscaping likely to be required on the development site. In order to inform the gross and net site area calculation we have considered available information from the planning applications contained at Appendix 4. Table 3.3 is taken from the data at Appendix 4 and shows, based on the information available, the gross to net site areas for the various applications. The data is presented in ascending order with respect to the site size.
3.40 Typically we would expect the gross to net developable area ratio to reduce as the size of the site increases, and this is broadly demonstrated by the analysis of applications shown in table 3.3. The analysis shows a range of gross to net site ratios of 68% up to 100% with all of the sites analysed at less than 1.03 ha showing a gross to net ratio of 100%. The difference between the gross to net site areas accommodates for example public open space, landscaping and site features.
3.41 In preparing Local Plan Viability Assessments for other Local Planning Authorities, adjustments between the gross and net developable area are made on a sliding scale with respect to the site size, for example different ratios are applied for sites less than 0.4ha, 0.4 to 2 ha and then over 2ha. In certain cases a further allowance will be made for site in excess of 10ha.
3.42 The planning applications that we have analysed here show that at 0.4 ha or less the gross to net ratio is 100%, in the category over 0.4 to 2 ha the average ratio is 94%, whilst for sites over 2ha the average ratio is 80% albeit there are a number of sites where the ratio is 74% - 77% and the largest scheme is at 68%.
3.43 In assessing a reasonable gross to net site area ratio for the purpose of our viability assessments we have taken a relatively conservative approach in relation to the generic testing to reflect the high level nature of the assessment and the fact that these are hypothetical as yet unknown sites. Table 3.6 contains details of the gross to net site area ratio that we have adopted for this testing.
Gross Site Area Net Developable Area Up to 0.4 Ha 100% of gross area 0.4 ha to 2 Ha 90% of gross area Sites over 2 Ha 75% of gross area Table 3.6: Assumed Net Developable Area Ratios
Page | 27
3.0 METHODOLOGY
Form of Development Assumed for Testing (Mix and Dwelling Size)
3.44 Having established the size and capacity for each development typology both site specific and generic we have then adopted a typical housing mix and house size reflecting the development density. In order to inform this we have considered the Publication Draft of the Local Plan and have also undertaken an analysis of recent planning consents relating to residential development in Hambleton based on the available information. This analysis was prepared as part of the initial evidence base having regard to the available information from the 26 then most recent residential planning applications in the District for developments in excess of 10 dwellings. The applications in total provide over 1,900 dwellings. Further details are contained at Appendix 4. Table 3.7 provides a summary of the average housing mix and dwelling size, taken from this analysis.
1 bed 2 bed 1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 4 bed 5 bed apt apt
% of mix 1.7% 21.3% 38.6% 34.2% 1.8% 0.9% 1.5%
Size 53 68 88 125 169 54 61 (sq.m) Size 575 734 932 1,344 1,818 582 655 (sq.ft) Table 3.7: Mix and Dwelling Sizes Taken from Planning Application Analysis
3.45 We have also undertaken a review of the 7 full or reserved matters consents that have been granted since this original analysis was undertaken for developments of over 10 dwellings. Further details are also contained in Appendix 4. Table 3.8 contains the summary analysis of dwelling size and mix taken from these most recent consents.
1 bed 2 bed 1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 4 bed 5 bed apt apt
% of mix 3.7% 34.9% 30.1% 31.3% - - -
Size 59 71 93 139 - - - (sq.m) Size 632 760 1,004 1,497 - - - (sq.ft) Table 3.8: Mix and Dwelling Sizes Taken from Planning Application Analysis (last 18 months)
3.46 This recent analysis shows that there has been an increase in the number of 1 and 2 bedroom dwellings being provided in the consents analysed (38.6% of the overall total), whilst the number of larger 4 and 5 bedroom dwellings has reduced to 31.3% compared with 36% in the previous analysis.
Page | 28
3.0 METHODOLOGY
3.47 The average dwelling sizes are also greater across all of the sizes of dwellings contained in the analysis.
3.48 Policy HG 2 sets out requirements for the provision of a range of housing types and sizes as identified in the SHMA. It also contains a requirement for 10% of dwellings on developments of 10 or more houses to be 2 bed bungalows. The Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA) identifies an overall housing mix as contained at table 3.9.
1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 4 bed+
15-20% 40% 35% 5-10% Table 3.9: Overall Housing Mix HEDNA (July 2018)
3.49 The justification to Policy HG 2 also refers to an urgent need for smaller homes and more affordable dwellings. To address this issue it states that the Council will seek to achieve a mix of predominantly two and three bedroom homes including the provision of 2 bedroom bungalows. The analysis of more recent planning applications appears to demonstrate a move towards the provision of a greater number of 1 and 2 bed dwellings with fewer larger dwellings.
3.50 The most recent analysis of planning consents at table 3.8 shows that approximately 61% of all of the dwellings (market and affordable) consented are 3 and 4 beds. Having regard to the local plan policy requirement for a larger number of smaller dwellings to be provided particularly 2 and 3 beds, we have adopted an overall dwelling mix that moves towards the identified need in the HEDNA. The mix contains a slightly higher proportion of 1, 2 and 3 bed dwellings than that from the planning application analysis with a consequent reduction in the number of 4 and 5 bed houses. For viability testing of both site specific and generic development typologies we have therefore adopted the overall housing mix contained in table 3.10.
1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 4+ bed
% of mix 7% 40% 33% 20% Table 3.10: Housing Mix Adopted for Viability Testing
3.51 In addition the housing mix assumes that 10% of the dwellings will be 2 bed bungalows.
3.52 The justification to HG 3 Affordable Housing also requires that the affordable dwellings will normally be provided as 2 and 3 bed homes unless evidence of a local need for different sizes can be demonstrated. For the purpose of our viability testing we have therefore assumed that the affordable units will be 2 and 3 bed units with an equal split between the two dwelling sizes.
Page | 29
3.0 METHODOLOGY
3.53 In terms of the size of the dwellings that have been adopted for the purpose of our testing we have considered the analysis of recent planning applications and have also had regard to the Local Plan requirement in Policy HG 2 that all new housing developments will meet the Nationally Described Space Standards.
3.54 Figure 3.1 is a reproduction of Table 1 taken from the National Space Standards and contains details of the minimum gross internal floor area requirements.
No of Bed 1 storey 2 storey 3 storey No of Beds Built in Spaces dwellings dwellings dwellings (b) storage (persons) (sq.m) (sq.m) (sq.m) 1p 39 (37)² 1.0 1b 2p 50 58 1.5 3p 61 70 2b 2.0 4p 70 79 4p 74 84 90 3b 5p 86 93 99 2.5 6p 95 102 108 5p 90 97 103 6p 99 106 112 4b 3.0 7p 108 115 121 8p 117 124 130 6p 103 110 116 5b 7p 112 119 125 3.5 8p 121 128 134 6b 7p 116 123 129 4.0 Figure 3.1: National Space Standards
3.55 Having regard to these factors table 3.11 contains details of the respective dwelling sizes that we have adopted for the purpose of our viability testing. They are reflective of the analysis of dwelling sizes from recent developments in the District however have been adjusted as necessary to accord to the National Space Standards.
No Beds Size (sq.m) Size (sq.ft) 1 58 624 2 (Bungalow) 70 753 2 79 850 3 93 1,001 4 125 1,350 5 163 1,750 Table 3.11: Dwelling Sizes Assumed for Testing
Page | 30
3.0 METHODOLOGY
3.56 The Affordable Housing SPD contains minimum size standards for affordable dwellings and in accordance with this we have assumed that the 2 bed affordable dwellings will be 70 sq.m (753 sq.ft) and that the 3 bed dwellings will be 90 sq.m (970 sq.ft).
3.57 The application of the housing mix and dwellings sizes at tables 3.10 and 3.11 gives a site coverage of around 12,000 sq.ft per net developable acre at a density of 30 dwellings per hectare, and around 14,000 sq.ft per net developable acre at 35 dwellings per hectare. This is in line with the evidence contained at table 3.3 taken from recent planning applications which shows an average site coverage from the analysis of 13,604 sq.ft. If anything the site coverage used in the testing is actually conservative and the evidence at table 3.3 suggests that slightly more floorspace per net acre could be provided, which have the effect of improving viability. For the purpose of the viability assessment we are satisfied however that the outcome of the mix, dwellings sizes and densities assumed represent a sound and reasonably conservative position upon which to assess the viability of the Local Plan.
3.58 In terms of the apartment size and mixes we have undertaken testing based on the schemes (Ref 12 and 13) at table 3.12. The apartment size adopted reflects the analysis of planning applications that we have undertaken and the resultant floor areas meet or are in excess of the minimum Space Standards.
Scheme 1 Bed 2 Bed Total Size (sq.m) 54 61 Size (sq.ft) 580 655
12 5 10 15 13 20 30 50 Table 3.12: Summary of Apartment Mixes and Sizes Tested
3.59 In modelling the impact of affordable housing provision our viability testing has regard to the requirements of Policy HG 3 which requires that for proposals of more than 9 dwellings the on-site target will be 30% of homes, with a tenure split of two thirds rented and one third intermediate. We have assumed an equal split in affordable provision between 2 and 3 bed dwellings.
Page | 31
3.0 METHODOLOGY
Non-Residential Uses
Generic Testing
3.60 In preparing the non-residential development typologies to be tested, we have had regard to recent planning applications and discussed the forms of development that are likely to come forward during the Local Plan period with the Council. We have also considered the likely location of this future development, together with its size, form and specification.
3.61 Based on the Local Plan, its evidence base and discussions with Council Officers, we have considered non-residential development scenarios for the District based primarily on employment uses together with hotels given the stated aim in the Local Plan to also promote tourism in the District.
3.62 The Hambleton Retail Study Update Note (March 2019) concludes that there is no quantative need identified in any part of the District for convenience retail capacity. In terms of comparison retail it concludes that there is no substantive comparison need by 2031 apart from a very small amount in 2021 which is then absorbed by 2026. Over the plan period there is only a small amount of need (448 sq.m) by 2036. In the context of these conclusions significant new retail provision in the District is not anticipated. The current CIL charging schedule does however include a levy for both retail warehouses and supermarkets at £40 and £90 per sq.m respectively. We have therefore undertaken viability testing of new retail warehouses and supermarkets to assess whether the current CIL rates remain appropriate.
3.63 In relation to the non-residential developments, we have had regard to parking requirements, circulation space and the provision of landscaping to arrive at typical forms of development for testing.
3.64 For the non-residential developments we have summarised the development scenarios that we have tested in table 3.13.
Page | 32
3.0 METHODOLOGY
Built Area Built Area Development Type (sq.m) (sq.ft) Industrial B2 464 5,000 Industrial B2 1,857 20,000 Industrial B2/B8 4,643 50,000 Industrial B2/B8 9,287 100,000 Offices (Business Park) 464 5,000 Offices (Business Park) 1,857 20,000 Retail (Foodstore) 279 3,000 Retail (Foodstore) 929 10,000 Retail (Foodstore) 2,786 30,000 Retail (Comparison) 279 3,000 Retail (Comparison) 929 10,000 Retail (Comparison) 2,786 30,000 Hotel 75 bedrooms Table 3.13: Summary of Non-Residential Development Testing Typologies
3.65 Policy EG 1: Meeting Hambleton’s Employment Needs identifies additional land for new employment uses to be allocated around Leeming Bar, at Dalton Bridge and Sowerby Gateway together with Shires Bridge Mill Business Park at Easingwold, West of Darlington Road in Northallerton and at Stokesley Business Park. Our viability testing of office and industrial uses is reflective of likely values in these identified locations.
Publication Draft Local Plan Development Management Policies
3.66 For the generic and allocated sites that we have tested, table 3.14 contains a summary of the key polices that impact on viability and how these have been dealt with in the viability testing.
Page | 33
3.0 METHODOLOGY
Requirements Viability Consideration Policy
Density and Mix New development is also expected to make Policy E1: Design of New efficient use of a site consistent with achieving a Residential high quality design and layout, and the protection Development of local character and amenity. We have undertaken testing based on densities of 30 and 35 dwellings per net hectare.
We have adopted an overall dwelling mix that Policy HG 2: Delivering the broadly reflects the conclusions of the HEDNA and Right Type of Homes seeks to achieve a mix of predominantly 2 and 3 bed houses.
In addition for developments of 10 or more dwellings we have assumed that 10% of the houses will be 2 bed bungalows. For completeness we have also prepared viability assessments relating to standalone apartments.
Compliance The dwelling sizes that have been assumed for the Policy HG 2: Delivering the with National purpose of our testing accord to the requirements Right Type of Homes Space of the National Space Standards. Standards for New Homes Building We have assumed that all of the dwellings in each Policy HG 2: Delivering the Regulation scheme that is tested will comply with M4 (2) Right Type of Homes Requirement ‘accessible and adaptable dwellings’ standards. M4 (2) and M4 (3) For large scale development proposals of 200 dwellings or more, we have assumed that 9% of the market housing and 30% of the affordable housing will meet the requirements of M4 (3)a including further design features so that homes are capable of meeting or being adapted to meet the needs of most wheelchair users.
Affordable Testing has been undertaken based on 30% HG 3: Affordable Housing Housing affordable housing provision for developments of Requirements more than 9 dwellings.
We have assumed a mix of two thirds affordable rent and one third intermediate tenures.
We have assumed that the affordable dwellings will be transferred to a registered provider at the agreed transfer prices set annually by the Council.
In accordance with Policy HG 3 we have assumed that the affordable provision will be 2 and 3 bedroom houses.
Page | 34
3.0 METHODOLOGY
Requirements Viability Consideration Policy
Infrastructure Our appraisals are inclusive of S106 contributions. Policy CI 1: Infrastructure Provision and We have assumed a contribution of £1,500 per Delivery Developer dwelling based on an analysis of previous S106 Contributions contributions required in the District.
We have also included CIL based on the current charging schedule rates Marketing Housing (ex apartments) - £55 per sq.m Retail warehouses - £40 per sq.m Supermarkets - £90 per sq.m.
Electric Vehicle This policy makes provision for electric vehicle Policy CI 2: Transport and Charging Points charging points and we have separately Accessibility considered the costs associated with electric vehicle charging points as noted in the policy.
Open Space The development typologies include requirements Policy CI 3: Open Space, Provision for public open space, and therefore the Sport and Recreation construction cost assessments are reflective of this together with the costs of future maintenance of the open space.
Flood Risk and The construction cost assessments will achieve the Policy RM 1: Water Quality Water optional standards for water efficiency, as defined and Supply Management by Building Regulations.
The form of development tested and in particular Policy RM 3: Surface Water the inclusion of open spaces addresses the Management requirement for Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS), and the costs assessed make provision for all associated SuDS costs.
Broadband The construction cost assessments include Policy E1: Design Infrastructure provision in new development for ducting and cabinets to enable easy connection at a later date.
Table 3.14: Implications of Local Plan Development Management Policies
Page | 35
4.0 OVERVIEW OF HAMBLETON
4.0 OVERVIEW OF HAMBLETON
______
Key Characteristics
4.1 Hambleton is a local government district of North Yorkshire in the north east of England. The main town and administrative centre is Northallerton which is also the County Town of North Yorkshire. The District also includes the market towns and major villages of Bedale, Thirsk, Great Ayton, Stokesley and Easingwold. Hambleton covers an area of approximately 1,311.17 km² and has a population of just under 90,000 people according to 2014 ONS data.
4.2 About 75% of the district lies in the Vales of Mowbray and of York which consist largely of low lying and intensively worked arable land mostly used for farming. Part of the District to the east lies within the North York Moors National Park and to the west of Hambleton is the Yorkshire Dales National Park. To the south of the District is the City of York greenbelt whilst to the north are the conurbations of the Tees Valley.
4.3 Neighbouring Local Authorities include York to the south, Harrogate and Richmondshire to the west, Darlington, Stockton on Tees, Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland to the north and Scarborough and Ryedale to the east. A map showing the boundaries of Hambleton in relation to the neighboring authorities is contained at figure 4.1. There is a distance of approximately 39 miles between Great Ayton, close to the northern boundary of Hambleton and Shipton by Beningborough which is to the south of the District close to the boundary with York.
4.4 Hambleton’s main river is the River Swale with runs in a north-south direction through the District. The major road and rail routes within the District also tend to run in a broadly north- south direction. The A19 is the principal road through the District which links York to the south with Middleborough and beyond to Sunderland and Newcastle in the North. The A1M also runs through the western part of the district with access at Leeming Bar and also to the southwest of Thirsk at Dishforth. The East Coast Main Line also runs through the District with stations at Northallerton and Thirsk.
4.5 The main retail centre is Northallerton and the other four market towns also have a good range of shops and services. There are a number of employment sites located around the market towns however the major businesses particularly those involved in distribution and manufacturing tend to be located in the more accessible locations with good connections to the strategic road network around Leeming Bar, Thirsk and Dalton. There are also a number of military bases in the District at Linton-on-Ouse, Topcliffe and Leeming.
Page | 36
4.0 OVERVIEW OF HAMBLETON
Figure 4.1: Map of Hambleton and Neighbouring Authorities
4.6 The area has relatively low unemployment rates and according to the 2016 Employment Land Review (ELR) the then latest employment data for the year ending September 2014 showed an unemployment rate of 5.2% in comparison with a regional figure of 8.2% and a national figure of 6.7%. The ELR identified Health (13.2%) as the largest employer followed by Manufacturing (11.9%) and Hospitality (10%). The ELR also noted a relatively strong level of employment growth in the District over the period from 1981 to 2013 with an 82% increase in employment to 49,413.
Property Market Overview
Residential Property Market (Winter 2018)
4.7 The initial research to prepare the property market evidence base for the purpose of this study was undertaken during the spring of 2017. This has been updated to inform the viability testing for the Publication Draft of the Local Plan and has regard to the most up to date market information as at December 2018.
Page | 37
4.0 OVERVIEW OF HAMBLETON
4.8 The Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) prepared by GL Hearn in 2016 considered median house prices by house type for each local authority in North Yorkshire and selected surrounding local authorities. This analysis was based on 2014 Land Registry Data. The data demonstrated that Harrogate was the most expensive local authority with a median house price of £222,500 and a mean of £274,829. Middlesbrough had the lowest house prices with a median of £117,000 and a mean of £130,068. Hambleton was the second most expensive with median and mean prices of £210,000 and £241,452 respectively, whilst York was third and Richmondshire fourth.
4.9 In terms of housing market areas (HMAs) the SHMA noted that the data suggested that Hambleton operated across HMAs with the southern part linked to York and the north eastern part linked to Middlesbrough. The north west of the District also had a close interrelationship with Richmondshire. However, the remainder of the District, including the main towns of Northallerton and Thirsk, were quite distinct. Overall the SHMA considered it appropriate to look at Hambleton as a single HMA whilst recognising these links with adjoining areas.
4.10 To bring this analysis up to date we have sourced the most up to date average price data from Land Registry for Hambleton and the neighbouring authorities. This data is for September 2018. Table 4.1 contains details of overall average house prices and then average price by house type for the various local authority areas together with North Yorkshire as a whole. The overall average house price information has been sorted so that the most expensive authority based on average price is shown first and then the remaining authorities are ranked in descending order.
Authority No Overall Detach Semi Terrace Flat Sales (£) (£) (£) (£) (£) Harrogate 215 £291,985 £471,927 £283,604 £234,366 £183,162 York 253 £250,254 £397,502 £255,550 £215,973 £167,501 Hambleton 88 £232,926 £323,532 £211,420 £175,538 £114,605 Ryedale 72 £232,608 £320,778 £213,342 £179,968 £145,701 Richmondshire 50 £206,921 £282,068 £191,139 £169,894 £110,346 Scarborough 150 £167,378 £257,373 £173,742 £141,936 £116,619 Stockton-on- 217 £136,820 £217,148 £126,084 £97,577 £83,090 Tees Darlington 105 £129,156 £219,547 £130,821 £97,850 £81,065 Redcar & 157 £123,905 £196,692 £122,727 £92,445 £65,662 Cleveland Middlesbrough 144 £110,257 £190,826 £111,255 £79,040 £67,188
North 844 £221,849 £330,801 £210,784 £177,546 £141,605 Yorkshire Table 4.1: Average House Prices September 2018
Page | 38
4.0 OVERVIEW OF HAMBLETON
4.11 The data shows that based on average prices Harrogate remains the most expensive area to buy a house, however York has now overtaken Hambleton with an average house price of £250,254 as compared with £232,926 in Hambleton. Hambleton is third with higher prices than Ryedale and Richmondshire. Middlesbrough remains at the bottom with the cheapest average house prices. Hambleton remains above the overall average house price for North Yorkshire as a whole.
4.12 For completeness we have also tracked average house prices in Hambleton over the period since the start of 2014. Figure 4.2 is based on data taken from Land Registry relating to average house prices.
Figure 4.2: Average House Prices in Hambleton since January 2014
4.13 In January 2014 the overall average house price in Hambleton according to Land Registry data was £203,354. Prices then rose gradually over the period until December 2016 at which point the average house price reached a high of £230,653. During the first part of 2017 there was a reduction in pricing to the overall average figure of £220,847 in March 2017. The trajectory since has been one of gradual increases in house prices to £232,926 in September 2018. From March 2017 to September 2018 average housing prices in Hambleton have increased by 5.5%.
4.14 We have also included at table 4.2 data from Land Registry relating to the average price of new build sales in Hambleton in comparison with the average price paid for the re-sales of existing properties. For completeness the table also contains details of the percentage difference between the average monthly prices paid for new build in comparison with existing stock.
Page | 39
4.0 OVERVIEW OF HAMBLETON
Month New Build Sales Existing Sales Percentage Average (£) Average (£) Difference March 17 £252,950 £217,356 16.38% April 17 £251,923 £218,626 15.23% May 17 £254,383 £221,242 14.98% June 17 £253,254 £222,564 13.79% July 17 £255,324 £224,509 13.73% August 17 £256,874 £227,315 13.00% Sept 17 £260,222 £229,126 13.57% Oct 17 £257,927 £226,802 13.72% Nov 17 £258,600 £226,898 13.97% Dec 17 £257,082 £225,503 14.00% Jan 18 £263,031 £228,879 14.92% Feb 18 £267,142 £227,925 17.21% March 18 £262,878 £223,808 17.46% April 18 £262,218 £223,905 17.11% May 18 £258,222 £224,701 14.92% June 18 £263,543 £230,163 14.50% July 18 £259,966 £227,615 14.21% August 18 £262,617 £226,682 15.85% Sept 18 £266,805 £229,425 16.29% Percentage Increase 5.48% 5.55% Table 4.2: Comparison of Average Prices New Build v Existing Stock since March 2017 – Land Registry
4.15 The data shows that on average new dwellings sold for around 15% more than the existing housing stock. The average price of a new build house was £266,805 in September 2018 an increase of 5.48% over the period since March 2017. The average price of a second hand house in September 2018 was £229,425, an increase of 5.55% over the same period.
New Housing Developments
4.16 The data contained in the preceding paragraphs is helpful to an understanding of relative house prices in Hambleton and underlying house price trends. It does however relate principally to re-sales of properties and hence will reflect the size, condition and characteristics of those properties. To fully inform the study we need to understand the prices that are likely to be achieved for the sale of newly constructed dwellings. Therefore the best evidence of house prices for the purpose of the study comes from sales of new dwellings that have recently taken place in the District.
Page | 40
4.0 OVERVIEW OF HAMBLETON
4.17 Over the last few years as some confidence has returned to the housing market a number of new housing developments have commenced in the District. Some of these developments are now complete and all houses have been sold, whilst others are part way through development and some have only just started. Reflective of the previous housing policy in the District the majority of these new housing developments have been constructed in the main market towns with very little new housing development in the service and secondary villages.
4.18 To inform our study evidence base we have undertaken an analysis of sales prices (taken from Land Registry at December 2018) for these newly built housing developments in Hambleton. Appendix 5 contains an overview of the research that we have undertaken in relation to the sales and current asking prices for dwellings on these various developments.
4.19 The sales price data has been obtained from Land Registry and has then been analysed based on the size of the dwelling to provide for comparative purposes a price per sq.m (and per sq.ft). The floor areas for the dwellings have been sourced either from the planning application documents where this is provided or the Energy Performance Certificates for the respective dwelling.
4.20 For ease of reference we have provided tables 4.3 – 4.7 which contain sales and asking price information from new housing developments in the District. The information is presented with reference to the sub areas within the District. The data contained in the table shows average prices achieved since January 2017 and we have also included details of current asking prices where available from the housebuilders or estate agents websites. As appropriate we have also included some of the more historic information sourced from 2016 as part of our initial research.
4.21 The average price paid per sq.m and per sq.ft has been rounded to the nearest £1 and is presented without any adjustments for incentives that might have been required to secure a sale. Typically we would expect incentives to be in the range of 0-2% of the purchase price, and in more limited cases up to 5%.
Page | 41
4.0 OVERVIEW OF HAMBLETON
Ave Ave Ave Ave Sales Sales Asking Asking Scheme Settlement Developer Sales Comments Price Price Price Price (sq.m) (sq.ft) (sq.m) (sq.ft) Stokesley Stokesley Taylor 42 £2,552 £237 £2,419 £225 Excluding 2.5 storey dwellings, average Grange Wimpey sales prices are at £2,568 per sq.m (£239 per sq.ft) and asking prices at £2,462 per sq. m (£229 per sq.ft).
Tanton Stokesley Kier 2 £2,895 £269 £2,716 £252 Early stages of development. Sales to Fields date relate to 2 bungalows.
Waters Great Mulgrave £2,852 £265 Development recently commenced. A Meet Broughton Homes number of reservations.
Table 4.3: New Housing Developments – Stokesley Sub Area
Ave Ave Ave Ave Sales Sales Asking Asking Scheme Settlement Developer Sales Comments Price Price Price Price (sq.m) (sq.ft) (sq.m) (sq.ft) Fox Covert Aiskew Taylor 14 £2,485 £231 All sold All sold All sales were completed during first Wimpey part of 2017.
Leeming Leeming Bar Mullberry 25 £2,137 £198 All sold All sold All sales were completed during 2017. Gate Homes Moorfields Little Mulgrave 8 £3,037 £282 £2,842 £264 Two remaining properties. Sales during Crakehall Properties mid part of 2018.
Table 4.4: New Housing Developments – Bedale Sub Area
Page | 42
4.0 OVERVIEW OF HAMBLETON
Ave Ave Ave Ave Sales Sales Asking Asking Scheme Settlement Developer Sales Comments Price Price Price Price (sq.m) (sq.ft) (sq.m) (sq.ft) The Dales Morton on Linden 25 £2,789 £259 All sold All sold Sales during mid to late 2017 and 2018. Swale Homes Mulberry Romanby Berkeley 19 £2,328 £216 All sold All sold Narrow tight site adjacent to railway line Vale Deveer with large proportion of 2.5 storey houses. Excluding these 2.5 storey dwellings, the average sales price is £2,537 per sq.m (£236 per sq.ft).
Castlegate Northallerton David 36 £2,397 £223 All sold All sold Excluding flats the average selling price Wilson is £2,442 per sq.m (£227 per sq.ft). Homes Mowbray Northallerton Barratt 16 £2,533 £235 All sold All sold Sales data relates to sales primarily Park during 2017.
Thurstan Northallerton Taylor 18 £2,645 £246 £2,600 £242 Development commenced recently and Park Wimpey sales are during 2018.
Kings Park Northallerton Persimmon 12 £2,397 £223 £2,721 £253 Development commenced recently and Homes sales are during 2018. Excluding 2.5s dwellings average sale price is £2,445 per sq.m (£227 per sq.ft).
Table 4.5: New Housing Developments – Northallerton Sub Area
Page | 43
4.0 OVERVIEW OF HAMBLETON
Ave Ave Ave Ave Sales Sales Asking Asking Scheme Settlement Developer Sales Comments Price Price Price Price (sq.m) (sq.ft) (sq.m) (sq.ft) Lime Sowerby Taylor 15 £2,558 £238 £2,571 £239 Sales data relates to phase 1 sales in Gardens Wimpey 2017. Asking prices are for phase 2.
Mowbray Sowerby Linden 34 £2,682 £249 All sold All sold View Homes The Oaks Sowerby Mulberry 14 £2,605 £242 No current availability Majority of sales data for 2017. Homes
The Cottages Kirkby Wiske £2,825 £262 2no renovated and 2no new build. New build have average asking price of £2,901 per sq.m (£270 per sq.ft).
Outfield Sessay Daniel 6 £2,568 £239 All sold All sold Development of 4 semis and 2 detached Gath houses. Homes Willow Dalton Whitfield 18 £2,382 £221 £2,516 £234 Majority of sales relate to smaller 2 and 3 Bridge Homes bed semis and terraces. The last phase of the development generally larger detached houses.
Table 4.6: New Housing Developments – Thirsk Sub Area
Page | 44
4.0 OVERVIEW OF HAMBLETON
Ave Ave Ave Ave Sales Sales Asking Asking Scheme Settlement Developer Sales Comments Price Price Price Price (sq.m) (sq.ft) (sq.m) (sq.ft) Stillington Easingwold Linden 10 £2,790 £259 All sold All sold Data relates to final new build sales on Road Homes the development during first part of 2017.
Oxenby Easingwold Mulgrave 10 £3,382 £314 All sold All sold Sales data includes all new build sales Place Homes from end of 2015. Last sale in 2017 was at the average price.
The Weald Easingwold Persimmon £2,959 £275 Prices released for initial phase of development.
Hambleton Easingwold Kier £3,165 £294 Prices released for initial phase of Chase development.
South Back Stillington Daniel Gath 6 £3,116 £289 All sold All sold Last Sales all during 2017. Lane Homes
Sparrow Stillington Ambleside £3,512 £326 Small development of 5 homes - 3 sold Way Homes stc. The Huby Northmead 1 £2,738 £254 £2,869 £266 Development of 8 houses - majority sold Meadows although sales prices not yet available.
Manor Court Sutton on The 3 £3,353 £311 Forrest
The Wickets Raskelf Stephensons £2,977 £277 Small development of 3 homes. Properties
Foxholm Flawith Alcuin £3,138 £291 Small development of 4 homes. Croft Homes
Table 4.7: New Housing Developments – Easingwold Sub Area
Page | 45
4.0 OVERVIEW OF HAMBLETON
4.22 The data contained in these tables shows that there is a range of prices for new build housing in Hambleton. The house price data indicates that the town of Easingwold has the highest prices of the market towns for new build houses in the district. With reference to table 4.7 the more historic schemes at Stillington Road by Linden Homes and Oxenby Place by Mulgrave Homes have achieved average selling prices of £2,790 per sq.m (£259 per sq.ft) and £3,382 per sq.m (£314 per sq.ft) respectively. The latter is a small development of executive bespoke homes.
4.23 The average asking price data from the large scale housing developments that are currently on site are at £2,959 per sq.m (£275 per sq.ft) for the Weald (Persimmon) and £3,165 per sq.m (£294 per sq.ft) for Hambleton Chase (Kier). In fact in comparison with the earlier Linden Homes scheme these asking prices indicate that there has been a further increase in the price of new houses in Easingwold since the last sales at Stillington Road in mid-2017.
4.24 In the nearby village of Stillington the development by Daniel Gath Homes has achieved average sales prices of £3,116 per sq.m (£289 per sq.ft) based on the last 6 sales during 2017. In Stillington a new development of 5 detached homes is currently under construction at Sparrow Way. Based on the release prices to date the average asking price is £3,512 per sq.m (£326 per sq.ft).
4.25 Table 4.7 also contains sales and asking price data from other smaller developments in villages around Easingwold. This shows that sales prices for Manor Court in Sutton on the Forest have been at £3,353 per sq.m (£311 per sq.ft). In Huby, at the Meadows development, one sale has taken place at a price equating to £2,738 per sq.m (£254 per sq.ft) and average asking prices are currently slightly higher at £2,869 per sq.m (£266 per sq.ft). Elsewhere in the villages of Raskelf and Flawith, average asking prices are £2,977 per sq.m (£277 per sq.ft) and £3,138 per sq.m (£291 per sq.ft) respectively.
4.26 The evidence from current developments in and around the town of Easingwold confirms that average house prices in excess of £2,906 per sq.m (£270 per sq.ft) can be supported with even higher prices closer to £3,229 per sq.m (£300 per sq.ft) and above in the more sought after villages such as Stillington. Prices in Huby appear to be slightly below these levels at around £2,799 per sq.m (£260 per sq.ft).
Page | 46
4.0 OVERVIEW OF HAMBLETON
4.27 In the town of Stokesley and in the immediate area there has been comparatively little new housing development. Taylor Wimpey commenced the development of Stokesley Grange approximately 2 years ago and the first phase of the development has been sold. Table 4.3 shows that average sales prices over the period since the start of 2017 have been at £2,552 per sq.m (£237 per sq.ft) with current asking prices of £2,419 per sq.m (£225 per sq.ft). This apparent reduction in pricing may be a result of the release of the first phase of a competing development at Tanton Fields. Here current asking prices are at £2,716 per sq.m (£252 per sq.ft).
4.28 Stokesley is situated in an attractive position in close proximity to the National Park but also in easy commuting distance to the Teeside Conurbation. There has been relatively little new housing development in the Town recently (save for Stokesley Grange) and hence there may still be pent up demand. The slight reduction in pricing for this development may indicate that the level of demand is starting to reduce or it may simply be a response to the release of new houses at Tanton Fields which may be more popular with buyers. Based on the available evidence we anticipate that new housing in the Town is likely to achieve average sales prices in the region of £2,583 per sq.m (£240 per sq.ft).
4.29 There has also been some recent development in the outlying village of Great Broughton. Here the development known as Waters Meet is progressing well and asking prices are at £2,852 per sq.m (£265 per sq.ft). This provides an indication of the likely average sales prices that could be achieved in the villages around Stokesley.
4.30 Within Thirsk including the settlements of Carlton Miniott and Sowerby the evidence of new build house prices appears to be relatively consistent. Our initial evidence base contained sales data relating to a completed development by Taylor Wimpey of a site off Ripon Way in Carlton Miniott. Sales here during 2015/2016 achieved an average price of £2,518 per sq.m (£234 per sq.ft). During the same time period Mulberry Homes, Taylor Wimpey and Linden Homes were also developing at Sowerby Gateway and sales and asking prices were at a similar level.
4.31 Table 4.6 shows that average sales prices at Sowerby Gateway since the start of 2017 have ranged from £2,558 per sq.m (£238 per sq.ft) up to £2,682 per sq.m (£249 per sq.ft). The latter relates to the development of Mowbray View which includes some more recent 2018 sales.
Page | 47
4.0 OVERVIEW OF HAMBLETON
4.32 Although the sales evidence at Ripon Way is now slightly historic, it indicates that Carlton Miniott has similar prices for new houses as Sowerby Gateway. The evidence of average selling prices for these developments suggests that new houses constructed in and around Thirsk are likely to achieve average sales prices in the order of £2,583 per sq.m (£240 per sq.ft).
4.33 Table 4.6 also contains details of a new housing development in the village of Dalton approximately 5 miles to the south of Thirsk. This development originally had planning consent for larger 3, 4 and 5 bed houses however it has been the subject of a re-plan, with consent recently granted for a larger number of 2 and 3 bed dwellings. Sales on the development have achieved average selling prices in the region of £2,382 per sq.m (£221 per sq.ft). Current asking prices for the final phase of development are at an average of £2,516 per sq.m (£234 per sq.ft).
4.34 The evidence from this development in Dalton suggests that some of the outlying villages in the Thirsk sub-area may have lower values than Thirsk itself, with the evidence from Dalton suggesting values here at around £2,422 per sq.m (£225 per sq.ft).
4.35 Table 4.6 also contains sales evidence from a small development in Sessay. The average selling price for houses here is at £2,568 per sq.m (£239 per sq.ft). This indicates that values in some of the outlying villages are likely to be similar to that in Thirsk itself. There is also evidence of asking prices for a development of 4 houses in Kirby Wiske a small village to the northeast of Thirsk. This is a part new build and part conversion. The overall average asking price equates to £2,825 per sq.ft (£262 per sq.ft) and shows that in the Thirsk sub area a number of the villages may achieve average prices closer to those in parts of Easingwold sub area such as Huby at around £2,799 per sq.m (£260 per sq.ft).
4.36 In the town of Northallerton a large housing development of over 200 dwellings on the northwest edge of the Town adjacent to a retail park and industrial estates has recently been completed by Barratt/David Wilson. The development known as Mowbray Park/Castlegate has achieved average sales prices ranging from £2,397 - £2,533 per sq.m (£223 - £235 per sq.ft) over the period since the beginning of 2017. The majority of sales analysed over this period were in 2017.
Page | 48
4.0 OVERVIEW OF HAMBLETON
4.37 More recently Taylor Wimpey and Persimmon have commenced the development of the first phases of the large scale housing schemes forming part of the wider north Northallerton Development. Table 4.5 shows that the first sales on these developments known as Thurstan Park and Kings Park have been at average prices of £2,645 per sq.m (£246 per sq.ft) and £2,397 per sq.m (£223 per sq.ft) respectively. The evidence of current asking prices shows a significant increase in the pricing of Kings Park with an average now at £2,721 per sq.m (£253 per sq.ft). The asking prices for Thurstan Park remain similar to the selling prices at £2,600 per sq.m (£242 per sq.ft).
4.38 Elsewhere in the Town a smaller scheme of 23 houses has been constructed on a brownfield site adjacent to the railway embankment. The development known as Mulberry Vale is complete and sales have been at an average of £2,328 per sq.m (£216 per sq.ft). With the 2.5 storey house types excluded the average selling price is £2,537 per sq.m (£236 per sq.ft)
4.39 Within Northallerton there are a range of possible house prices dependent on the nature and location of the site coming forward. The developments at Mulberry Vale and Mowbray Park/Castlegate are located close to the town centre, however they are both in relatively unattractive locations close to the railway line, industrial estates and retail parks.
4.40 The proposed allocation in Northallerton is a greenfield site on the edge of the settlement boundary that we anticipate would achieve higher values than these two schemes. We anticipate that the selling prices here are likely to be more comparable with those for the developments at Thurstan Park and Kings Park.
4.41 Having regard to the available evidence and the nature of the schemes likely to come forward in Northallerton (including the settlement of Brompton) there is likely to be a range of possible values dependent on whether the development takes place on an infill, previously developed site in the Town Centre or on a greenfield site on the edge of the settlement. Having regard to these factors it is likely that new housing development will achieve average prices of £2,422 to £2,583 per sq.m (£225 to £240 per sq.ft) dependant on the exact location of the development.
4.42 There has also been a recent new development in Morton on Swale a village approximately 3 miles to the west of Northallerton via the A684. The A684 also provides access to the A1M a similar distance to the west of Morton on Swale.
Page | 49
4.0 OVERVIEW OF HAMBLETON
4.43 The development here has been undertaken by Linden Homes and is known as The Dales. All sales have now been completed and the average selling price is £2,789 per sq.m (£259 per sq.ft). Based on this evidence we would expect that any new development in Morton on Swale and other nearby villages would achieve prices in excess of those in Northallerton. This evidence of sales prices here suggests that in the Northallerton sub area a number of the villages may achieve average prices at around £2,799 per sq.m (£260 per sq.ft).
4.44 Table 4.4 contains details of new housing developments in and around the settlements of Bedale, Aiskew and Leeming Bar. The sales evidence from Fox Covert is now slightly historic with sales during the first part of 2017. The average selling price of £2,485 per sq.m (£231 per sq.ft) indicates that that average sales prices in Bedale and Aiskew are as a minimum likely to be in the region of £2,476 per sq.m (£230 per sq.ft). Land Registry data shows that new build prices in Hambleton have increased by around 5% since the last sales at Fox Covert and taking this into account would give an adjusted average selling price of around £2,611 per sq.m (£243 per sq.ft). We anticipate that in the settlements of Bedale and Aiskew house prices are therefore likely to be in the region of £2,583 per sq.m (£240 per sq.ft), although there may be some adjustments around this figure dependent on the specific location of the site.
4.45 The sales evidence from the Leeming Gate development in Leeming Bar illustrates that in locations closer to the A1M, where noise from the motorway is likely to be more intrusive, house prices will be less. The development is complete and the average sales price was £2,137 per sq.m (£198 per sq.ft) over the period from January 2017. The last sales were completed during 2017 and hence are slightly historic. In the locations closer to the motorway around Leeming Bar we anticipate that average house prices are likely to be in the region of £2,153 per sq. m (£200 per sq.ft).
4.46 Within the village of Little Crakehall to the northwest of Bedale the development at Moorfield has sold with an average sales price of £3,037 per sq.m (£282 per sq.ft). Current asking prices for the two remaining properties are at an average of £2,842 per sq.m (£264 per sq.ft). Again this indicates that in some of the outlying villages, selling prices at around £2,799 per sq.m (£260 per sq.ft) or more could be achieved.
4.47 Our analysis of available evidence of new build sales in the main market towns and the villages in the immediate locality of these towns suggests that house prices are generally relatively similar in the market towns. The exceptions are in Easingwold where house prices are higher than in the other towns and the inner parts of Northallerton where prices are lower. We have provided at table 4.8 a summary of the average sales prices that we consider will be achieved for new housing development across the market towns.
Page | 50
4.0 OVERVIEW OF HAMBLETON
Town Sale Price (per sq.m) Sale Price (per sq.ft)
Northallerton (Inner) £2,422 £225 Northallerton (Outer) £2,583 £240 including Brompton Stokesley £2,583 £240 Thirsk including Sowerby £2,583 £240 and Carlton Miniott Bedale/Aiskew £2,583 £240
Easingwold £2,961 £275 Table 4.8: Assessment of Sales Prices in Market Towns
4.48 The Publication Version of the Local Plan identifies new housing development in several of the service and secondary villages in the District. As detailed in tables 4.3 – 4.7 there has been some new housing development recently in a number of these villages. In others however there has not been any on which to base our assessment of likely values. In the absence of information regarding the value of new houses in these locations we have had regard to evidence of sales of existing stock that have taken place over the period since January 2017.
4.49 This data reflects the style and condition of the property being analysed and in certain cases houses may be character properties that command a premium value, whilst in other instances houses may be in poor order and in need of modernisation with a lower price paid. Typically we would expect a premium to be paid for a new build house over a re-sale property albeit this does depend on the type of property concerned. The Land Registry data in table 4.2 shows that in Hambleton this level of premium is in the order of 15%.
4.50 Table 4.9 contains details of the market towns, service and secondary villages within which allocations are identified. (Brompton and Carlton Miniott have been considered as part of Northallerton and Thirsk respectively and are not therefore included in analysis at table 4.9). The table also contains information regarding the average price paid for houses that have sold in these locations since the beginning of 2017. For completeness we have also included sales analysis from any new build developments that have taken place in these locations. Where there is more than one new development, this information is presented to show the minimum average price paid per sq.m (ie the average price from the least expensive development) and the maximum average price paid per sq.m. The table has then been ranked in descending order to show the most expensive village first based on the average house price.
Page | 51
4.0 OVERVIEW OF HAMBLETON
New Build
(Ave price per sq.m) Sub Area Hierarchy Settlement Ave Price Min Max Service E’wold Stillington £397,095 £3,116 Village Service Bedale Crakehall £336,491 £2,842 Village Service E,wold Huby £322,523 £2,738 Village Service West Bedale £315,990 Village Tanfield Secondary Bedale Burneston £283,929 Village Secondary South Thirsk £278,214 Village Otterington E’wold Market Town Easingwold £275,676 £2,790 £3,382 Stokesley Market Town Stokesley £271,982 £2,552 £2,895 Service Stokesley Great Ayton £225,330 Village Northerallert N’ton Market Town on with £209,777 £2,328 £2,645 Romanby Bedale with Bedale Market Town £209,649 £2,485 Aiskew Thirsk with Thirsk Market Town £197,809 £2,558 £2,682 Sowerby Secondary Bedale Leeming Bar £194,680 £2,137 Village Table 4.9: Analysis of Dwelling Sales in Towns and Villages with Allocations
4.51 The data set is inevitability limited by the sample size in some cases. It does however indicate that many of the villages in the Easingwold sub area have higher house prices relative to other areas primarily due to their proximity to York. This is consistent with the analysis of new build sales in the District. Crakehall, West Tanfield and Burneston in the Bedale sub area also have relatively high prices along with South Otterington in Thirsk.
4.52 Conversely Leeming Bar has the lowest average sale price of the towns and villages considered. This is consistent with the evidence of new build sales taken from the Leeming Gate development which had the lowest average sales prices for any of the new developments in the District.
4.53 We have considered the relative values in the service and secondary villages and have also had regard to the evidence of any new build sales in these villages and also in the nearby market towns. We have also considered the sold prices/asking prices for new build houses in other villages in the District as contained in tables 4.3-4.7 where no allocations may be proposed. This has enabled us to assess where villages are likely to sit in the respective value zones.
Page | 52
4.0 OVERVIEW OF HAMBLETON
4.54 Table 4.10 contains details of the average sales prices that we consider would be achieved for new housing development in the respective service and secondary villages where allocations are proposed. For completeness we have also included the market towns in the table. For future referencing the value areas have been identified as Zones. Zone 1 being the lowest value area and zone 5 the highest.
Price Price Zone Town Village (per sq.m) (per sq.ft)
1 £2,153 £200 Leeming Bar
2 £2,422 £225 Northallerton (Inner)
Northallerton (Outer) Great Ayton Bedale/Aiskew 3 £2,583 £240 South Otterington Thirsk
Stokesley Burneston 4 £2,799 £260 West Tanfield Huby Crakehall 5 £2,961 £275 Easingwold Stillington Table 4.10: Assessment of Average Sales Prices in Town and Villages
4.55 The evidence of selling prices for the highest value villages indicates that in certain cases it is likely that selling prices in excess of £2,961 per sq.m (£275 per sq.ft) may be achieved and for the most sought after locations prices in excess of £3,229 per sq.m (£300 per sq.ft) are possible.
Commercial Market Commentary (Winter 2018)
Overview
4.56 According to the Office of National Statistics, the UK Economy grew by 0.6% in Q3 2018 (July- September). The service sector remained the strongest contributor to growth in Q3 2018 with an increase of 0.3%. Construction and manufacturing also contributed positively to growth at 0.3% and 1.2%, respectively. Household consumption grew by 0.5% yet business investment has decreased for three consecutive quarters. Compensation of employees made the largest contribution to growth in the income measure of GDP.
4.57 The construction industry grew by 2.1% for November 2018, driven by growth in all new work which grew by 3.4%, yet was offset by a decline in repair and maintenance which fell by 0.4%. The increase in all new work was primarily driven by private new housing and infrastructure which grew by 4.9% and 6.5% respectively.
Page | 53
4.0 OVERVIEW OF HAMBLETON
4.58 The uncertainty surrounding the UK’s current position within the EU continues to have an influence on investment activity, and will continue to do so. The UK’s level of accessibility to the common market is anticipated to significantly impact economic performance. External factors both nationally and internationally continue to impact on the property market such as the volatility within the stock markets, and despite a predicted increase, fluctuating commodity prices.
4.59 The current outlook of the national economy remains positive following economic growth in Q3 2018, although sustained growth is less certain. Despite the Bank of England’s decision to raise interest rates in August 2018, Gilt yields remain low reflecting the scepticism within the market. Whilst the predicted outlook for the national economy is more positive, there remains some unease about sustained growth. A combination of international and national external factors has impacted upon the property market and will likely continue throughout 2019. In particular, the volatility within the stock markets, slow down within China’s economy, weak commodity prices and uncertainty over the UK’s position within the EU has, and will continue to have, some bearing on investment activity moving forward.
4.60 There remains a degree of caution amongst commentators concerning reduced growth following the UK’s decision to leave the European Union (following the Referendum on 23 June 2016). Until such time as the terms of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU are known, it is difficult to predict the impact on the UK economy (which is particularly dependent on the UK’s continued access to the common market).
4.61 In addition to the above, there has been some speculation that inflation may increase as a result of the long term devaluation of Sterling following the UK’s decision for withdrawal. Whilst this may immediately impact the UK economy, in large prime investment classes funds have adopted somewhat of a “wait and see” approach before committing to longer term projects to assess what the immediate outlook for the UK economy is likely to be. A degree of inertia, in addition to existing uncertainty could further harm the prospects of growth in the immediate future. However within the wider “general market” liquidity remains good and there has been no tangible evidence of a drastic change within the current market.
4.62 The Q3 RICS UK Commercial Property Market survey results show growth in tenant demand confined to the industrial sector. With Brexit affecting occupier decisions and retail availability, inducements continue to rise noticeably. Investment in the retail sector remained low, and overseas investment demand remained unchanged yet a small increase was cited for industrial assets. Further to this, the supply of property on the market for sale decreased in all but the retail sector, where it continued to experience an increase for a fifth consecutive quarter. Demand for industrial space continued to moderately increase, continuing a run of uninterrupted growth since 2012. Demand from businesses looking to occupy retail space continued to fall for a sixth quarter in succession.
Page | 54
4.0 OVERVIEW OF HAMBLETON
4.63 Over the next year, the RICS report that capital value expectations remain steeped in negative territory across the retail sector, with price declines for both prime and secondary assets expected. However, prime offices are expected to achieve solid capital value growth over the forthcoming year consistently across the UK. Forecasts for secondary offices show a slightly negative trend in value for the majority of regions across the UK.
Offices
4.64 Leeds dominates the supply of office accommodation in Yorkshire and Humberside. Prime rents in Leeds now exceed £323 per sq.m (£30 per sq.ft), which is considerably higher than other centres in the region. By comparison prime rents in Newcastle are at £258 per sq.m (£24 per sq.ft) and in York are at £151 per sq.m (£14 per sq.ft). In terms of prime yields according to Knight Frank Chartered Surveyors these are at 5.25% in Leeds and 5.75% in Newcastle. CoStar report an average market yield in York at 7.3%.
4.65 According to CoStar there is 63,270 sq.m (681,040 sq.ft) of office accommodation in Hambleton. At present, around 10,490 sq.m (112,976 sq.ft) of this accommodation is vacant, which equates to a vacancy rate of 16.6%. This is a reduction from the 2012 high when the vacancy rate was 33.8%. Data from CoStar shows that overall office rents are at around £129 per sq.m (£12 per sq.ft) with rents for higher quality office accommodation in the District at around £156 per sq.m (£14.50 per sq.ft). In terms of sale prices CoStar estimate that based on market price trends yields are in the region of 8.1% with capital values at £1,485 per sq.m (£138 per sq.ft). We have provided at Appendix 6 an Office Submarket Report for Hambleton prepared by CoStar.
4.66 The majority of office accommodation in Hambleton is located within Northallerton, Thirsk and Stokesley, with smaller concentrations of office accommodation within Bedale and Easingwold. There is out of town office accommodation located at several business parks including Standard Way Industrial Estate, Omega Business Village (both located in Northallerton), Stokesley Business Park (Stokesley), Thirsk Industrial Park (Thirsk) and Easingwold Business Park (Easingwold).
4.67 For modern or newly refurbished stock, asking rents range between £105 and £140 per sq.m (£10 and £13 per sq.ft) for units of above 93 sq.m (1,000 sq.ft). Such accommodation includes space at Carrick House (Omega Business Village, Northallerton), Navigation House (Stokesley Business Park) and Concept Court (Thirsk Industrial Park).
4.68 There is a limited availability of modern smaller office units of below 93 sq.m (1,000 sq.ft). The office accommodation of this size tends to be small offices in older buildings located within Northallerton, Stokesley and Thirsk town centres.
Page | 55
4.0 OVERVIEW OF HAMBLETON
4.69 Table 4.11 contains details of recent office lettings that have taken place in Hambleton for modern accommodation situated within purpose built office buildings. Table 4.12 contains details of current availability of modern offices whilst table 4.13 has details of recent sales and also current asking prices for available offices.
Area Area Rent Rent Date Address Location Class (sq.m) (sq.ft) (per sq.m) (per sq.ft) Teleware Aug 18 Thirsk 309 3,330 £118 £11.00 B House Carrick Jun 17 Northallerton 189 2,038 £121 £11.25 B House Dale Apr 16 Northallerton 531 5,720 £103 £9.61 B House Chancery Apr 16 Stokesley 253 2,723 £108 £10.00 B House Standard Mar 16 Northallerton 139 1,500 £87 £8.10 B Way Table 4.11: Office Lettings in Hambleton (Source: CoStar)
Area Area Rent Rent Floor Address Location Age (sq.m) (sq.ft) (per sq.m) (per sq.ft)
Pt Grd Well Hall Farm Bedale 36 388 £144 £13.40 1980
Pt Grd Concept House Thirsk 133 1,430 £133 £12.31 2008 and 1st Grd and Carlton House Stokesley 689 7,419 £135 £12.50 2005 1st
Pt 1st Momentum Stokesley 362 3,891 £92 £8.50 2000
Grd and Towergate Stokesley 328 3,525 £131 £12.12 1990 1st House Pt Grd Navigation Stokesley 253 2,721 £131 £12.12 2005 and 1st House
Redworth Shipton by Pt 1st 57 612 £108 £10.02 2001 Courtyard Benningborough
Coxwold Pt 1st Easingwold 138 1,490 £115 £10.70 1998 House Omega Grd Business Northallerton 124 1,330 £121 £11.27 2007 Village
Pt Grd Trinity House Northallerton 175 1,884 £129 £12.00 2010
Table 4.12: Modern Office Availability in Hambleton (Source: CoStar)
Page | 56
4.0 OVERVIEW OF HAMBLETON
Price Price Date Address Location Price Yield (per sq.m) (per sq.ft) Towergate For Sale Stokesley £1,000,000 £1,539 £143 House
For Sale 25 High Street Stokesley £450,000 £1,453 £135 Elder House Nov 18 (part of Northallerton 7.77% portfolio) Momentum Dec 16 Stokesley £610,000 £558 £52 Court Thornfield Oct 17 Northallerton £430,000 £937 £87 Business Park Unit 2 Standard Jan 18 Way Business Northallerton £145,000 £2,077 £193 Park Table 4.13: Office Sales (Source: CoStar)
4.70 Yields are inevitably linked to the covenant strength of the tenant, the terms of the lease, condition of the building and the local market. We anticipate that prime yields in Hambleton will be in the order of 8% although this is heavily dependent on the specific nature of the transaction (and could well be higher or lower depending on the tenant and specific terms of the lease). In terms of capital values for new office buildings then dependent on size and location, prices are likely to range from between £1,614 per sq.m (£150 per sq.ft) for larger buildings up to £2,099 per sq.m (£195 per sq.ft) for small self-contained office buildings such as those at Standard Way.
Industrial
4.71 The Colliers Industrial and Logistics Report for 2018 suggests that the Yorkshire regional market has been typified by a growing shortage of Grade A stock across all size sectors. In the logistics sector the key regional distribution centres are at Doncaster and Wakefield which have secured the majority of take-up. Leeds and Sheffield also command strong levels of demand across all size sectors.
4.72 Driven by a growing shortage of Grade A stock, some speculative development has begun to emerge; however demand continues to outstrip supply for modern industrial and logistics accommodation in prime city fringe and motorway linked locations. Both rents and capital values (buildings and land) have seen strong growth over the past 3 years on the back of the supply and demand imbalance.
4.73 According to CoStar there is currently 398,194 sq.m (4,286,124 sq.ft) of industrial accommodation in Hambleton. Of this stock approximately 36% is specialised industrial and manufacturing, 56% is logistics and the balance of 8% is light industrial.
Page | 57
4.0 OVERVIEW OF HAMBLETON
4.74 Vacancy rates for industrial accommodation within Hambleton have fallen from 19.6% in 2011 to their present level of just 2.3%. Over the period rents have increased from an overall figure of £43 per sq.m (£4.02 per sq.ft) to £54 per sq.m (£4.96 per sq.ft). In terms of sale prices CoStar estimate that based on market price trends, yields are in the region of 7.0% with capital values at £740 per sq.m (£68.74 per sq.ft). We have provided at Appendix 7 an Industrial Submarket Report for Hambleton prepared by CoStar.
4.75 Table 4.14 contains details of recent industrial lettings that have taken place in Hambleton for modern accommodation. Table 4.15 contains details of current availability of modern industrial accommodation whilst table 4.16 has details of recent sales and also current asking prices for available industrial units.
Area Area Rent Rent Date Address Location Class (sq.m) (sq.ft) (per sq.m) (per sq.ft)
Aug 18 York Road Thirsk 929 10,000 £47 £4.40 B
Jun 18 York Road Thirsk 149 1,600 £81 £7.50 B
Shires Jun 18 Easingwold 152 1,634 £86 £7.95 B Bridge ShiresBusiness Apr 18 Easingwold 152 1,634 £86 £8.00 B BridgePark EllerbeckBusiness Sept 17 Stokesley 243 2,612 £49 £4.59 B CourtPark Shires Sept 17 Easingwold 121 1,300 £91 £8.46 B Bridge BedaleBusiness Jun 17 Bedale 471 5,070 £58 £5.42 B RoadPark Standard Mar 17 Northallerton 204 2,196 £61 £5.69 B Court Station Shipton by Mar 17 287 3,085 £52 £4.86 B Lane Benningboroug h Table 4.14: Industrial Lettings in Hambleton (Source: CoStar)
Area Area Rent Rent Address Location Age (sq.m) (sq.ft) (per sq.m) (per sq.ft) Conygarth Leeming Under 2,280 24,540 £54 £5.00 Way Bar construction Ellerbrick Stokesley 2,227 23,972 £54 £5.00 1995 Way 1-3 Ellerbrick Stokesley 4,624 49,772 £43 £4.02 1991 Way Shires Bridge Easingwold 125 1,345 £80 £7.44 2015 Business MarrtreePark Sowerby 1,348 14,511 £92 £8.50 Proposed Business ShiresPark Bridge Under Easingwold 307 3,300 £86 £8.00 Business construction TablePark 4.15: Modern Industrial Availability in Hambleton (Source: CoStar/Letting Agents)
Page | 58
4.0 OVERVIEW OF HAMBLETON
Price Price Date Address Location Price Yield (per sq.m) (per sq.ft) Easingwold May 18 Easingwold £135,000 £993 £92.21 Business Park
Apr 16 Dalton Airfield Dalton £3,000,000 11.03% £349 £32.40
Sept 16 Eldmire Lane Thirsk £600,000 £650 £60.35
Royal Mail, Sept 16 Thirsk £702,500 7.52% £808 £75.05 York Road Table 4.16: Industrial Sales (Source: CoStar)
4.76 Having regard to the above, rents within the District for modern premises typically range from between £60 to £86 per sq.m (£5.50 and £8.00 per sq.ft) whilst for older and larger accommodation rents are between £32 and £43 per sq.m (£3 and £4 per sq.ft).
4.77 In terms of capital values there is limited sales evidence however it is anticipated that for new well located units values will range from £807 to £968 per sq.m (£77 to £90 per sq.ft).
Hotels
4.78 Following the outcome of the referendum on EU membership, the country entered a period of political, economic and financial volatility. However, in many ways the impact of the referendum has made the UK increasingly attractive to investors, with the weaker pound already encouraging staycations and inbound tourism, which will in turn create further opportunities for the UK hotel industry. The challenge for UK operators is dealing with the anticipated increase in costs and uncertainties in relation to staff retentions, wages, food costs etc.
4.79 Savills in their UK Hotel Investment Report Q1 2018 note that:
“Operational performance for the UK’s key tourist markets received a significant boost from the weak Pound in 2017 as it enhanced the UK’s appeal as a tourist destination. During the 12-months to October 2017, overseas tourist arrivals to the UK was up 7.5% compared to the same period to October 2016. Likewise, full year revenue per available room (RevPAR) was up 4.4% and 12.4% in London and Edinburgh respectively, the major destination markets for overseas tourists. However, the latter part of 2017 did see some softening in occupancy on a year-on-year basis, albeit rates largely held, suggesting the ‘Brexit juice’ may be starting to run out. Notwithstanding this, our outlook for RevPAR growth remains positive for both London and the regions.”
Page | 59
4.0 OVERVIEW OF HAMBLETON
4.80 Research by Christie and Co also identifies this trend with many regional markets experiencing consecutive year-on-year RevPAR growth; although they note that most still trade at a discount to pre-recessionary levels from the trading heights of 2006-2007. They also suggest that while the global appeal of central London hotels remains strong, recent trading fundamentals may have softened, albeit relatively.
4.81 Savills suggest that post referendum the requirement for income security is very evident in the prices that have been agreed on certain budget branded hotels. Typically, the properties which are most attractive to hotel investors are those which are either branded or offer rebranding opportunities. Research from Christie and Co also suggests that there is a trend from an increasing number of investors to purchase hotels where there are asset management opportunities to reposition the hotel or improve cash flows.
4.82 Typically hotel sales are analysed on a price per room basis i.e. the purchase price divided by the number of bedrooms. We have not been able to identify any recent hotel sales within Hambleton however we have provided relevant transactional evidence sourced from CoStar and taken from the wider North Yorkshire area at table 4.17.
Page | 60
4.0 OVERVIEW OF HAMBLETON
Name City/Town No Rooms Date Price Price Per Room Comments
Holiday Inn, 53 The hotel is situated in the City Centre. It was built York 100 05/09/2017 £13,000,000 £130,000 Piccadilly in 2001.
Hotel was built in 1800 and has been on the market Aysgarth Falls Hotel Aysgarth 11 For Sale £1,375,000 £125,000 for 337 days.
Holiday Inn, The hotel was built in January 1971 and renovated in York 148 19/04/2018 £15,300,000 £103,378 Tadcaster Road 2006.
Travelodge, New hotel built in 2018 and located to the north east York 80 01/03/2018 £7,500,000 £93,750 Layerthorpe of the City Centre.
Travelodge, Hull Hotel was built in 1989 and is situated on the edge York 40 22/11/2016 £2,958,548 £73,964 Road of York.
Property is situated in Grove Square and was built in Grove House Leyburn 7 04/10/2017 £517,500 £73,929 1757.
Hotel was built in 1750 and is situated to the north George and Dragon Kirkbymoorside 20 For Sale £1,450,000 £72,500 of York and on the southern edge of the North York Hotel Moors.
The Burgoyne, Silver Richmond 10 01/03/2018 £725,000 £72,500 The hotel was built in 1783. Street
The hotel was built in 1717. At the time of sale it Kings Head Hotel Richmond 26 03/02/2016 £1,534,468 £59,000 was a Best Western Hotel.
Table 4.17: Summary of Hotel Sales
Page | 61
4.0 OVERVIEW OF HAMBLETON
Retail (Supermarkets and Warehouses)
4.83 The Hambleton Retail Study Update Note (March 2019) concludes that there is no quantative need identified in any part of the District for convenience retail capacity. In terms of comparison retail it concludes that there is no substantive comparison need by 2031 apart from a very small amount in 2021 which is then absorbed by 2026. Over the plan period there is only a small amount of need (448 sq.m) by 2036.
4.84 Based on the study outcomes it is not anticipated that significant new retail development will come forward over the plan period and therefore new supermarket and retail warehouse development is not significant to the delivery of the plan. Notwithstanding this there is a current CIL charge in the District for new supermarket development (£90 per sq.m) and retail warehouses (£40 per sq.m) and we have therefore considered the viability of these uses in the context of CIL rather than in the anticipation of any significant new retail development during the plan period.
4.85 Within the Peter Brett Viability Assessment (Dec 2013) that informed the CIL study the following assumptions were made as to rents and yields for the respective uses:
Rent (per sq.m) Rent (per sq.ft) Yield Supermarket £180 £16.72 5.75% Retail Warehouse £120 £11.15 8% Table 4.18: Peter Brett CIL Study Assumptions
4.86 The only significant retail warehouse development in the District is in Northallerton, to the north of the town around Low Gates Yard, Willow Beck Road and Yafforth Road. Since the CIL study was completed there has been no new retail warehouse development in the District. As a result there is no available information relating to the lettings of new retail warehouse accommodation in the District.
4.87 Evidence from rating assessments can be used to inform an assessment of viability and we have provided at table 4.19 details of the base rates that have been used by the VOA to inform their assessment of the rateable values for the retail warehouses in Northallerton. It should be noted that the valuation date for the purpose of these assessments is 1 April 2015.
Page | 62
4.0 OVERVIEW OF HAMBLETON
Address Occupier Base Rate Base Rate (per sq.m) (per sq.ft) Unit 1, Low Gates Yard Pets at Home £135 £12.54 Unit 2, Low Gates Yard Majestic Wine £135 £12.54 Unit 1, Willow Beck Road B&M £125 £11.61 Unit 2, Willow Beck Road Halfords £180 £16.73 Unit A, Yafforth Road Wickes £115 £10.68 Unit B, Yafforth Road Vacant £145 £13.47 Barkers, Yafforth Road Barkers Home £140 £13.00 Table 4.19: Retail Warehouses Rating Assessments
4.88 We have also considered available evidence which we have obtained from CoStar relating to transactions involving retail warehouse units over the last 2 years within a 50 mile radius of Northallerton. Details are provided in table 4.20.
Date Address Town Size Rent Rent Occupier (sq.m) (sq.m) (sq.ft) 13/06/2018 Kingston Ct Newcastle 742 £202 £18.78 Office Outlet Upon Tyne 19/06/2018 Woodbine Sunderland 1,115 £155 £14.39 GO Outdoors Park 22/11/2018 Stirling Rd York 771 £196 £18.17 Dreams 19/01/2018 Carlton Ln Castleford 753 £112 £10.44 Boots 05/03/2018 Russell St Darlington 834 £164 £15.27 British Heart Foundation 01/04/2018 Valley Rd Bradford 706 £300 £27.85 Boots 21/02/2018 Town St Pudsey 930 £145 £13.49 Home Bargains 07/12/2017 Stirling Rd York 942 £164 £15.27 Tapi Carpets & Floors 02/11/2017 Park Rd Leeds 929 £260 £24.18 Oak Furniture Land 07/09/2017 Railway St Dewsbury 468 £288 £26.73 Clarks 25/07/2017 Stirling Rd York 1,879 £156 £14.50 Matalan Table 4.20: Retail Warehouse Transactions (Source: CoStar)
4.89 The transactions at table 4.20 particularly in relation to Stirling Road in York (Clifton Moor Retail Park) and Woodbine Park in Sunderland provide useful evidence in the context of likely rents for retail warehousing in Northallerton. Stirling Road is located on the northern edge of York close to the boundary with Hambleton. The more historic lettings to Matalan and Tapi Carpets have been at around £161 per sq.m (£15 per sq.ft) however more recently a lease renewal was completed to Dreams at £195 per sq.m (£18.17 per sq.ft).
4.90 The development at Woodbine Park in Sunderland is relatively new although is situated in a slightly poorer market location than Northallerton. Nevertheless it provides good evidence of the likely rents that could be achieved for new retail warehousing development in Hambleton.
Page | 63
4.0 OVERVIEW OF HAMBLETON
4.91 Having regard to the available evidence there has been an increase in rents for retail warehousing since the time of the Peter Brett Study and also since the last rating assessment valuations at April 2015. We anticipate that based on the available evidence rents for new retail warehouses in Hambleton would be in the region of £161 per sq.m (£15 per sq.ft).
4.92 In terms of yields then these are invariably linked to the covenant strength of the tenant and the length of the lease. Savills in their UK Retail Warehouse Spotlight (March 2019) suggest that prime yields for Open A1 uses are at 6% and for restricted uses at 6.25%. In terms of secondary, older and poorer located units they state that yields are at 7.75% for open A1 and 8.5% for restricted uses.
4.93 We have also considered likely rents and yields for new supermarket accommodation in Hambleton. There have been a number of new small supermarket developments in Hambleton in the last few years including a new Aldi in Sowerby, Thirsk and an M&S Foodhall in Northallerton. The Northallerton Prison site is currently being redeveloped as a new retail and leisure destination known as Treadmills. Here lettings have recently been announced to Lidl (21,000 sq.ft) and Iceland (6,000 sq.ft).
4.94 Notwithstanding this recent activity, information in relation to rents for new supermarkets is limited. Aldi acquired the site at Sowerby and constructed the unit themselves, whilst no information in relation to the M&S letting is publically available either by way of Land Registry or CoStar. We have also contacted the letting agents for Treadmills scheme and have been advised that as the lettings to Iceland and Lidl have not yet completed information about the terms of these transactions is confidential.
4.95 Given the lack of available evidence in relation to supermarket lettings in Hambleton we have in the first instance considered evidence of the rating assessments of the main supermarkets in the District taken from the VOA website. These are detailed in table 4.21.
Address Occupier Base Rate Base Rate (per sq.m) (per sq.ft) Rutson House, Friarage M&S Simply Food £175 £16.26 St, Northallerton Market Place, Bedale Co-op £145 £13.47 Long Street, Easingwold Co-op £135 £12.54 Topcliffe Road, Thirsk Aldi £170 £15.80 Station Road, Thirsk Lidl £170 £15.80 High Street, Sainsbury’s £195 £18.12 Northallerton East Road, Northallerton Tesco £225 £20.90 Station Road, Thirsk Tesco £205 £19.05 Table 4.21: Supermarket Rating Assessments
Page | 64
4.0 OVERVIEW OF HAMBLETON
4.96 We have also considered available evidence which we have obtained from CoStar relating to supermarket transactions within a 50 mile radius of Northallerton. Few transactions are listed however the available details are provided in table 4.22.
Date Address Town Size Rent Rent Occupier (sq.m) (sq.m) (sq.ft) The Food 01/10/2018 Manningham Bradford 2,021 £146 £13.52 Warehouse 26/05/2017 Red Hall Ave Wakefield 1,743 £172 £16.00 ALDI Foss Islands 27/10/2015 York 3,276 £194 £18.06 Waitrose Road 87-89 01/11/2016 Osbourne Newcastle 1,190 £195 £18.11 Waitrose Road Table 4.22: Supermarket Transactions (Source: CoStar)
4.97 Based on the available evidence and from our experience elsewhere, rents for mid-size supermarkets tend to be in the order of £161 to £172 per sq.m (£15 to £16 per sq.ft). With rents of £195 to £215 per sq.m (£18 to £20 per sq.ft) for some of the larger format supermarkets in the best trading locations. The rent assumed in the Peter Brett Study was £180 per sq.m (£16.72 per sq.ft) and this is still reasonable in the context of current evidence.
4.98 In terms of yields table 4.23 contains details of the yields for a number of recent supermarket investment purchases.
Date Address Town Size Yield Occupier (sq.m) 29/12/2017 32-34 Market Place Thirsk 604 5.51% Co-op 23/11/2018 Foss Islands Road York 3,276 4.42% Waitrose 01/05/2018 Arniston Retail Park Durham 9,398 5.25% Sainsbury's 12/01/2018 Front Street Consett 6,905 6.25% Morrisons 05/07/2017 87-89 Osbourne Road Newcastle 1,190 4.67% Waitrose 15/12/2017 South Road Alnwick 1,833 5.21% Aldi 16/10/2018 Yarm Road Darlington 801 7.48% Iceland Table 4.23: Supermarket Yields (Source: CoStar)
4.99 The Peter Brett Study assumed a yield of 5.75% for new supermarket development, and in the context of the available evidence, it is possible that a reduction in yield could be supported. We have taken a conservative position however and have retained the assumption made by Peter Brett at 5.75% as being a reasonable position.
Page | 65
4.0 OVERVIEW OF HAMBLETON
Land Sales
4.100 To inform an assessment of land value for the purpose of this study we have obtained details of recent land transactions and current asking prices for land from a number of sources including CoStar, Land Registry, Rightmove and through contact with agents. We have categorised this land sale and price information across differing types of use, namely agricultural, industrial/office and residential.
Agricultural 4.101 In terms of agricultural land values the most recent RICS RAU Survey H1 2018 reports that in Yorkshire and Humber arable land values are £21,119 per ha (£8,550 per acre) and pasture land is at £14,850 per ha (£6,000 per acre). For completeness the respective figures for the North East Region are £19,760 per ha (£8,000 per acre) for arable and £12,350 per ha (£5,000 per acre) for pasture.
4.102 We have provided in table 4.24 details of agricultural land which is currently being marketed for sale in Hambleton.
Gross Gross Price Price Address Location Area Area (gross (gross Comments (ha) (acres) ha) acre) Arable and Gateby Northallerton 55.37 136.76 £19,054 £7,714 pasture 3.09 7.64 £24,247 £9,817 Grassland Birkby Cottage Northallerton 2.00 4.94 £25,000 £10,121 Grassland Farm 2.39 5.90 £20,932 £8,475 Grassland Wiske Northallerton 27.44 67.78 £20,043 £8,114 Grade 3 arable North Cowton Northallerton 20.47 50.56 £21,984 £8,900 Grade 3 arable Grass paddock Cold Kirby Thirsk 2.02 5.00 £24,700 £10,000 with road access Table 4.24: Agricultural Land for Sale (Source: Agents Details)
4.103 The selling price information is generally in line with the latest RICS data with prices in the region of £18,525 to £22,230 per ha (£7,500 to £9,000 per acre) save for a small site in Cold Kirby which is within the National Park and is a small paddock with direct road access.
Commercial Land 4.104 There is limited available evidence in relation to commercial land sales in the District however table 4.25 contains details relating to the available information that we have been able to source.
Page | 66
4.0 OVERVIEW OF HAMBLETON
Area Price Price Type Address Price Date (ha) (per ha) (per acre) Cedar Road, Sowerby GF 0.49 £150,000 £308,750 £125,000 Aug-17 Gateway
Darlington Road, GF 0.18 £415,000 £2,268,999 £918,142 Sep-17 Northallerton
BF Alne Station Yard, Alne 0.53 £425,000 £807,985 £326,923 For sale
Offers GF Link Park, Northallerton 0.81 For sale Invited
Leeming Bar Distribution £617,500 to £250,000 to GF 2.0 For Sale Park £741,000 £300,000
Mount Pleasant Business £494,000 to £200,000 to GF Various For Sale Park, Stokesley £741,000 £300,000
GF Premier Inn, Thirsk 0.6 £517,500 £862,500 £349,190 Jul-16
Table 4.25: Commercial Land Transactions and Selling Prices (Source: CoStar and Selling Agents)
4.105 In relation to the data at table 4.25 the transaction at Sowerby Gateway was the sale of a partially serviced greenfield plot to Marrtree Investments. Marrtree undertook an element of plot servicing themselves. On this basis the agent acting has indicated that the selling price was in the order of £494,000 per hectare (£200,000 per acre). The site is currently being developed as Marrtree Business Park.
4.106 The sale of land at Darlington Road was to Sam Turner and Sons an adjacent occupier and is therefore considered a special purchase and not therefore generally representative of commercial land prices in the District.
4.107 The information for Leeming Bar Distribution Park relates to the only remaining plot which is just over 2 acres. We understand that this site has been less attractive to purchasers due to the proximity to houses and hence operating restrictions in terms of activity and hours of operation.
4.108 We are advised that other land sales at Leeming Bar have been at prices ranging from £395,200 - £518,700 per hectare (£160,000 - £210,000) per acre. A plot of 0.55 hectares (1.35 acres) with a deferred option agreement has been sold based on a price of £575,390 per hectare (£237,000 per acre). A further plot is currently under offer for a price slightly in excess of this level.
4.109 At Mount Pleasant Business Park there are a variety of plots available ranging in size from 0.10 to 0.67 hectares (0.25 acres to 1.5 acres). The quoting prices are from £494,000 to £741,000 (£200,000 to £300,000 per acre) dependent on site size.
Page | 67
4.0 OVERVIEW OF HAMBLETON
Residential 4.110 Recent new housing schemes in Hambleton have been developed on both brownfield sites and also greenfield sites on the settlement boundaries. We have prepared tables 4.26 and 4.27 which contain available information relating the prices paid for the land on which these new developments have been constructed. The brownfield transactions are contained in table 4.26 and those relating to greenfield sites in table 4.27. These transactions are reflective of the current policy position and a number occurred prior to the introduction of CIL in the District in April 2015. For ease of reference the transactions are presented in ascending order based on the price paid per gross acre.
Page | 68
4.0 OVERVIEW OF HAMBLETON
Gross Net Price per Price per Price Per Price per Developer Address Sub Area Area Area Price Paid Date Gross Ha Net Ha Gross Acre Net Acre (Ha) (Ha) Blue Oak Former Buffer Depot, Thirsk 1.0 £415,000 May-15 £400,193 £162,021 Homes Sowerby Mullberry Leeming Lane, Northallerton Bedale 2.1 £1,060,000 Dec-13 £513,373 £207,843 Homes Road, Leeming Bar Berkeley Mulberry Vale Northallerton 0.7 0.7 £550,000 Apr-15 £785,714 £785,714 £318,103 £318,103 DeVeer Whitfield Willow Bridge Lane, Dalton Thirsk 1.67 1.67 £1,680,000 May-14 £1,005,988 £1,005,988 £406,780 £406,780 Homes Wakefield and District St Marys Close Thirsk 1.32 £1,400,000 Dec 18 £1,060,618 £429,400 HA
Yorvik Homes Benkhill Drive, Bedale Bedale 0.4 0.4 £455,000 Apr-14 £1,137,500 £1,137,500 £460,526 £460,526
Barratt/DWH Mowberry Park/Castlegate Northallerton 8.04 6.77 £11,500,000 Apr-13 £1,430,350 £1,698,670 £579,088 £687,720
Table 4.26: Residential Land Transactions in Hambleton – Brownfield Sites
Page | 69
4.0 OVERVIEW OF HAMBLETON
Gross Net Price per Price per Price Per Price per Developer Address Sub Area Area Area Price Paid Date Gross Ha Net Ha Gross Acre Net Acre (Ha) (Ha)
Kier Tanton Road, Stokesley Stokesley 9.06 6.19 £4,466,495 Jul-17 £492,991 £722,005 £199,591 £292,310
Taylor Land off Ripon Way, Carlton Thirsk 1.5 1.2 £740,000 Jul-14 £506,849 £601,250 £205,202 £243,421 Wimpey Miniott Northwest of Foxholme Alcuin Homes Easingwold 0.4 0.4 £270,000 Jun 18 £675,000 £675,000 £273,279 £273,279 House, Flawith Mulgrave Hackworth Road, Little Bedale 0.7 £490,000 Jan-16 £720,588 £291,736 Properties Crakehall Taylor Fox Covert Close (South east Bedale 1.3 1.3 £1,000,000 Oct-15 £757,576 £757,576 £306,711 £306,711 Wimpey of Aiskew)
Redrow Land at York Road Easingwold 3.5 3.0 £2,700,000 Jun-12 £778,098 £888,016 £315,019 £359,521
Persimmon Crabmill Lane Easingwold 2.84 2.37 £2,248,511 Feb-18 £792,287 £949,139 £320,764 £384,267
Garbutts Lane, Hutton Rudby Stokesley 1.19 1.05 £1,000,000 Dec-17 £840,336 £952,380 £340,022 £385,579
Northmead Tollerton Road, Huby Easingwold 0.52 0.52 £520,000* Mar-18 £994,454 £994,454 £402,613 £402,613
Linden The Dales, Morton on Swale Northallerton 2.0 1.5 £2,260,042 Oct-15 £1,124,399 £1,527,055 £455,222 £618,241 Homes Daniel Garth Land South of South Back Easingwold 1.0 1.0 £1,400,000 Jul-15 £1,359,223 £1,359,223 £550,293 £550,293 Homes Lane, Stillington Linden Stillington Road, Easingwold Easingwold 1.6 1.4 £3,325,000 Nov-14 £2,104,430 £2,380,507 £851,996 £963,768 Homes Taylor Sowerby Gateway (Lime Thirsk 1.5 1.4 £3,237,930 Nov-15 £2,173,107 £2,359,200 £879,801 £955,142 Wimpey Gardens) Table 4.27: Residential Land Transactions in Hambleton – Greenfield Sites *Based on net price paid
Page | 70
4.0 OVERVIEW OF HAMBLETON
4.111 Based on the available information regarding the sales of brownfield land for residential development the range of prices paid is wide from £400,200 per gross hectare (£162,000 per gross acre) for a former depot site in Thirsk up to £1,430,350 per gross hectare (£579,000 per gross acre) for the large Barratt/David Wilson Homes site at the edge of Northallerton albeit this transaction is now historic. The overall average price paid across these transactions is £904,800 per hectare (£366,000 per acre) based on the gross site area.
4.112 In terms of greenfield sites there is a greater range of prices paid based on the gross site area from £493,000 per hectare (£199,600 per acre), recently paid by Kier for a large site in Stokesley, to £2,173,100 per gross hectare (£880,000 per gross acre) for the Lime Gardens site at Sowerby Gateway although this transaction is now over 3 years old. This particular site was also part of a much larger development and benefited from the main access road and infrastructure having already been provided to open up the site.
4.113 The sales information for greenfield sites shows more typical range of prices of £493,000 to £840,300 per hectare (£199,600 to £340,022 per acre). The overall average price paid across these transactions based on the gross site area is £1,024,564 per hectare (£414,788 per acre) however this is skewed by the two transactions at Lime Gardens noted above and at Stillington Road, Easingwold. In both cases the price paid was over £2,099,500 per hectare (£850,000 per acre). Excluding these two transactions the average price paid is £821,982 per hectare (£332,768 per acre). This contrasts with evidence for agricultural land prices typically in the region of £21,000 per hectare (£8,500 per acre.)
4.114 We consider in Section 5 an appropriate ‘Benchmark Land Value’ for the purpose of the viability testing, however it should be noted that the prices paid for the land in the transactions at tables 4.26 and 4.27 are not the same as a ‘Benchmark Land Value’. The assessment of a benchmark or threshold land value must take into account the effect of future planning policy in the emerging Local Plan. In accordance with the PPG it should be based on the existing use value of the land as a starting point together with a premium to incentivise the landowner to sell.
Page | 71
5.0 FINANCIAL APPRAISAL ASSUMPTIONS
5.0 FINANCIAL APPRAISAL ASSUMPTIONS
______
5.1 In this section, we have outlined the assumptions that have been adopted in the financial appraisals for both the Residential and Non-Residential Development Scenarios.
Benchmark Land Value
5.2 Land value is difficult to assess for a number of reasons. Firstly, development land value is an utterly derived value, with land being bought as a factor of production in the course of development. The price is generally determined by the development potential of the site. Secondly, the comparison of land value in terms of prices paid for sites is extremely difficult because of the large number of site specific variables that will impact upon the price paid. For example, the amount of remediation or other abnormal costs are likely to differ from site to site. Hence, any evidence of transactions relating to residential development land sales needs to be treated with a degree of subjectivity as adjustments may be necessary for factors such as abnormal site conditions, contamination and development density.
5.3 The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) sets out how land value should be assessed for the purpose of viability assessment. It states that:
“To define land value for any viability assessment, a benchmark land value should be established on the basis of the existing use value (EUV) of the land, plus a premium for the landowner. The premium for the landowner should reflect the minimum return at which it is considered a reasonable landowner would be willing to sell their land. The premium should provide a reasonable incentive, in comparison with other options available, for the landowner to sell land for development while allowing a sufficient contribution to fully comply with policy requirements. Landowners and site purchasers should consider policy requirements when agreeing land transactions. This approach is often called ‘existing use value plus’ (EUV+).” (Paragraph: 013 Reference ID: 10-013-20190509)
Page | 72
5.0 FINANCIAL APPRAISAL ASSUMPTIONS
5.4 Paragraph: 014 Reference ID: 10-014-20190509 then provides details of what factors should be considered in establishing a benchmark land value. In particular it states that a benchmark land value should:
• be based upon existing use value; • allow for a premium to landowners (including equity resulting from those building their own homes); • reflect the implications of abnormal costs; site-specific infrastructure costs; and professional site fees
5.5 It goes on to say that existing use value should be informed by market evidence of current uses, costs and values and that market evidence can be used as a cross check of benchmark land value but should not be used in place of benchmark land value. It also notes that there may be a divergence between benchmark land values and market evidence but cautions that this could be due to different assumptions and methodologies used by individual developers, site promoters and landowners. Evidence used to inform assessment of benchmark land value should be based on developments which are fully compliant with emerging or up to date plan policies, including for affordable housing requirements at the relevant levels set out in the plan. In plan making, the landowner premium should be tested and balanced against emerging policies.
5.6 At paragraph: 015 further information is provided about what is meant by existing use value (EUV). It is defined as being:
“the value of the land in its existing use. Existing use value is not the price paid and should disregard hope value.” (Paragraph: 015 Reference ID: 10-015-20190509)
5.7 The PPG acknowledges that EUVs will vary depending on the type of site and development types. It suggests that an EUV can be established in collaboration between plan makers, developers and landowners by assessing the value of the specific site or type of site using published sources of information such as agricultural or industrial land values. Sources of data can include (but are not limited to): land registry records of transactions; real estate licensed software packages; real estate market reports; real estate research; estate agent websites; property auction results; valuation office agency data; public sector estate/property teams’ locally held evidence.
Page | 73
5.0 FINANCIAL APPRAISAL ASSUMPTIONS
5.8 The premium (or the ‘plus’ in EUV+), is the amount above existing use value (EUV) that goes to the landowner. The PPG states that:
“The premium should provide a reasonable incentive for a land owner to bring forward land for development while allowing a sufficient contribution to fully comply with policy requirements.” (Paragraph: 016 Reference ID: 10-016-20190509)
5.9 The document ‘Viability Testing Local Plans’ advocates the use of ‘threshold land value’. This should represent the value at which a typical willing landowner is likely to release land for development, before the payment of taxes. The guidance suggests that 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, and therefore using a market value approach as a starting point carries the risk of building in assumptions of current Policy costs rather than helping to inform the potential for future Policy. As a result it suggests that market values can be a useful ‘sense check’ and suggests that the threshold land value is based on a premium over current use values and credible alternative use values. The latter would be most appropriate where there is competition for land among a range of alternative uses such as in town centres. This is in line with the updated guidance contained in the PPG.
5.10 The RICS Guidance Note ‘Financial Viability in Planning’ although now historic explains that for a development to be financially viable, any uplift from the current use value of land that arises when planning permission is granted should be able to meet the cost of planning obligations, whilst at the same time, ensuring an appropriate site value for the land owner and a risk adjusted return to the developer for delivering the project. The return to the land owner will be in the form of a land value increase in excess of current use value. The land value will be based on market value which will be risk adjusted, so it will normally be less than current market prices for development land on which planning permission has been secured and planning obligation requirements are known.
5.11 In arriving at our assessments of land values in Hambleton, we have had regard to available transactional evidence for Hambleton. We have undertaken research using Land Registry data and other databases such as EGi and CoStar. We have also had regard to Valuation Office Property Market Surveys (albeit these are now fairly out-dated, which has been reflected in the weighting that we have given to such studies). We have provided at tables 4.24 to 4.27 details of land transactions that we have considered based on the differing land uses.
Page | 74
5.0 FINANCIAL APPRAISAL ASSUMPTIONS
Residential Benchmark Land Values
5.12 The future residential development sites within the District are likely to be predominantly greenfield sites located immediately adjacent or close to the existing settlements in the District. In particular Part 2 of the emerging Local Plan identifies a number of greenfield sites on the edges of the market towns and also within some of the service and secondary villages.
5.13 Having regard to the likely characteristics of future development within the District, we have identified a number of possible development scenarios on both greenfield and also previously developed sites. We have had regard to these classifications for the purpose of our testing.
5.14 Two previous Viability Studies were prepared for Hambleton, the first to inform a CIL Charging Schedule and the second Affordable Housing Policy. The first study was undertaken by Peter Brett Associates in 2013. In considering land value this study did not seek to differentiate between the values for greenfield and previously developed land. The assessment simply applied the land values contained at table 5.1 to 3 different value areas.
Area Price Per Hectare Price Per Acre Low Value £700,000 £283,400 Medium Value £950,000 £384,600 High Value £1,050,000 £425,000 Table 5.1: Benchmark Land Values Adopted in 2013 CIL Viability Study
5.15 The Affordable Housing Study was undertaken by Aspinall Verdi in 2014. This study adopted a more detailed approach to the treatment of land values. Table 5.2 contains details of the respective threshold land values that we adopted for the purpose of this second study. The prices shown are per hectare with the price per acre in brackets.
Location Greenfield Brownfield Rural £370,500 £926,250 £370,500 Bedale (£150,000) (£375,000) (£150,000) £370,500 £926,250 £370,500 Easingwold (£150,000) (£375,000) (£150,000) £463,125 £1,388,140 £370,500 Northallerton (£187,500) (£562,000) (£150,000) £370,500 £926,250 £370,500 Stokesley (£150,000) (£375,000) (£150,000) £463,125 £1,111,500 £370,500 Thirsk (£187,500) (£450,000) (£150,000) Table 5.2: Threshold Land Values Adopted in the Affordable() Housing Viability Study 2014
Page | 75
5.0 FINANCIAL APPRAISAL ASSUMPTIONS
5.16 To arrive at the threshold land values, the Aspinall Verdi study applied a 25% discount to what was considered to be a “benchmark market value”. Since the time of these studies there have been changes in the local property market. In addition the correct approach to the assessment of a benchmark land value has been clarified further through the updated PPG. Accordingly an assessment of land value is to be based on an EUV+ approach.
5.17 In arriving at a benchmark land value for previously developed land in this case, both the land owner and the developer should first consider a site’s current or existing use value, albeit as acknowledged in the PPG a landowner would be seeking uplift in value above this level. Conversely, a developer would be reluctant to pay a full residential value for the site, having regard to the risk and cost involved in obtaining planning consent and the likely policy contributions being sought by the Local Planning Authority. In arriving at an assessment of benchmark land value for these purposes it is therefore necessary to have regard to evidence of current use values as well as using evidence from sites with residential planning permissions as a cross check. This will allow an assessment of EUV together with an appropriate landowner premium based on reasonable adjustments to reflect factors such as the land owner’s aspirations, the developer’s concerns, risks inherent in the development process, and potential planning obligations.
5.18 Within Hambleton we would expect current values for the majority of previously developed land in the settlement areas with planning consents for commercial development to be in the range of £247,000 per hectare (£100,000 per acre) to £494,000 per hectare (£200,000 per acre). Where there is competition for land from town centre uses ie retail on the edge of Northallerton and Thirsk then higher land values may be achieved however this would very much depend on the extent to which there was any competition from higher value retail uses.
5.19 The definition of viability in the context of planning recognises the issue of a landowner receiving an appropriate site value, this is less than full residential value although is likely to be higher than current use value. Having regard to this we have considered the level of site value at which a landowner is likely to release a site for development in the market towns. This will also be influenced by the supply of competing residential development sites available in the area. A large number of sites will have a limiting effect on value, and conversely a more limited number of sites is likely to increase the landowners’ expectations of a value uplift.
5.20 The landowner in making a decision regarding land value and in particular the level of uplift that is required to incentivise them to sell will also consider houses prices in the area. For those sites situated in higher value areas a landowner may seek a greater ‘premium’ element than those in lower house price areas.
Page | 76
5.0 FINANCIAL APPRAISAL ASSUMPTIONS
5.21 In order to deliver the growth proposed in the emerging Local Plan, several significant greenfield development sites on the edge of the market towns will need to be developed over the Local Plan period. In addition a relatively large number of smaller greenfield sites have been identified in the service and secondary villages.
5.22 At the present time, these greenfield sites will normally be used for agricultural and grazing purposes or informal open space with site values on this basis typically in the region of £21,119 per ha (£8,550 per acre) to £14,850 per ha (£6,000 per acre) as identified in the RICS Rural Land Survey. It is probable that a number of such sites have had development expectations, since they are at the edge of or within the settlement area and in some cases may already be subject to promotion or option agreements. Naturally, a land owner is unlikely to sell such sites for agricultural land value and will be seeking an uplift in value if they are to consider releasing the site for development.
5.23 With reference to the guidance contained in the PPG and also that from the Housing Delivery Group, it would be inappropriate to assume land values based on the prices paid for sites with full residential planning permission, as detailed in table 4.26 and 4.27. In reality the site value for viability purposes will lie somewhere between these values and current use value. In addition many greenfield sites may require significant initial expenditure on services and infrastructure to enable them to be developed for residential purposes.
5.24 Having regard to these factors we have considered the range of land values based on the likely revenues that residential developments would be expected to achieve across the District and the availability of land for development.
5.25 Based on the available evidence we have adopted a benchmark land value for brownfield development sites of £864,500 per net developable hectare (£350,000 per net developable acre) in the towns of Northallerton and Thirsk. This is a reflection of the potential for greater competition from other higher value land uses. In the other market towns we have assumed a benchmark land value for brownfield development sites of £741,000 per net developable hectare (£300,000 per net developable acre). Assuming a typical commercial land value of £618,000 per hectare (£200,000 per acre) this represents an uplift of 50 - 75% over existing use values. This would provide a premium above existing use value sufficient to incentivise a landowner to sell.
5.26 In assessing an appropriate benchmark land value for greenfield development sites we consider that there is likely to be a differential between the larger greenfield sites on the edge of the market towns and the small greenfield sites within or adjacent to the more rural service and secondary villages. Development of the former is likely to be taken forward by National House Builders together with the larger Regional developers, whilst the smaller sites in the rural villages will in all likelihood be developed by the smaller regional and local housebuilders. Page | 77
5.0 FINANCIAL APPRAISAL ASSUMPTIONS
5.27 In assessing a benchmark land value for greenfield sites around the edges of the market towns and the immediately adjacent settlements a number of factors need to be considered. These include the often substantial costs involved in promoting the site in the first instance to enable the site to be released for development. It is also likely that for the larger greenfield sites significant opening up and infrastructure costs will be incurred in making the site suitable for development. These factors all need to be taken into account in the assessment of benchmark land value, as does the likely level of competition between developers for sites.
5.28 In the context of the rural village sites, many are situated in attractive locations. However there is a more limited number of local and smaller regional housebuilders, who are the developers likely to consider building in these locations. Ultimately it may be that these village sites are ‘cherry picked’ with development being undertaken in those villages that are considered to be more attractive and marketable. These are likely to be those in the south of the District closer to York and also further north around Stokesley together with villages that are more readily accessible to the A1M.
5.29 Unlike the larger edge of market town strategic sites, the majority of the village sites may be taken forward without the significant infrastructure costs.
5.30 The assessment of greenfield land values is not straightforward in this context, and we have adopted a hierarchy of benchmark land values reflecting these specific factors. For the greenfield sites situated in and around the main towns of Northallerton (including Brompton), Thirsk (including Sowerby and Carlton Miniott), Stokesley, Bedale (including Aiskew) and Easingwold we have adopted a benchmark land value of £617,500 per net developable hectare (£250,000 per net developable acre).
5.31 In the remaining service and secondary rural villages, except for Leeming Bar, we have adopted a benchmark land value of £494,000 per net developable hectare (£200,000 net developable per acre). Leeming Bar is situated in zone 1 as it has the lowest house prices in the District. Reflecting a combination of these lower house prices and competition from other proposed allocations in the area we have adopted a reduced benchmark land value of £370,500 per net developable hectare (£150,000 per net developable acre).
5.32 This RICS rural land survey identifies arable land values in the District as being at £21,119 per ha (£8,550 per acre). Based on the greenfield benchmark land value that have been assessed this represents an uplift of between 17.5 and 30 times existing use value for agricultural purposes.
5.33 Table 5.3 contains details of the benchmark land value assumptions per net developable hectare (and per acre) that we have adopted for the purpose of testing the proposed allocations and generic typologies in and around the market towns. Page | 78
5.0 FINANCIAL APPRAISAL ASSUMPTIONS
Area Greenfield Brownfield £617,500 £741,000 Bedale (inc Aiskew) (£250,000) (£300,000) £617,500 £741,000 Easingwold (£250,000) (£300,000) £617,500 £864,500 Northallerton (£250,000) (£350,000) £617,500 £741,000 Stokesley (£250,000) (£300,000) £617,500 £864,500 Thirsk (inc Sowerby) (£250,000) (£350,000) Table 5.3: Benchmark Land Values Adopted for Viability Testing – Market Towns
5.34 For remaining service and secondary rural villages, except for Leeming Bar, we have adopted a benchmark land value of £494,000 per net developable hectare (£200,000 net developable per acre). For Leeming Bar we have assumed a benchmark land value of £370,500 per net developable hectare (£150,000 per net developable acre).
5.35 Local authorities are required to provide a buffer of 5% or 20% in relation to their supply of sites to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. This is intended to ensure that the landowner will have to compete in the market to sell their site so will have to competitively price it to sell albeit will still want a return in excess of its current use value. If a landowner has unrealistic expectations of value, then the theory is that developers will just acquire a more competitively priced site elsewhere and the overpriced site will remain undeveloped.
5.36 As a sense check we have also considered residential land sales based on the available evidence. From the sales listed in table 4.26 to 4.27 it is clear that there is a range of prices that have been paid for land with residential planning permission reflecting the differing characteristics of the development sites, the landowner’s expectations and the existing planning policy requirements. From the analysis that we have been able to undertake based on the available evidence, there is a range of prices paid for land with residential planning permission. This range is from £400,000 per hectare (£160,000 per acre) for a brownfield site acquired in Thirsk in May 2015 to £2,173,000 per hectare (£880,000 per acre) for a serviced greenfield site also in Thirsk which was acquired in November 2015. As previously noted these values can only provide guidance in relation to the subject viability testing as these sales will include the pre-existing policy requirements and as a consequence are not directly comparable for this exercise.
Page | 79
5.0 FINANCIAL APPRAISAL ASSUMPTIONS
Commercial Benchmark Land Values
5.37 Consideration of current use values has also been applied to the sites for non-residential development to assess the commercial land values. There have been limited land sales in Hambleton as a result of limited development activity in the commercial development sector, although over the last few years there has been some transactional evidence (as noted in table 4.25) of serviced land parcels for commercial development. Having regard to this, considered adjustments have been made in order to reach benchmark land values based on both the reported transactional evidence and our market experience generally.
5.38 Potential commercial development sites are most likely to be vacant Previously Developed Land, opportunity sites within or adjacent to existing industrial areas, or alternatively the extension of current industrial areas into the surrounding Greenfield areas.
5.39 In arriving at our assessment of benchmark land values, current use values have been considered and allowances made to reflect both the land owner’s aspirations and the developer’s concerns. The specific characteristics of each form of development have been taken into account.
5.40 Table 5.4 provides a summary of the range of land values for commercial uses that we have adopted, together with an explanation of the differences.
Type Land Value Land Value Rationale (price/hectare) (price/acre) Industrial £370,500 £150,000 Located outside of Town Centre (B1b, B1c, B2, locations. Use requires fairly B8) accessible location, although does not usually require significant frontage.
Office £370,500 £150,000 Office land values can differ (A2, B1a) significantly depending on whether site is in town centre or periphery. Assumed in this case new office development is likely to take place in business park locations away from the town centres.
Retail £1,235,000 - £500,000 - Use requires accessible locations in (Comparison/ £1,605,500 £650,000 close proximity to key public transport Convenience) interchanges or main arterial routes. Requires significant plot sizes.
Hotel £862,500 £350,000 Generally competition for land from retail and other town centre uses.
Table 5.4: Benchmark Land Values for Commercial Testing
Page | 80
5.0 FINANCIAL APPRAISAL ASSUMPTIONS
Acquisition Costs
5.41 In addition to the benchmark land values detailed above, we have also assumed land acquisition costs based on agent’s fees and legal fees at 1.8% of acquisition costs. This is in line with normal market practice and rates. We have also assumed payment of stamp duty in accordance with current HMRC thresholds and rates which are summarised in table 5.5.
Property or lease premium or transfer value SDLT rate Up to £150,000 Zero The next £100,000 (the portion from £150,001 to £250,000) 2% The remaining amount (the portion above £250,000) 5% Table 5.5: HMRC Stamp Duty Rates
Timing of Land Acquisition
5.42 The financial appraisals assume that the land is acquired on day 1 of the development programme and hence the purchase carries finance costs from the outset. For most of the smaller allocations and typologies tested this would be usual practice. However, it should be noted that for the larger residential developments typically above 250 units it would be unusual for a developer to acquire the entirety of such large sites from day 1. A large development site would normally be the subject of a phased acquisition programme, with the land only being drawn down by the developer as required. As a result, land acquisition costs are more likely to be phased over the development period and so the cost of finance would be reduced with a corresponding increase in the amount of development surplus.
5.43 Whilst each development will depend on its own circumstances inevitably a landowner would expect and accept a phased draw down of land from a developer. Hence for the purposes of our assessments the landowner is benefitting from the entire land receipt at the outset. In relation to NR1 which is the largest allocation we have assumed 4 phases of development with the land drawn down and paid for at 3 yearly intervals.
Residential Appraisal Assumptions
Development Programme
5.44 In our experience a developer would seek to construct and sell around 30-40 dwellings per annum. For the purpose of the assessments we have applied an average sales rate for each site of between 2.5 and 3 per month, depending on the size of the development, with the first sales typically taking place around 9 months after a start on site.
Page | 81
5.0 FINANCIAL APPRAISAL ASSUMPTIONS
5.45 Sales rates tend to increase in respect of larger sites as developers seek to ‘double up’ and develop out a site in tandem. This may take the form of affiliated developers (such as Barratt and David Wilson Homes in Northallerton) or separate house builders. We have factored this into the sales rates assumed within the testing parameters for the largest typologies and allocations and have adopted a rate of 6 sales per month for the larger developments tested above 200 dwellings.
5.46 In relation to the housing sites within the smaller villages we would expect a slower sales rate. In assessing the viability of the generic village typologies we have adopted a sales rate of 1.5 per month.
Sales Values
Market Housing
5.47 Having regard to the market commentary contained at Section 4 and the detailed comparable sales evidence at Appendix 5 we have applied the average sale prices detailed at table 4.10. The prices reflect the values that we would expect to be paid for new houses in these locations, and are also reflective of the hierarchy of overall house prices across the sub areas in the District.
5.48 Dependent on the specific location of a site it is likely that slightly higher or conversely slightly lower values may be appropriate to the particular location. This is relevant to the testing of the proposed allocations where the location is known and the values adopted reflect the circumstances of the site. Details of the assumptions made for the testing of the allocations are contained in Appendix 8.
5.49 Policy HG 2 identifies a requirement for 10% of the houses to be 2 bedroom bungalows on sites delivering 10 or more new homes. Our experience is that a premium above prevailing values is normally paid for bungalows and this is demonstrated in the sales evidence contained in Appendix 5. We have therefore increased the value of the bungalows that are included in our testing by 10% over and above the average selling prices contained in table 4.10.
Page | 82
5.0 FINANCIAL APPRAISAL ASSUMPTIONS
Affordable Housing
5.50 In accordance with Policy HG 3, the values that have been assumed for the affordable homes are based on the current transfer prices set by the Council, these are as follows:
1 Bed £50,200 2 Bed £65,200 3 Bed £79,200 4 Bed £84,200
5.51 In all cases we have assumed a zero grant position.
Construction Costs
5.52 The construction costs that we have adopted both for the generic and the site specific viability assessments have been prepared by our Quantity Surveyor. A report containing their methodology and the generic and site-specific cost assessments is contained at Appendix 9 of this Report.
5.53 These costs are based on current building regulation requirements and are inclusive of substructures, super structures, all external works, incoming services and drainage, preliminaries, fees and a contingency. The costs assume sustainable construction techniques and make provision for attenuation, SuDS requirements and optional standards for water efficiency. The costs also include provision for suitable ducting for cable and broadband in accordance with the requirements of Policy E1 Design.
5.54 The construction costs are inclusive of the provision of on-site public open space in accordance with the specific requirements contained in the Local Plan together with the capitalised cost of future maintenance.
5.55 In the generic testing of greenfield sites we have included an allowance for site opening up costs to cover for example service reinforcement and increased access costs. Our QS has assessed a site opening up cost per dwelling which has been inputted into the testing. Table 5.6 contains details of the greenfield site opening up costs that have been assumed.
Page | 83
5.0 FINANCIAL APPRAISAL ASSUMPTIONS
No of Dwellings Opening Up Cost (per dwelling) 0-14 £0 15-49 £3,000 50-99 £4,500 100-199 £5,500 200+ £8,300 Table 5.6: Generic Greenfield Testing – Site Opening Up Costs
5.56 In addition to the base construction cost assessments Policy HG 2 requires that all new dwellings should be constructed to Part M4 Category 2. In relation to development proposals for 200 dwellings or more, 9% of new homes and 30% of affordable homes should be constructed to meet Part M4 Category 3 ie. be ready to accommodate wheelchair users with adaptation.
5.57 Our QS has assessed additional costs for per dwelling for these emerging policy requirements, these are:
Building Regulation Requirements M4 (2) - £1,100 per house and £750 per apartment; Building Regulation Requirements M4 (3a) - £5,500 per house.
Section 106/Section 278 and Emerging Planning Policy Requirements
5.58 HG 2: Delivering the Right Type of Homes requires that proposals for residential development should ensure a range of house types and sizes identified in the SHMA. We have undertaken viability testing to model the impact of this by assuming a form of development that broadly accords to the HEDNA and seeks to achieve a mix of predominantly 2 and 3 bed house types. Our testing also includes the provision of 10% of the dwellings as 2 bed bungalows. This policy also contains requirements to deliver new housing that meets the requirements of the NDSS. The dwelling sizes that we have adopted for our testing are within the size thresholds laid out in the NDSS.
5.59 This policy also contains requirements for all new dwellings to be constructed to Part M4 Category 2, and for developments of 200 units or more 9% of market homes and 30% of affordable homes are to be constructed to meet Part M4 Category 3. We have undertaken viability testing to model these two requirements based on the additional costs noted at para 5.57.
Page | 84
5.0 FINANCIAL APPRAISAL ASSUMPTIONS
5.60 Policy HG 3 Affordable Housing Requirements contains the Local Plan requirements in relation to affordable housing provision. In accordance with this the viability testing for each of the generic development typologies and also the site specific viability assessments assumes the policy requirement for 30% on site affordable housing for developments greater than 9 units or 4 units in designated rural locations. This is based on a two thirds/one third split between rented and intermediate and it is assumed to be 2 and 3 bed houses. The affordable units are included in the viability assessment based on the current transfer prices set by the Council.
5.61 Policy CI 3 Open Space, Sport and Recreation – deals with provision of open space in new development. The construction cost assessments make provision for these requirements. In relation to the allocations testing that has been undertaken we have also included any contributions and requirements that have been set out in the relevant Part 2 polices.
5.62 Policies RM 1 Water Supply and Quality and RM 3 Surface Water Management deal with requirements in relation to SuDS and also the optional standards contained in the Building Regulations for water efficiency. The construction cost assessments that have been prepared for the viability testing are inclusive of any costs associated with SuDS and achieving the optional water standard.
5.63 In relation to Policy E1 Design the construction costs that have been adopted include the cost of provision of suitable ducting and cabinets.
5.64 Policy CI 2 Transport and Accessibility deals with requirements for electric vehicle charging points. Our QS has prepared an assessment of the cost (in addition to the base construction cost) of providing these measures at £220 per dwelling.
5.65 Policy CI 1 Infrastructure Delivery relates to Infrastructure and in particular addresses S106 contributions and CIL. CIL was introduced in Hambleton on 7 April 2015 and the current charging rate for all new market housing is £55 per sq.m excluding apartments. Our viability assessments are inclusive of the CIL charge at the £55 per sq.m rate.
5.66 In addition to CIL, site specific S106 contributions will still be required although the residual S106 costs are relatively limited. We have provided at Appendix 10 an analysis of S106 contributions that have been obtained in relation to the housing developments in the District. Having regard to this analysis we have adopted a residual S106 contribution of £1,500 per dwelling.
5.67 Table 3.14 contains further details of the assumptions that we have made to address the emerging policy requirements in our viability assessments.
Page | 85
5.0 FINANCIAL APPRAISAL ASSUMPTIONS
Sales and Marketing Costs
5.68 Disposal costs, including sales and marketing expenses, have been assumed at a rate of 3.5% of the Gross Development Value of the market housing. This is in line with typical development industry rates for housing development. We have included an allowance of £500 per unit for the costs associated with the transfer of the affordable homes to a registered provider.
Finance
5.69 For all of the residential viability testing we have assumed a finance rate of 7% inclusive of arrangement and monitoring fees. This reflects the cost of finance currently available in the development market for residential developments of the type contained in our viability assessments.
Developer’s Profit and Overhead
5.70 Paragraph 018 Reference ID: 10-018-20190509 of the PPG deals with how a return to developers (developer’s profit) should be defined for the purpose of viability assessment. In particular it notes that potential risk is accounted for in the assumed return for developers at the plan making stage and it is the role of developers, not plan makers or decision makers, to mitigate these risks.
5.71 The PPG goes on to say that for the purpose of plan making an assumption of 15-20% of gross development value (GDV) may be considered a suitable return to developers in order to establish the viability of plan policies. In addition it suggests that a lower figure may be more appropriate in consideration of delivery of affordable housing in circumstances where this guarantees an end sale at a known value and reduces risk.
5.72 In assessing the appropriate level of developer’s profit, we have had regard to both the size and form of the proposed development and the likely risk associated with the development as a result. The level of profit requirement will principally reflect the risk of constructing a particular development site and as a result a developer will typically require different levels of profit as reward for risk across different sites.
5.73 Many factors will govern risk in relation to a development site; these include location, the local property market, the size and scale of the development, potential contamination and other abnormal costs and the type of accommodation being provided. Other considerations affecting risk could include the planning status of the site, and specifically whether a planning consent is in place for the proposed scheme.
Page | 86
5.0 FINANCIAL APPRAISAL ASSUMPTIONS
5.74 In terms of residential development, a smaller residential development would be considered less risky than a large scale strategic residential development site. On a larger site it may take many years for the developer to build out and complete the sale of all of the houses. There could be significant changes (for better or worse) in the property market during the lifetime of the development. Therefore, the risk associated with having capital tied up in the development is carried for many years. As a result, a developer would require a higher profit return than on the smaller development site.
5.75 The industry standard measure of profit return is typically based on a percentage of either Gross Development Value (GDV) or cost. In certain instances developers may use an internal rate of return as an additional check measure. In our experience profit based on GDV is more commonly used for residential developments although not exclusively, whilst a return based on cost is more typical for commercial development.
5.76 From our development market experience, and as also noted in the PPG, residential developments would tend to command a profit return of 15-20% GDV, inclusive of a developer’s overhead.
5.77 The HCA Guidance Note ‘Investment and Planning Obligations: Responding to the Downturn’1 suggests that a figure of 16% of values rather than cost may be targeted for private residential sales. The HCA’s User Manual 2 accompanying their Development Appraisal Tool suggests a typical figure at that time (July 2009) of 17.5-20% GDV, but this is given as a guide only as the manual suggests that profit will depend on the state of the market and the size and complexity of the scheme.
5.78 Looking at planning decisions, Planning Inspectors in certain instances have made reference in decisions to the level of profit adopted and what is typical, including the following examples:
Flambard Way, Godalming3 (a mixed development of 225 flats and commercial accommodation): the Inspector refers to an industry norm of 15-20% profit and although not explicitly stated this seems to be based on cost.
1 HCA Guidance Note ‘Investment and Planning Obligations: Responding to the Downturn’ (HCA, 2009) 2 HCA Economic Appraisal Tool User Manual (HCA, 2009) 3 Planning Inspectorate Decision in relation to ’Waverley Borough Council appeal by Flambard Development Limited’ APP/R3650/A/08/2063055 (Planning Inspectorate 2008) Page | 87
5.0 FINANCIAL APPRAISAL ASSUMPTIONS
Flemingate, Beverly4 (a mixed use development): Here the Inspector accepted 15% of cost.
Clay Farm5 (2,300 dwellings and retail, health centre, education): Here the Local Planning Authority suggested a profit return based on 20% of cost or 16% of GDV. 16% GDV was considered by the Council to be consistent with the profit based on GDV in the HCA document detailed above. The Inspector appears to accept the LPA’s approach albeit the key point at issue related to whether the scheme should be assessed on a residual land value basis, or based on the actual historic purchase price.
Former Royal Hotel, Newbury6 (35 sheltered apartments): The Inspector here decided that the profit range of 17.5%-20% of GDV detailed in the HCA EAT user manual was the correct level of profit for this development.
Shinfield, Reading7 (residential development comprising 126 dwellings and a sports pavilion): The Inspector determined that a figure of 20% profit on GDV was appropriate for this development.
Land adjacent to Policemans Lane, Poole, Dorset8 (a development comprising 70 dwellings). The Inspector in reaching a decision regarding the viability of the development adopted a blended profit across the market and affordable units of 16.53% of GDV. This reflected 20% of GDV for the market units and 8% of cost for the affordable dwellings.
Lowfield Road, Bolton upon Dearne, Barnsley9 (a development comprising 97 houses). Based on the evidence before him the Inspector concluded that the development could reasonably operate at a profit margin of 17.5% GDV for the market dwellings.
5.79 As the above demonstrates, the profit return requirement is not at a fixed level and will vary from site to site, depending upon the risk profile, which is driven by many factors.
4 Planning Inspectorate Decision in relation to Application by CP Group, Wykeland Group and Quintain Estates & Development PLC, LPA: East Riding of Yorkshire’ APP/E2001/V/08/1203215 (Planning Inspectorate 2008) 5 Planning Inspectorate Decision in relation to ‘Applications by Countryside Properties PLC & Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd to Cambridge City Council’ APP/Q0505/A/09/2103599 and APP/ Q0505/A/09/2103592 (Planning Inspectorate, 2009) 6 Planning Inspectorate Decision in relation to ‘Former Royal Hotel, Newbury, Gillingham, Dorset SP8 4QJ’ APP/N1215/A/09/2117195 7 Planning Inspectorate Decision in relation to ‘Land at the Manor, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9BX and bordered by Brookers Hill to the North, Hollow Lane to the east and Church Lane to the west’ APP/X0360/A/12/2179141 (Planning Inspectorate 2013) 8Planning Inspectorate Decision in relation to ‘Land adjacent to Policemans Lane and the A35, Upton, Poole, Dorset BH16 5NE.’ APP/B1225/W/15/3049345 (20 November 2015) 9 Planning Inspectorate Decision in relation to ‘Land off Lowfield Road, Bolton upon Dearne, Barnsley S63 2TF’. APP/R4408/W/17/3170851 (23 October 2017) Page | 88
5.0 FINANCIAL APPRAISAL ASSUMPTIONS
5.80 On the basis of the above and having regard to the nature of the site typologies and allocated sites, a profit level based on a blended profit of 17.5% of GDV (inclusive of overheads) has been applied for the smaller housing schemes of 10 or less dwellings. For all other sites a developer’s return (inclusive of overheads) of 20% of GDV has been adopted for the market housing and 8% of GDV for the affordable units.
Commercial Appraisal Assumptions
Development Programme
5.81 The development programme for commercial sites will vary depending on the specific characteristics of each scheme. Table 5.7 contains details of the development programmes that we have assumed.
Floor Area Construction Period Type (sq.m) (months) Industrial B2/B8 464 6 Industrial B2/B8 1,857 10 Industrial B2/B8 4,643 12 Industrial B2/B8 9,287 15 Offices (Business Park) 464 8 Offices (Business Park) 1,857 14 Retail (Foodstore) 279 7 Retail (Foodstore) 929 10 Retail (Foodstore) 2,786 12 Retail (Comparison) 279 7 Retail (Comparison) 929 10 Retail (Comparison) 2,786 12 Hotel 75 Bedrooms 15 Table 5.7: Development Programmes – Commercial
Page | 89
5.0 FINANCIAL APPRAISAL ASSUMPTIONS
Sales Values
5.82 Having regard to the comparable evidence contained in the market commentary at Section 4, Table 5.8 contains details of the sales values that have been adopted for the commercial uses forming the hypothetical development scenarios.
Use Rent Rent Yield (per sq.m) (per sq.ft) B2/B8 £59-£86 £5.50-£8.00 7.5% Office £140 £13 8% Retail (comparison) £161 £15 7% Retail (convenience) £180 £16.72 5.75% Hotel £90,000 per room Table 5.8: Rents and Yields for Commercial Generic Testing
5.83 Our appraisals are also inclusive of the following average rent free allowances:
Offices (Out of Town) – Average 6 months B2/B8 (small) – Average 3 months B8 (large) – Average 6 months Retail - Average 12 months, save for smaller forms of retail at 6 months.
Construction Costs
5.84 The construction costs that have been adopted in the viability appraisals have been prepared by our Quantity Surveyor and their methodology is included in their report at Appendix 9. These costs are calculated on a cost per sq.m basis, and are inclusive of substructures, super structures, all external works, incoming services and drainage, preliminaries, fees and a contingency.
Sales and Marketing
5.85 We have assumed marketing and disposal fees on lettings of the units based on 20% of rental value. Sales disposal fees have been included at a rate of 1.5% (1% agent’s fees and 0.5% legal fees). Such fees are considered reasonable at the present time and comprise the standard market charges. Stamp Duty Land Tax has been included as appropriate at usual HMRC rates.
Page | 90
5.0 FINANCIAL APPRAISAL ASSUMPTIONS
Finance
5.86 A finance rate of 6% has been uniformly applied across all commercial development, which is inclusive of arrangement and monitoring fees. This quantum reflects the profile of commercial developers and the characteristics of the development, due to the fact that we anticipate that the majority of developments will be constructed by a larger developer.
Developer’s Profit and Overhead
5.87 In assessing the appropriate level of developer’s profit, we have had regard to both the size and form of the proposed development and the likely risk associated with the development as a result. As identified above in reference to the assumptions made in relation to developers profit in the residential appraisals, the level of profit requirement will principally reflect the risk associated with a particular development site and as a result a developer will typically require different levels of profit as reward for risk across different sites.
5.88 In the context of most forms of commercial development, the developer will typically seek a profit requirement of approximately 15% on cost. The figure is widely used, and has been applied to all forms of commercial development that we have tested.
Page | 91
6.0 VIABILITY RESULTS AND POLICY IMPACTS
6.0 VIABILITY RESULTS AND POLICY IMPACTS
______
6.1 This section sets out the results and findings from the viability assessments undertaken for the generic typologies both residential and commercial and also the allocations that have been tested.
Format of Results
Market Towns (Generic Typologies)
6.2 In presenting the results we have firstly considered viability in the market towns. As identified in table 4.8, values are broadly similar across Northallerton, Thirsk, Bedale (and Aiskew) and Stokesley, save for some lower value areas around the centre of Northallerton. The first suite of results tables therefore deal with viability in these four market towns based on the testing of generic typologies that has been undertaken.
6.3 Given the extent of delivery proposed on greenfield sites we have firstly provided the results of the viability testing for greenfield sites. Thereafter the results are provided for the brownfield testing that has been undertaken. In a limited number of cases there are unviable results based on 30% affordable housing. Where this occurs, viability testing has also been undertaken at lower percentages of affordable housing and the results are provided accordingly.
6.4 In relation to these four market towns the relevant results tables are as follows:
Tables 6.1 – 6.2 Northallerton/Thirsk/Bedale (and Aiskew)/Stokesley greenfield sites at 30 and 35 dph including 30% affordable housing; Tables 6.3 – 6.4 Northallerton (Inner) brownfield sites at 30 and 35 dph including 30% affordable housing; Tables 6.5 – 6.6 Northallerton (Inner) brownfield sites at 30 and 35 dph including 20% affordable housing; Tables 6.7 – 6.8 Northallerton (Inner) brownfield sites at 30 and 35 dph including 10% affordable housing; Tables 6.9 – 6.10 Northallerton (Outer)/Thirsk brownfield sites at 30 and 35 dph including 30% affordable housing; Tables 6.11 – 6.12 Northallerton (Outer)/Thirsk brownfield sites at 30 and 35 dph including 20% affordable housing;
Page | 92
6.0 VIABILITY RESULTS AND POLICY IMPACTS
Tables 6.13 – 6.14 Bedale (and Aiskew)/Stokesley brownfield sites at 30 and 35 dph including 30% affordable housing; Tables 6.15 – 6.16 Bedale (and Aiskew)/Stokesley brownfield sites at 30 and 35 dph including 20% affordable housing.
6.5 House prices are higher in Easingwold than in the other market towns, and the next set of results tables deal with the viability testing undertaken for greenfield and then brownfield generic typologies in Easingwold. The respective tables are as follows:
Tables 6.17 – 6.18 Easingwold greenfield sites at 30 and 35 dph including 30% affordable housing; Tables 6.19 – 6.20 Easingwold brownfield sites at 30 and 35 dph including 30% affordable housing.
Rural Villages (Generic Typologies)
6.6 We have then considered viability in the rural villages. The subsequent tables of results relate to the viability testing of generic sites carried out for these villages. With reference to table 4.10 we have undertaken testing based on the 5 value zones, albeit save for Leeming Bar and Dalton there are few villages are actually situated in value zones 1 and 2. Most villages in the District are located in zones 3-5. There are no allocations in zone 2 and for the allocations in Leeming Bar in zone 1 a site specific viability assessment has been prepared. The respective results tables for the villages are as follows:
Tables 6.21 – 6.22 Zone 1 sites at 30 and 35 dph; Tables 6.23 – 6.24 Zone 2 sites at 30 and 35 dph; Tables 6.25 – 6.26 Zone 3 sites at 30 and 35 dph; Tables 6.27 – 6.28 Zone 4 sites at 30 and 35 dph; Tables 6.29 – 6.30 Zone 5 sites at 30 and 35 dph
Allocations
6.7 The results for the viability testing of specific allocations are contained at table 6.31.
Page | 93
6.0 VIABILITY RESULTS AND POLICY IMPACTS
Apartments
6.8 The viability testing that has been prepared for apartments specifically relates to the market towns and assumes development on brownfield sites. The respective results tables are as follows:
Table 6.32 Northallerton (Inner); Table 6.33 Northallerton (Outer)/Thirsk; Table 6.34 Bedale (and Aiskew)/Stokesley; Table 6.35 Easingwold
Commercial
6.9 The final table 6.36 contains the results of the testing undertaken for the commercial development typologies.
Residential Results – Generic Typologies and Allocations
6.10 In each case the results tables are presented to show the scheme reference (or Local Plan reference in the case of the allocations), the number of dwellings and the average dwelling size for the scheme. The ‘Surplus’ is the residual sum that is left once the gross costs (inclusive of developers profit and benchmark land cost) are deducted from gross revenues. A CIL charge has been introduced in the District, and to enable interpretation of the results in this context the development surplus is presented on the basis of an amount per sq.m based on the total market housing floor space including garages.
6.11 The first column shows the surplus inclusive of affordable housing provision. In accordance with the local plan policy this is based on 30% affordable housing provision. Testing has also been undertaken at 20% and 10% provision in some cases and the column headings have been amended accordingly. In the market towns, it should be noted that scheme 1 (5 dwellings) is not subject to a requirement for affordable housing, and hence the respective cells in the results tables is based on a scheme of market housing only.
Page | 94
6.0 VIABILITY RESULTS AND POLICY IMPACTS
6.12 The viability of development has been tested having regard to the base construction cost position which reflects current building regulation requirements including provision for surface water attenuation. In addition the construction costs make provision for the costs associated with the Local Plan policy requirements relating to the following:
Provision of onsite open space; Sustainable Drainage Systems; Optional National Housing Standard for water consumption and; The provision of adequate ducting for broadband fibre to the dwellings.
6.13 The size of dwellings that have been assumed for the purpose of the testing also meet the Nationally Described Space Standards.
6.14 Viability is then tested with the inclusion of other contributions and Local Plan policies which have an impact on viability. Firstly a CIL contribution has been added based on the current residential charge of £55 per sq.m. The column titled “Inc CIL” shows the level of surplus once this requirement is added into the testing.
6.15 In addition to affordable housing and CIL, a residual S106 contribution has then been included in the testing based on an amount of £1,500 per dwelling. The column headed “Inc S106” shows the level of surplus once this contribution is also added into the testing.
6.16 Finally we have added into the testing the costs associated with the Local Plan requirement for all new homes to be constructed to meet the requirements for M4 (2) and for large scale developments of 200 dwellings or more, 9% of the market housing and 30% of the affordable housing to meet the requirements of M4 (3a). The column titled “Inc M4 (2)/(3a)” shows the revised surplus with this policy requirement also included.
6.17 The respective columns therefore show viability with the various policies added cumulatively. The final column headed “Inc M4 (2)/(3a)” shows the viability position with all current standards and proposed Local Plan Policies included. It demonstrates the viability of development based on the cumulative plan policies including a CIL charge of £55 per sq.m. Consideration of this column then allows decisions to be made about cumulative plan policies and any future review of the CIL charge itself.
6.18 For transparency we have also included the columns in the right hand section of the tables which show the impact on viability of a number of the Local Plan polices and standards individually. The results here show the impact on viability of the particular requirement in the form of the per sq.m reduction to the ‘Surplus’. This allows the viability impact to be considered in relation to these requirements both singularly and cumulatively.
Page | 95
6.0 VIABILITY RESULTS AND POLICY IMPACTS
6.19 For ease of reference and presentation the table cells have been coloured to demonstrate development viability. In relation to the ‘cumulative surplus’ entries where development is not viable the cells are shaded red. For these developments to proceed either the land owner or the developer will need to be more flexible in relation to their required returns or alternatively the Local Planning Authority may need to consider a relaxation of planning policy requirements.
6.20 The development surplus and the policy impact per sq.m have in all cases been rounded to the nearest £ per sq.m.
Page | 96
6.0 VIABILITY RESULTS AND POLICY IMPACTS
Market Towns
Northallerton (Outer)/Thirsk/Bedale (and Aiskew)/Stokesley (Zone 3)
Cumulative Surplus (per sq.m) Impact on Surplus (per sq.m) Dwelling No. 30% Inc Inc Inc M4 Scheme Ave Size CIL S106 M4 (2)/(3a) Dwellings Affordable CIL S106 (2)/(3a) (sq.m) 1 5 97 £362 £312 £298 £289 -£51 -£13 -£10 2 10 93 £158 £108 £90 £76 -£50 -£18 -£13 3 25 92 £132 £82 £64 £50 -£50 -£19 -£14 4 50 92 £160 £110 £92 £79 -£50 -£18 -£13 5 75 92 £189 £140 £122 £109 -£49 -£17 -£13 6 100 92 £179 £130 £113 £100 -£49 -£17 -£13
7 250 92 £144 £96 £80 £59 -£49 -£16 -£21 Table 6.1: Greenfield (30 DPH)
Cumulative Surplus (per sq.m) Impact on Surplus (per sq.m) Dwelling No. 30% Inc Inc Inc M4 Scheme Ave Size CIL S106 M4 (2)/(3a) Dwellings Affordable CIL S106 (2)/(3a) (sq.m) 1 5 97 £401 £350 £337 £327 -£51 -£13 -£10 2 10 93 £210 £161 £142 £129 -£50 -£18 -£13 3 25 92 £186 £136 £118 £104 -£50 -£19 -£14 4 50 92 £215 £166 £148 £134 -£50 -£18 -£13 5 75 92 £244 £196 £178 £165 -£49 -£17 -£13 6 100 92 £235 £186 £169 £156 -£49 -£17 -£13 7 250 92 £198 £149 £134 £113 -£49 -£16 -£21 Table 6.2: Greenfield (35 DPH)
Page | 97
6.0 VIABILITY RESULTS AND POLICY IMPACTS
Northallerton (Outer)/Thirsk/Bedale (and Aiskew)/Stokesley (Zone 3) - Greenfield
6.21 We have summarised below the main points from the viability testing of greenfield sites around the market towns of Northallerton, Thirsk, Bedale (and Aiskew) and Stokesley.
6.22 Scheme 1 is not subject to any affordable housing requirements and is viable based on the cumulative plan policy requirements including a CIL payment of £55 per sq.m. The surplus based on the cumulative position at 30 dwellings per hectare (dph) is £289 per sq.m and at 35 dph is £327 per sq.m.
6.23 The testing in relation to the remaining greenfield typologies inclusive of 30% affordable housing shows that based on the cumulative policy position all schemes are viable. At 30 dph the level of surplus ranges from £50 to £109 per sq.m, whilst at 35 dph the level of surplus is from £104 to £165 per sq.m.
6.24 The testing shows that all schemes can achieve all plan requirements and local standards and still provide a surplus. That surplus is the amount over and above the pre-existing and proposed policy requirements and the existing CIL charge of £55 per sq.m. The generic testing is necessarily at a high level based on as yet unknown sites, therefore in the event that any currently unknown site specific costs were encountered in relation to the development of these sites then that surplus would provide a further contingency sum. Alternatively the surplus would be available to meet any further planning obligations including any future increases in the CIL charge.
6.25 Looking at the impact of individual requirements on viability, then the requirement for a CIL contribution of £55 per sq.m has the greatest impact on viability with a reduction in the level of surplus of between £49 and £51 per sq.m. The inclusion of the CIL charge does not directly result in a £55 per sq.m reduction in the surplus due to the impact of the instalments policy and the time value of money. The residual S106 contribution of £1,500 per dwelling has a more limited impact, reducing viability by between £13 and £19 per sq.m. Finally requirements to achieve M4 (2) for all dwellings result in a reduction in the level of surplus of between £10 and £14 per sq.m. Once requirements in relation to M4 (3a) are added (for the largest scheme tested) then the impact increases to £21 per sq.m.
6.26 In summary the viability testing of greenfield sites around the market towns of Northallerton, Thirsk, Bedale (and Aiskew) and Stokesley shows that development is viable and able to support all pre-existing and proposed policy requirements, and the current CIL charge of £55 per sq.m. Once these requirements are taken into account the level of surplus is such that funds would be available to meet further planning obligations including any future increase in the CIL charge.
Page | 98
6.0 VIABILITY RESULTS AND POLICY IMPACTS
Northallerton Inner (Zone 2)
Cumulative Surplus (per sq.m) Impact on Surplus (per sq.m) Dwelling No. 30% Inc Inc Inc M4 Scheme Ave Size CIL S106 M4 (2)/(3a) Dwellings Affordable CIL S106 (2)/(3a) (sq.m) 1 5 97 £107 £55 £41 £31 -£52 -£13 -£10
2 10 93 -£151 -£203 -£223 -£236 -£51 -£20 -£13 3 25 92 -£136 -£186 -£205 -£218 -£50 -£19 -£14 4 50 92 -£84 -£134 -£152 -£165 -£50 -£18 -£13 5 75 92 -£50 -£102 -£120 -£132 -£52 -£17 -£13 6 100 92 -£48 -£97 -£115 -£127 -£49 -£17 -£13 7 250 92 -£43 -£91 -£107 -£128 -£49 -£16 -£21 Table 6.3: Brownfield (30 DPH)
Cumulative Surplus (per sq.m) Impact on Surplus (per sq.m) Dwelling No. 30% Inc Inc Inc M4 Scheme Ave Size CIL S106 M4 (2)/(3a) Dwellings Affordable CIL S106 (2)/(3a) (sq.m) 1 5 97 £159 £107 £93 £84 -£52 -£13 -£10 2 10 93 -£79 -£131 -£150 -£164 -£51 -£19 -£14
3 25 92 -£61 -£111 -£130 -£143 -£50 -£19 -£14 4 50 92 -£9 -£59 -£77 -£90 -£50 -£18 -£13 5 75 92 £22 -£27 -£44 -£57 -£49 -£17 -£13 6 100 92 £26 -£23 -£40 -£53 -£49 -£17 -£13 7 250 92 £30 -£18 -£34 -£55 -£49 -£16 -£21 Table 6.4: Brownfield (35 DPH)
Page | 99
6.0 VIABILITY RESULTS AND POLICY IMPACTS
Northallerton Inner (Zone 2) (20% Affordable Housing)
Cumulative Surplus (per sq.m) Impact on Surplus (per sq.m) Dwelling No. 20% Inc Inc Inc M4 Scheme Ave Size CIL S106 M4 (2)/(3a) Dwellings Affordable CIL S106 (2)/(3a) (sq.m) 1 5 97 £107 £55 £41 £31 -£52 -£13 -£10 2 10 93 -£35 -£86 -£103 -£115 -£51 -£17 -£12 3 25 93 £0 -£49 -£66 -£77 -£50 -£16 -£12 4 50 93 £38 -£12 -£27 -£39 -£50 -£16 -£12 5 75 92 £40 -£9 -£25 -£36 -£49 -£16 -£12 6 100 92 £48 -£1 -£17 -£28 -£49 -£15 -£11 7 250 92 £47 -£2 -£16 -£33 -£49 -£14 -£17 Table 6.5: Brownfield (30 DPH) – 20% Affordable Housing
Cumulative Surplus (per sq.m) Impact on Surplus (per sq.m) Dwelling No. 20% Inc Inc Inc M4 Scheme Ave Size CIL S106 M4 (2)/(3a) Dwellings Affordable CIL S106 (2)/(3a) (sq.m) 1 5 97 £159 £107 £93 £84 -£52 -£13 -£10
2 10 93 £30 -£21 -£38 -£50 -£50 -£17 -£12 3 25 93 £65 £15 -£1 -£13 -£50 -£16 -£12 4 50 93 £103 £53 £37 £26 -£50 -£16 -£12 5 75 92 £107 £58 £43 £31 -£49 -£16 -£12 6 100 92 £114 £65 £50 £39 -£49 -£15 -£11 7 250 92 £112 £64 £49 £32 -£49 -£14 -£17 Table 6.6: Brownfield (35 DPH) – 20% Affordable Housing
Page | 100
6.0 VIABILITY RESULTS AND POLICY IMPACTS
Northallerton Inner (Zone 2) (10% Affordable Housing)
Cumulative Surplus (per sq.m) Impact on Surplus (per sq.m) Dwelling No. 10% Inc Inc Inc M4 Scheme Ave Size CIL S106 M4 (2)/(3a) Dwellings Affordable CIL S106 (2)/(3a) (sq.m) 1 5 97 £107 £55 £41 £31 -£52 -£13 -£10
2 10 94 £68 £18 £4 -£7 -£50 -£15 -£11 3 25 94 £68 £18 £3 -£8 -£50 -£15 -£11 4 50 94 £119 £70 £55 £45 -£50 -£14 -£10 5 75 93 £114 £66 £51 £41 -£49 -£14 -£10 6 100 93 £124 £75 £61 £51 -£49 -£14 -£10 7 250 93 £119 £70 £58 £43 -£49 -£13 -£15 Table 6.7: Brownfield (30 DPH) – 10% Affordable Housing
Cumulative Surplus (per sq.m) Impact on Surplus (per sq.m) Dwelling No. 10% Inc Inc Inc M4 Scheme Ave Size CIL S106 M4 (2)/(3a) Dwellings Affordable CIL S106 (2)/(3a) (sq.m) 1 5 97 £159 £107 £93 £84 -£52 -£13 -£10 2 10 94 £125 £76 £61 £50 -£50 -£15 -£11
3 25 94 £128 £78 £64 £53 -£50 -£15 -£11 4 50 94 £179 £129 £115 £104 -£50 -£14 -£10 5 75 93 £176 £127 £113 £102 -£49 -£14 -£10 6 100 93 £184 £135 £121 £111 -£49 -£14 -£10 7 250 93 £178 £129 £117 £102 -£49 -£13 -£15 Table 6.8: Brownfield (35 DPH) – 10% Affordable Housing
Page | 101
6.0 VIABILITY RESULTS AND POLICY IMPACTS
Northallerton (Inner) (Zone 2) – Brownfield
6.27 We have then considered the viability of brownfield development sites in the four market towns of Northallerton, Thirsk, Bedale (and Aiskew) and Stokesley and their ability to support local plan requirements. As noted in table 4.8 values in the market towns are broadly similar save for the inner part of Northallerton where the available evidence suggests that values are slightly lower. We have firstly considered viability in this lower value area of Northallerton.
6.28 Tables 6.3 and 6.4 contain the results of our testing on the basis of 30% affordable housing. Again scheme 1 at 5 dwellings is not subject to any affordable housing provision and the results show that this scheme is viable based on the cumulative policy requirements. The respective surpluses are £31 per sq.m at 30 dwellings per hectare and £84 per sq.m at 35 dph.
6.29 With reference to table 6.3, the results of our testing at 30 dph show that based on the requirement for 30% affordable housing alone, the typologies tested are not currently viable. The deficits range from -£151 per sq.m for the 10 dwelling scheme to -£43 per sq.m for the 250 unit scheme. Based on the cumulative policy position the deficits increase to a range of between -£236 and -£127 per sq.m.
6.30 It is likely that development on brownfield sites in Northallerton and the other market towns will be at densities greater than 30 dwellings per hectare. Indeed the current Local Development Framework identifies a density of 40 dwellings per hectare for brownfield sites in Northallerton, and in fact higher densities could realistically be achieved for sustainable sites around the town centre. With reference to table 3.3 the scheme known as Mulberry Vale was constructed at a density of 33 dph and the Mowberry Park/Castlegate development was at 36 dph. These are higher density developments that have in the past taken place in the town. However with reference to the planning application analysis at Appendix 4 these two developments predominantly comprise 3 and 4 bed dwellings. They do not meet the current policy requirement for a mix of house sizes that includes a high proportion of smaller dwellings. The application of this mix requirement means that higher densities would in future be achieved on sites such as those at Mulberry Value and Mowberry Park/Castlegate. With this in mind it is considered that the testing at 35 dph is more relevant to the brownfield sites within the market towns, and in fact there is potential for development in these locations to take place at even higher densities.
Page | 102
6.0 VIABILITY RESULTS AND POLICY IMPACTS
6.31 The results of the testing for the inner part of Northallerton at 35 dph are contained in table 6.4 and show an improvement in viability with half of the schemes tested viable with 30% affordable housing. Once the CIL charge is accounted for these schemes become unviable. At the cumulative policy position all schemes are unviable with the range of deficits from - £164 to -£53 per sq.m.
6.32 Given the results of the testing based on 30% affordable housing provision, we have gone on to consider viability based on lower thresholds of affordable housing. The results of the testing inclusive of 20% affordable housing are contained in tables 6.5 and 6.6. At 30 dph the testing shows that all schemes save for the 10 dwelling scheme are viable with 20% affordable housing. Once CIL is added however, the results show that development becomes unviable with deficits ranging from -£86 to a figure of -£1 per sq.m. The results are marginal and in fact four of the results on this basis have deficits of only £12 per sq.m or less. This is equivalent to less than 1% of GDV and indicates that these four typologies are very close to breaking even on this basis.
6.33 At the cumulative policy position the deficits increase and range from -£115 to -£28 per sq.m. The results of the testing at 30 dph indicate that based on a reduced level of affordable housing at 20% the typologies tested would not be sufficiently viable to support the cumulative policy requirements.
6.34 The testing at 35 dph which is more appropriate for these inner Northallerton locations demonstrates an improvement in viability. Inclusive of 20% affordable housing all of the schemes tested are viable. With CIL included all of the schemes remain viable save for the 10 dwelling scheme which has a deficit of -£21 per sq.m. At the cumulative policy position four of the typologies are viable and the 10 and 25 dwelling schemes are in deficit. These results suggest that at a realistic development density of 35 dph the majority of developments in the inner parts of Northallerton could support 20% affordable housing and the cumulative plan policy requirements (including CIL at £55 per sq.m). Viability may be more challenging for the smaller developments in these locations and some flexibility may be required in these cases when establishing planning obligations.
6.35 For completeness viability assessments have also been prepared based on 10% affordable provision. The results are contained in tables 6.7 and 6.8. At 30 dph all of the typologies are sufficiently financially viable to support this level of provision together with CIL and a residual S106 contribution. Once requirements for M4 (2) are taken into account then the smaller schemes of 10 and 25 dwellings become unviable.
6.36 At 35 dph the results in table 6.8 show that assuming 10% affordable provision and the cumulative plan policy requirements all typologies tested are viable.
Page | 103
6.0 VIABILITY RESULTS AND POLICY IMPACTS
6.37 Viability is more challenging in the inner part of Northallerton as a result of the higher land costs, and slightly lower house prices than elsewhere in the market towns. The results of our testing suggest that at the present time it may be difficult to achieve 30% affordable housing together with all Local Plan requirements and CIL. The majority of development on brownfield sites in the market towns is likely to take place at a higher density, typically at 35 dph or higher. On this basis our testing shows that in Inner Northallerton the majority of development is sufficiently viable to support 20% affordable housing, local plan requirements and CIL at the current level of £55 per sq.m. There are nevertheless still some unviable results on this basis with the two smaller schemes having more limited viability to support other planning requirements once affordable housing is taken into account.
6.38 The impact of the housing mix policy is evident in the results for Inner Northallerton. The inclusion of a relatively high number of smaller dwellings means that at lower densities of 30 dph, the site coverage is relatively poor at around 12,000 sq.ft per acre when compared with a housebuilders optimum position at around 13,000 to 14,000 sq.ft and the District average of 13,604 sq.ft. Viability therefore improves at higher densities which is demonstrated in the results of the testing at 35 dph which gives a more typical site coverage at around 14,000 sq.ft.
6.39 There are currently no housing allocations proposed in the inner parts of Northallerton and the Council will need to be mindful of the extent to which any new development is likely to take place here. Potentially some windfall sites may come forward in the future and the Council may need to be flexible in negotiating the housing mix and in the application of plan requirements in particular the level of affordable housing that is required in this location.
Page | 104
6.0 VIABILITY RESULTS AND POLICY IMPACTS
Northallerton/Thirsk (Zone 3)
Cumulative Surplus (per sq.m) Impact on Surplus (per sq.m) Dwelling No. 30% Inc Inc Inc M4 Scheme Ave Size CIL S106 M4 (2)/(3a) Dwellings Affordable CIL S106 (2)/(3a) (sq.m) 1 5 97 £216 £164 £150 £140 -£52 -£13 -£10
2 10 93 -£38 -£89 -£108 -£121 -£51 -£19 -£14 3 25 92 -£35 -£85 -£103 -£117 -£50 -£19 -£14 4 50 92 £15 -£34 -£53 -£66 -£50 -£18 -£13 5 75 92 £45 -£4 -£22 -£34 -£49 -£17 -£13 6 100 92 £48 -£1 -£18 -£31 -£49 -£17 -£13 7 250 92 £47 -£2 -£18 -£39 -£49 -£16 -£21 Table 6.9: Brownfield (30 DPH)
Cumulative Surplus (per sq.m) Impact on Surplus (per sq.m) Dwelling No. 30% Inc Inc Inc M4 Scheme Ave Size CIL S106 M4 (2)/(3a) Dwellings Affordable CIL S106 (2)/(3a) (sq.m) 1 5 97 £268 £216 £203 £193 -£52 -£13 -£10 2 10 93 £30 -£21 -£39 -£53 -£50 -£19 -£14
3 25 92 £40 -£10 -£28 -£42 -£50 -£19 -£14 4 50 92 £90 £41 £22 £9 -£50 -£18 -£13 5 75 92 £120 £71 £54 £41 -£49 -£17 -£13 6 100 92 £122 £74 £56 £44 -£49 -£17 -£13 7 250 92 £120 £71 £55 £34 -£49 -£16 -£21 Table 6.10: Brownfield (35 DPH)
Page | 105
6.0 VIABILITY RESULTS AND POLICY IMPACTS
Northallerton/Thirsk (Zone 3) (20% Affordable Housing)
Cumulative Surplus (per sq.m) Impact on Surplus (per sq.m) Dwelling No. 20% Inc Inc Inc M4 Scheme Ave Size CIL S106 M4 (2)/(3a) Dwellings Affordable CIL S106 (2)/(3a) (sq.m) 1 5 97 £216 £164 £150 £140 -£52 -£13 -£10
2 10 93 £76 £26 £10 -£2 -£50 -£16 -£12 3 25 93 £102 £53 £37 £25 -£50 -£16 -£12 4 50 93 £138 £89 £73 £61 -£50 -£16 -£12 5 75 92 £138 £89 £74 £62 -£49 -£16 -£12 6 100 92 £145 £96 £81 £69 -£49 -£15 -£11 7 250 92 £137 £88 £74 £57 -£49 -£14 -£17 Table 6.11: Brownfield (30 DPH) – 20% Affordable Housing
Cumulative Surplus (per sq.m) Impact on Surplus (per sq.m) Dwelling No. 20% Inc Inc Inc M4 Scheme Ave Size CIL S106 M4 (2)/(3a) Dwellings Affordable CIL S106 (2)/(3a) (sq.m) 1 5 97 £268 £216 £203 £193 -£52 -£13 -£10 2 10 93 £137 £88 £71 £59 -£50 -£16 -£12
3 25 93 £167 £117 £101 £89 -£50 -£16 -£12 4 50 93 £203 £153 £137 £126 -£50 -£16 -£12 5 75 92 £206 £157 £141 £130 -£49 -£16 -£12 6 100 92 £211 £163 £147 £136 -£49 -£15 -£11 7 250 92 £202 £153 £139 £122 -£49 -£14 -£17 Table 6.12: Brownfield (35 DPH) – 20% Affordable Housing
Page | 106
6.0 VIABILITY RESULTS AND POLICY IMPACTS
Northallerton (Outer)/Thirsk (Zone 3) - Brownfield
6.40 Tables 6.9 and 6.10 contain the results of the testing for brownfield sites, on the basis of 30% affordable housing, in the outer areas of Northallerton and also the market town of Thirsk. Here houses prices are higher than in the inner parts of Northallerton and hence the testing reflects this increase in house prices with an improvement in viability in comparison with inner Northallerton. Again scheme 1 at 5 dwellings is not subject to any affordable housing provision and the results show that this scheme is viable based on the cumulative policy requirements. The respective surpluses are £140 per sq.m at 30 dwellings per hectare and £193 per sq.m at 35 dph.
6.41 With reference to table 6.9, the results of our testing at 30 dph show that based on the requirement for 30% affordable housing alone, all of the typologies tested are viable save for the two smaller schemes of 10 and 25 dwellings. The deficits for these schemes at -£38 and -£35 per sq.m equate to less than 1.5% of GDV. This indicates that the results for these typologies are marginal and a relatively limited reduction in costs or increase in revenues would lead to a viable development.
6.42 The results show that once the CIL payment of £55 per sq.m is included then all typologies tested at 30 dph become unviable. However the losses in 4 of the 6 results are very limited at -£34 to -£1 per sq.m (equivalent to between 1.26% and 0.03% of GDV). Based on the cumulative policy position the deficits increase to a range of between -£121 and -£31 per sq.m. In all cases this is equivalent to less than 4.5% of GDV and for 4 of the 6 results the loss is equivalent to 2.4% or less of GDV.
6.43 As noted at para 6.30 it is likely that developments on brownfield sites in Northallerton and the other market towns are likely to be at higher densities than 30 dph and hence it is considered that the testing at 35dph is more relevant to the brownfield sites within the market towns. The results of the testing for the outer areas of Northallerton together with Thirsk at 35dph are contained in table 6.10. The results show a considerable improvement in viability with all of the schemes tested viable with 30% affordable housing. Once the CIL charge is accounted for the two smallest schemes of 10 and 25 dwellings become unviable with limited deficits of -£21 and -£10 per sq.m (equivalent to 0.76% and 0.35% of GDV). At the cumulative policy position all schemes (save for the two small schemes) are viable with surpluses ranging from £9 to £44 per sq.m.
Page | 107
6.0 VIABILITY RESULTS AND POLICY IMPACTS
6.44 As there were some unviable results based on 30% affordable housing provision, particularly at the lower density of 30 dph, we have gone on to consider viability based on reduced thresholds of affordable housing. The results of the testing inclusive of 20% affordable housing are contained in tables 6.11 and 6.12.
6.45 At 30 dph the testing shows that all schemes are viable based on the cumulative policy position save for the 10 dwellings scheme. At the cumulative policy position, this scheme demonstrates a very small loss of -£2 per sq.m, this is less than 0.1% of GDV. The schemes of 50 dwellings or more have surpluses of £57 to £69 per sq.m, and this would be sufficient to fund further planning obligations in the form of higher levels of affordable housing.
6.46 The testing at 35 dph demonstrates an improvement in viability. Inclusive of 20% affordable housing and the cumulative plan policies all of the schemes tested are viable. The surpluses range from £59 to £136 per sq.m.
6.48 Viability is more limited on brownfield sites in comparison with Greenfield sites in the outer parts of Northallerton and also Thirsk due to higher land costs. The results of our testing show that at lower development densities of 30 dph it may not be possible to achieve 30% affordable housing together with all Local Plan requirements and CIL. Although many of the developments tested can comfortably achieve 20% affordable housing and all plan policies. If development does take place in these locations at a lower density then to achieve all policy requirements including CIL, the Council may need to accept a relatively small reduction in the level of affordable housing/other planning contributions or an alternative housing mix.
6.49 The majority of development on brownfield sites in the market towns is likely to take place at a higher density, more typically around 35 dph. On this basis our testing shows that in outer Northallerton and in Thirsk, the majority of development is sufficiently viable to support 30% affordable housing, local plan requirements and CIL at the current level of £55 per sq.m. There are however two unviable results on this basis with the two smaller schemes having more limited viability to support other planning requirements once affordable housing is taken into account.
6.50 There are currently no housing allocations proposed on brownfield sites in the outer parts of Northallerton and in Thirsk. The Council will need to be mindful of the extent to which any new development is likely to take place here. Potentially some windfall sites may come forward in the future and the Council may need to be flexible in the application of plan requirements in particular the housing mix or level of affordable housing that is required in these locations. However based on a realistic development density our testing demonstrates that it is only likely to be the smaller developments for which a more flexible approach may be required in the application of local plan requirements.
Page | 108
6.0 VIABILITY RESULTS AND POLICY IMPACTS
Beadale/Aiskew/Stokesley (Zone 3)
Cumulative Surplus (per sq.m) Impact on Surplus (per sq.m) Dwelling No. 30% Inc Inc Inc M4 Scheme Ave Size CIL S106 M4 (2)/(3a) Dwellings Affordable CIL S106 (2)/(3a) (sq.m) 1 5 97 £255 £203 £190 £180 -£52 -£13 -£10
2 10 93 £16 -£35 -£53 -£67 -£51 -£19 -£14 3 25 92 £22 -£28 -£46 -£60 -£50 -£19 -£14 4 50 92 £72 £23 £5 -£9 -£50 -£18 -£13 5 75 92 £101 £52 £34 £22 -£49 -£17 -£13 6 100 92 £104 £56 £38 £26 -£49 -£17 -£13 7 250 92 £103 £54 £38 £18 -£49 -£16 -£21 Table 6.13: Brownfield (30 DPH)
Cumulative Surplus (per sq.m) Impact on Surplus (per sq.m) Dwelling No. 30% Inc Inc Inc M4 Scheme Ave Size CIL S106 M4 (2)/(3a) Dwellings Affordable CIL S106 (2)/(3a) (sq.m) 1 5 97 £301 £250 £236 £226 -£52 -£13 -£10 2 10 93 £77 £26 £8 -£6 -£50 -£19 -£14
3 25 92 £89 £39 £21 £7 -£50 -£19 -£14 4 50 92 £139 £90 £71 £58 -£50 -£18 -£13 5 75 92 £168 £119 £101 £89 -£49 -£17 -£13 6 100 92 £171 £122 £105 £92 -£49 -£17 -£13 7 250 92 £168 £119 £103 £82 -£49 -£16 -£21 Table 6.14: Brownfield (35 DPH)
Page | 109
6.0 VIABILITY RESULTS AND POLICY IMPACTS
Beadale/Aiskew/Stokesley (Zone 3) (20% Affordable Housing)
Cumulative Surplus (per sq.m) Impact on Surplus (per sq.m) Dwelling No. 20% Inc Inc Inc M4 Scheme Ave Size CIL S106 M4 (2)/(3a) Dwellings Affordable CIL S106 (2)/(3a) (sq.m) 1 5 97 £255 £203 £190 £180 -£52 -£13 -£10 2 10 93 £125 £75 £59 £47 -£50 -£16 -£12 3 25 93 £152 £102 £86 £74 -£50 -£16 -£12 4 50 93 £188 £138 £123 £111 -£50 -£16 -£12 5 75 92 £188 £139 £124 £112 -£49 -£16 -£12 6 100 92 £195 £146 £131 £120 -£49 -£15 -£11 7 250 92 £187 £138 £124 £107 -£49 -£14 -£17 Table 6.15: Brownfield (30 DPH) – 20% Affordable Housing
Cumulative Surplus (per sq.m) Impact on Surplus (per sq.m) Dwelling No. 20% Inc Inc Inc M4 Scheme Ave Size CIL S106 M4 (2)/(3a) Dwellings Affordable CIL S106 (2)/(3a) (sq.m) 1 5 97 £301 £250 £236 £226 -£52 -£13 -£10
2 10 93 £180 £130 £114 £102 -£50 -£16 -£12 3 25 93 £210 £160 £144 £132 -£50 -£16 -£12 4 50 93 £246 £196 £180 £168 -£50 -£16 -£12 5 75 92 £249 £200 £184 £173 -£49 -£16 -£12 6 100 92 £255 £206 £190 £179 -£49 -£15 -£11 7 250 92 £245 £196 £182 £165 -£49 -£14 -£17 Table 6.16: Brownfield (35 DPH) – 20% Affordable Housing
Page | 110
6.0 VIABILITY RESULTS AND POLICY IMPACTS
Bedale (and Aiskew)/Stokesley (Zone 3) - Brownfield
6.51 Tables 6.13 and 6.14 contain the results of the testing for brownfield sites, on the basis of 30% affordable housing, in the market towns of Bedale (including Aiskew) and Stokesley. With reference to table 4.8 houses prices here are similar to those in Northallerton and Thirsk however as noted at para 5.25 lower benchmark land values have been adopted as there is likely to be less competition from higher value land uses in these locations. Again scheme 1 at 5 dwellings is not subject to any affordable housing provision and the results show that this scheme is viable based on the cumulative policy requirements. The respective surpluses are £180 per sq.m at 30 dwellings per hectare and £226 per sq.m at 35 dph.
6.52 With reference to table 6.13, the results of our testing at 30 dph show that based on the requirement for 30% affordable housing alone, all of the typologies tested are viable with surpluses ranging from £16 to £104 per sq.m. Once the CIL payment of £55 per sq.m is included then the two smallest typologies tested (10 and 25 dwellings) at 30 dph become unviable. The losses are fairly limited at -£35 and -£28 per sq.m (equivalent to between 1.28% and 1.02% of GDV). Based on the cumulative policy position all of the schemes are viable save for these two smaller schemes and the 50 dwelling scheme which also becomes unviable with a small loss of -£9 per sq.m.
6.53 As noted at para 6.30 it is likely that developments on brownfield sites in the market towns are likely to be at higher densities than 30 dph and hence it is considered that the testing at 35dph is more relevant to the brownfield sites within the market towns.
6.54 The results of the testing for Bedale (including Aiskew) and Stokesley on this basis are contained in table 6.14. The results show a considerable improvement in viability with all of the schemes tested viable with based on the cumulative policy position including 30% affordable housing and CIL at £55 per sq.m. The results for the 10 dwelling scheme show that it is able to support 30% affordable housing, CIL and a residual S106 payment however once requirements for M4 (2) are included it leads to a minor deficit which is -£6 per sq.m or 0.22% of GDV.
6.55 As there were a limited number of unviable results based on 30% affordable housing provision, principally at the lower density of 30 dph, we have gone on to consider viability based on reduced thresholds of affordable housing. The results of the testing inclusive of 20% affordable housing are contained in tables 6.15 and 6.16.
Page | 111
6.0 VIABILITY RESULTS AND POLICY IMPACTS
6.56 At both 30 dph and 35 dph the testing shows that all schemes are viable based on the cumulative policy position. In all cases there are surpluses, £47 to £120 per sq.m at 30 dph and £102 to 179 per sq.m at 35 dph, sufficient to fund further planning obligations in the form of higher levels of affordable housing. This is demonstrated by the results based on 30% affordable housing provision where the majority of schemes are viable based on the cumulative plan policies.
6.57 Viability is slightly more limited on brownfield sites in comparison with greenfield sites in Bedale (including Aiskew) and Stokesley due to higher land costs. The results of our testing show that at lower development densities of 30 dph it may not be possible to achieve 30% affordable housing together with all Local Plan requirements and CIL for the smaller typologies tested (10, 25 and 50 dwellings). Although these typologies can comfortably achieve 20% affordable housing and all plan policies. If development of smaller sites does take place in these locations at a lower density then to achieve all policy requirements including CIL, the Council may need to accept a relatively small reduction in the level of affordable housing, or perhaps an alternative housing mix.
6.58 The majority of development on brownfield sites in the market towns is likely to take place at a higher density, more typically around 35 dph. On this basis our testing shows that in Bedale (including Aiskew) and Stokesley, housing development is sufficiently viable to support 30% affordable housing, local plan requirements and CIL at the current level of £55 per sq.m. There is one unviable result on this basis for the smallest scheme of 10 dwellings, however the level of loss at £6 per sq.m (0.22% of GDV) is minor and unlikely to prevent development of this site coming forward on this basis.
6.59 There are currently no housing allocations proposed on brownfield sites in Bedale (including Aiskew) or Stokesley. The Council will need to be mindful of the extent to which any new development is likely to take place here. However based on a realistic development density our testing demonstrates that it is only likely to be the smallest developments at the affordable housing threshold of 10 dwellings for which a more flexible approach may be required in the application of local plan requirements.
Page | 112
6.0 VIABILITY RESULTS AND POLICY IMPACTS
Easingwold (Zone 5)
Cumulative Surplus (per sq.m) Impact on Surplus (per sq.m) Dwelling No. 30% Inc Inc Inc M4 Scheme Ave Size CIL S106 M4 (2)/(3a) Dwellings Affordable CIL S106 (2)/(3a) (sq.m) 1 5 97 £611 £560 £547 £538 -£51 -£13 -£10
2 10 93 £409 £359 £341 £327 -£50 -£18 -£13 3 25 92 £370 £320 £302 £288 -£50 -£19 -£14 4 50 92 £394 £344 £326 £313 -£50 -£18 -£13 5 75 92 £419 £370 £353 £340 -£49 -£17 -£13 6 100 92 £405 £356 £339 £326 -£49 -£17 -£13 7 250 92 £354 £305 £289 £268 -£49 -£16 -£21 Table 6.17: Greenfield (30 DPH)
Cumulative Surplus (per sq.m) Impact on Surplus (per sq.m) Dwelling No. 30% Inc Inc Inc M4 Scheme Ave Size CIL S106 M4 (2)/(3a) Dwellings Affordable CIL S106 (2)/(3a) (sq.m) 1 5 97 £649 £598 £585 £576 -£51 -£13 -£10 2 10 93 £461 £412 £392 £380 -£50 -£19 -£12
3 25 92 £424 £374 £356 £342 -£50 -£19 -£14 4 50 92 £449 £400 £382 £368 -£50 -£18 -£13 5 75 92 £475 £426 £409 £396 -£49 -£17 -£13 6 100 92 £461 £412 £395 £383 -£49 -£17 -£13 7 250 92 £407 £359 £343 £322 -£49 -£16 -£21 Table 6.18: Greenfield (35 DPH)
Page | 113
6.0 VIABILITY RESULTS AND POLICY IMPACTS
Easingwold (Zone 5)
Cumulative Surplus (per sq.m) Impact on Surplus (per sq.m) Dwelling No. 30% Inc Inc Inc M4 Scheme Ave Size CIL S106 M4 (2)/(3a) Dwellings Affordable CIL S106 (2)/(3a) (sq.m) 1 5 97 £504 £453 £440 £430 -£51 -£13 -£10
2 10 93 £267 £218 £199 £186 -£50 -£18 -£13 3 25 92 £260 £210 £192 £178 -£50 -£19 -£14 4 50 92 £306 £257 £239 £225 -£50 -£18 -£13 5 75 92 £331 £282 £265 £252 -£49 -£17 -£13 6 100 92 £331 £282 £265 £252 -£49 -£17 -£13 7 250 92 £312 £263 £248 £227 -£49 -£16 -£21 Table 6.19: Brownfield (30 DPH)
Cumulative Surplus (per sq.m) Impact on Surplus (per sq.m) Dwelling No. 30% Inc Inc Inc M4 Scheme Ave Size CIL S106 M4 (2)/(3a) Dwellings Affordable CIL S106 (2)/(3a) (sq.m) 1 5 97 £550 £499 £486 £477 -£51 -£13 -£10 2 10 93 £328 £278 £260 £247 -£50 -£18 -£13
3 25 92 £327 £277 £259 £245 -£50 -£19 -£14 4 50 92 £373 £324 £305 £292 -£50 -£18 -£13 5 75 92 £398 £349 £332 £319 -£49 -£17 -£13 6 100 92 £397 £348 £331 £318 -£49 -£17 -£13 7 250 92 £377 £328 £312 £292 -£49 -£16 -£21 Table 6.20: Brownfield (35 DPH)
Page | 114
6.0 VIABILITY RESULTS AND POLICY IMPACTS
Easingwold (Zone 5) – Greenfield and Brownfield
6.60 We have summarised below the main points from the viability testing of greenfield and brownfield sites around the market town of Easingwold. As noted in table 4.8 house prices are highest in Easingwold in comparison with the other market towns and the results of our testing illustrate the effect of these higher sales prices.
6.61 Tables 6.17 and 6.18 contain the results of the testing for greenfield sites. In each case scheme 1 is not subject to any affordable housing requirements and is viable based on the cumulative plan policy requirements including a CIL payment of £55 per sq.m. The surplus based on the cumulative position at 30 dph is £538 per sq.m and at 35 dph is £576 per sq.m.
6.62 The testing in relation to the remaining greenfield typologies inclusive of 30% affordable housing shows that based on the cumulative policy position all schemes are viable. At 30 dph the level of surplus ranges from £268 to £340 per sq.m, whilst at 35 dph the level of surplus is from £322 to £396 per sq.m.
6.63 The testing undertaken for brownfield sites shows a similar position with all schemes viable, although as a result of the higher land costs the surplus is less. The results are contained in tables 6.19 and 6.20. Again scheme 1 is not subject to any affordable housing requirements and is viable based on the cumulative plan position with surpluses of £430 per sq.m and £477 per sq.m at 30 and 35 dph respectively.
6.64 With reference to the remaining results for brownfield typologies inclusive of 30% affordable housing then based on the cumulative policy position all schemes are viable. At 30 dph the level of surplus ranges from £178 to £252 per sq.m, whilst at 35 dph the level of surplus is from £245 to £319 per sq.m.
6.65 The testing shows that in Easingwold all schemes tested (greenfield and brownfield) can achieve all plan requirements and local standards and still provide a surplus. As noted at para 6.24 that surplus is the amount over and above the pre-existing and proposed policy requirements and the existing CIL charge of £55 per sq.m. The generic testing is necessarily at a high level based on as yet unknown sites, therefore in the event that any currently unknown site specific costs were encountered in relation to the development of these sites then that surplus would provide a further contingency sum. Alternatively the surplus would be available to meet any further planning obligations including any future increases in the CIL charge.
Page | 115
6.0 VIABILITY RESULTS AND POLICY IMPACTS
6.66 The impact of individual requirements on viability is similar in Easingwold to the rest of the District. In line with the other results the requirement for a CIL contribution of £55 per sq.m has the greatest impact on viability with a reduction in the level of surplus of between £49 and £51 per sq.m. The residual S106 contribution of £1,500 per dwelling has a more limited impact, reducing viability by between £13 and £19 per sq.m. Finally requirements to achieve M4 (2) for all dwellings results in a reduction in the level of surplus of between £10 and £14 per sq.m. Once requirements in relation to M4 (3a) are added (for the largest scheme tested) then the impact increases to £21 per sq.m.
6.67 In summary the viability testing of greenfield and brownfield sites in the market town of Easingwold shows that development is viable and able to support all pre-existing and proposed policy requirements, and the current CIL charge of £55 per sq.m. Once these requirements are taken into account the level of surplus is such that funds would be available to meet further planning obligations including any future increase in the CIL charge.
Summary – Market Towns
6.68 We have summarised the key themes arising from the viability testing of generic typologies in and round the market towns:
Greenfield sites are viable and the level of surplus is sufficient to meet further planning obligations such as increases in CIL. The amount of surplus is greatest in Easingwold in comparison with other market towns due to the higher house prices.
Viability varies with density. The housing mix that has been adopted for the viability assessments contains a relatively high proportion of 1 and 2 bed dwellings (47%). As a result, at lower densities of 30 dph, the site coverage is relatively low at around 12,000 sq.ft per acre when compared with a housebuilders optimum position at around 13,000 to 14,000 sq.ft and the District average of 13,604 sq.ft. Viability therefore improves based on the testing at 35 dph which gives a more typical site coverage at around 14,000 sq.ft.
Brownfield sites have more limited viability with higher land costs and in case of inner Northallerton lower house prices.
Page | 116
6.0 VIABILITY RESULTS AND POLICY IMPACTS
Inner Northallerton (brownfield) - At the present time it may be difficult to achieve 30% affordable housing together with all Local Plan requirements and CIL. At a typical development density of 35 dph the majority of housing development is sufficiently viable to support 20% affordable housing, local plan requirements and CIL at the current level of £55 per sq.m. The two smaller schemes (10 and 25 dwellings) have more limited viability to support other planning requirements and a flexible approach may be required in the application of local plan requirements including the housing mix.
Northallerton (outer)/Thirsk (brownfield) – At a typical development density of 35 dph the majority of housing development is sufficiently viable to support 30% affordable housing, local plan requirements and CIL at the current level of £55 per sq.m. The two smaller schemes (10 and 25 dwellings) having more limited viability to support other planning requirements and a flexible approach may be required in the application of local plan requirements.
Bedale (and Aiskew) and Stokesley - At a typical development density of 35 dph, housing development is sufficiently viable to support 30% affordable housing, local plan requirements and CIL at the current level of £55 per sq.m. There is one unviable result on this basis for the smallest scheme of 10 dwellings, however the level of deficit at £6 per sq.m (0.22% of GDV) is marginal and unlikely to prevent development of this site coming forward on this basis.
Easingwold – housing development on brownfield sites is viable and able to support all pre-existing and proposed policy requirements, and the current CIL charge of £55 per sq.m. Once these requirements are taken into account the level of surplus is such that funds would be available to meet further planning obligations including any future increase in the CIL charge.
Page | 117
6.0 VIABILITY RESULTS AND POLICY IMPACTS
Rural Villages
Zone 1 – Leeming Bar
Cumulative Surplus (per sq.m) Impact on Surplus (per sq.m) Dwelling No. 30% Inc Inc Inc M4 Scheme Ave Size CIL S106 M4 (2)/(3a) Dwellings Affordable CIL S106 (2)/(3a) (sq.m) 8 5 97 -£109 -£163 -£180 -£192 -£54 -£17 -£12 9 10 95 -£61 -£114 -£133 -£147 -£53 -£19 -£14 10 15 92 -£97 -£149 -£167 -£181 -£52 -£18 -£14 11 25 92 -£71 -£122 -£141 -£155 -£52 -£19 -£14 Table 6.21: 30 Dwellings Per Hectare
Cumulative Surplus (per sq.m) Impact on Surplus (per sq.m) Dwelling No. 30% Inc Inc Inc M4 Scheme Ave Size CIL S106 M4 (2)/(3a) Dwellings Affordable CIL S106 (2)/(3a) (sq.m) 8 5 97 -£77 -£131 -£147 -£159 -£54 -£17 -£12 9 10 95 -£22 -£76 -£95 -£108 -£53 -£19 -£14 10 15 92 -£59 -£111 -£129 -£143 -£52 -£18 -£14 11 25 92 -£31 -£83 -£102 -£116 -£51 -£19 -£14 Table 6.22: 35 Dwellings Per Hectare
Page | 118
6.0 VIABILITY RESULTS AND POLICY IMPACTS
Zone 2 - Dalton
Cumulative Surplus (per sq.m) Impact on Surplus (per sq.m) Dwelling No. 30% Inc Inc Inc M4 Scheme Ave Size CIL S106 M4 (2)/(3a) Dwellings Affordable CIL S106 (2)/(3a) (sq.m) 8 5 97 £4 -£49 -£65 -£77 -£53 -£16 -£12
9 10 95 £68 £15 -£3 -£17 -£52 -£18 -£13 10 15 92 £25 -£26 -£44 -£57 -£50 -£18 -£13 11 25 92 £38 -£12 -£30 -£43 -£50 -£18 -£13 Table 6.23: 30 Dwellings Per Hectare
Cumulative Surplus (per sq.m) Impact on Surplus (per sq.m) Dwelling No. 30% Inc Inc Inc M4 Scheme Ave Size CIL S106 M4 (2)/(3a) Dwellings Affordable CIL S106 (2)/(3a) (sq.m) 8 5 97 £43 -£10 -£27 -£38 -£53 -£16 -£12 9 10 95 £113 £61 £43 £29 -£52 -£18 -£13 10 15 92 £70 £19 £2 -£12 -£50 -£18 -£13 11 25 92 £85 £35 £17 £4 -£50 -£18 -£13 Table 6.24: 35 Dwellings Per Hectare
Page | 119
6.0 VIABILITY RESULTS AND POLICY IMPACTS
Zone 3 - Great Ayton/South Otterington
Cumulative Surplus (per sq.m) Impact on Surplus (per sq.m) Dwelling No. 30% Inc Inc Inc M4 Scheme Ave Size CIL S106 M4 (2)/(3a) Dwellings Affordable CIL S106 (2)/(3a) (sq.m) 8 5 97 £100 £46 £30 £18 -£53 -£16 -£12
9 10 95 £174 £123 £105 £91 -£51 -£18 -£13 10 15 92 £121 £71 £54 £41 -£50 -£17 -£13 11 25 92 £137 £88 £70 £56 -£50 -£18 -£13 Table 6.25: 30 Dwellings Per Hectare
Cumulative Surplus (per sq.m) Impact on Surplus (per sq.m) Dwelling No. 30% Inc Inc Inc M4 Scheme Ave Size CIL S106 M4 (2)/(3a) Dwellings Affordable CIL S106 (2)/(3a) (sq.m) 8 5 97 £139 £85 £69 £57 -£53 -£16 -£12 9 10 95 £219 £168 £150 £137 -£51 -£18 -£13 10 15 92 £166 £116 £101 £86 -£50 -£15 -£15 11 25 92 £184 £135 £117 £103 -£50 -£18 -£13 Table 6.26: 35 Dwellings Per Hectare
Page | 120
6.0 VIABILITY RESULTS AND POLICY IMPACTS
Zone 4 – Burneston/West Tanfield/Huby
Cumulative Surplus (per sq.m) Impact on Surplus (per sq.m) Dwelling No. 30% Inc Inc Inc M4 Scheme Ave Size CIL S106 M4 (2)/(3a) Dwellings Affordable CIL S106 (2)/(3a) (sq.m) 8 5 97 £227 £174 £158 £147 -£52 -£16 -£12
9 10 95 £315 £264 £246 £233 -£51 -£18 -£13 10 15 92 £250 £201 £183 £170 -£50 -£17 -£13 11 25 92 £271 £221 £203 £190 -£50 -£18 -£13 Table 6.27: 30 Dwellings Per Hectare
Cumulative Surplus (per sq.m) Impact on Surplus (per sq.m) Dwelling No. 30% Inc Inc Inc M4 Scheme Ave Size CIL S106 M4 (2)/(3a) Dwellings Affordable CIL S106 (2)/(3a) (sq.m) 8 5 97 £265 £213 £197 £185 -£52 -£16 -£12 9 10 95 £360 £309 £291 £278 -£51 -£18 -£13 10 15 92 £295 £245 £228 £215 -£50 -£17 -£13 11 25 92 £318 £268 £250 £237 -£50 -£18 -£13 Table 6.28: 35 Dwellings Per Hectare
Page | 121
6.0 VIABILITY RESULTS AND POLICY IMPACTS
Zone 5 – Crakehall/Stillington
Cumulative Surplus (per sq.m) Impact on Surplus (per sq.m) Dwelling No. 30% Inc Inc Inc M4 Scheme Ave Size CIL S106 M4 (2)/(3a) Dwellings Affordable CIL S106 (2)/(3a) (sq.m) 8 5 97 £321 £269 £253 £241 -£52 -£16 -£12
9 10 95 £420 £369 £352 £338 -£51 -£18 -£13 10 15 92 £347 £298 £280 £267 -£50 -£17 -£13 11 25 92 £371 £321 £303 £290 -£50 -£18 -£13 Table 6.29: 30 Dwellings Per Hectare
Cumulative Surplus (per sq.m) Impact on Surplus (per sq.m) Dwelling No. 30% Inc Inc Inc M4 Scheme Ave Size CIL S106 M4 (2)/(3a) Dwellings Affordable CIL S106 (2)/(3a) (sq.m) 8 5 97 £360 £307 £291 £280 -£52 -£16 -£12 9 10 95 £466 £415 £397 £384 -£51 -£18 -£13 10 15 92 £392 £342 £325 £312 -£50 -£17 -£13 11 25 92 £418 £368 £350 £337 -£50 -£18 -£13 Table 6.30: 35 Dwellings Per Hectare
Page | 122
6.0 VIABILITY RESULTS AND POLICY IMPACTS
Rural Villages
6.69 With reference to table 4.10 viability assessments have been prepared for the generic village typologies based on the 5 value zones, albeit save for Leeming Bar and Dalton few villages are actually situated in value zones 1 and 2. As shown in table 4.10 most villages in the District, particularly those where new housing development is likely to take place are located in zones 3-5. For the proposed allocations in Leeming Bar in zone 1 a site specific viability assessment has in any event been prepared whilst there are no allocations proposed in Dalton in zone 2.
6.70 Policy HG 3 requires the provision of 30% affordable housing on sites of 5 dwellings or more in parishes defined as designated rural areas. Hence the testing undertaken for the smallest scheme of 5 dwellings is inclusive of 30% affordable housing provision. Having regard to the location, size and characteristics of the majority of village sites it is probable that new development would be undertaken by local and some regional house builders. It is also anticipated that the sales rate would be slower than in the market towns. As a result the construction cost assessments and the financial appraisals have been prepared to reflect these factors.
6.71 With reference to the results of the testing for generic sites in the rural villages we have summarised the key points in the paragraphs that follow.
Zone 1 – Leeming Bar 6.72 The results for the testing in zone 1 rural villages are contained in tables 6.21 and 6.22. With reference to table 6.21, the results of our testing at 30 dph show that based on the requirement for 30% affordable housing alone, the typologies tested are not currently viable. The deficits range from -£109 per sq.m for the 5 dwelling scheme to -£61 per sq.m for the 10 unit scheme. Based on the cumulative policy position the deficits increase to a range of between -£192 and -£147 per sq.m.
6.73 The results of the testing at 35dph are contained in table 6.22 and show an improvement in viability however the schemes tested are still unviable with 30% affordable housing. The level of deficit does however reduce with the range being -£77 to -£22 per sq.m. At the cumulative policy position the schemes tested are unviable with the range of deficits from -£159 to -£108 per sq.m.
Page | 123
6.0 VIABILITY RESULTS AND POLICY IMPACTS
6.74 Viability is more challenging in the zone 1 although only Leeming Bar is located in this zone and a site specific assessment of the proposed allocations has been undertaken. The lower level of viability here is as a result of the lowest house prices in the District and also the use of a slower sales rate, for the small village sites that form the generic testing. The results suggest that at the present time it may be difficult to achieve 30% affordable housing together with all Local Plan requirements and CIL in zone 1.
6.75 A site specific viability assessment has been prepared for the two allocations in Leeming Bar (LB 1 and LB 2), as these particular allocations are much larger than the typical smaller village development schemes that form the basis of the rural village testing. The outcome of this testing is considered in paras 6.91-6.93. With reference to the results for the generic testing for smaller sites the Council will need to be mindful of the extent to which any new development is likely to take place in Leeming Bar. If windfall sites are likely to come forward in the future then the Council may need to be flexible in the application of plan requirements in particular the level of affordable housing that is required in this location.
Zone 2 - Dalton 6.76 There are no allocations proposed in villages in zone 2. At paragraph 4.34 we have noted that the village of Dalton is in zone 2, however there may be a very small number of other villages in the Thirsk sub-area that fall into this category.
6.77 With reference to table 6.23, the results of the testing at 30 dph show that based on the requirement for 30% affordable housing alone, all of the typologies tested are viable with surpluses of between £4 and £68 per sq.m. The results show that once the CIL payment of £55 per sq.m is included then three of the four typologies tested at 30 dph become unviable. However the losses in 2 of the 3 results are very limited at -£26 and -£12 per sq.m (equivalent to between 1.02% and 0.46% of GDV). Based on the cumulative policy position all of the schemes tested become unviable with the deficits at between -£77 and -£17 per sq.m.
6.78 The results of the testing at 35dph are contained in table 6.24. The results show a considerable improvement in viability. All of the schemes tested are viable with 30% affordable housing. Once the CIL charge is accounted for only the smallest scheme of 5 dwellings becomes unviable with a deficit of -£10 per sq.m (equivalent to 0.44% of GDV). At the cumulative policy position two of the schemes are viable with surpluses ranging from £4 to £29 per sq.m, whilst two schemes are unviable with deficits of -£38 and -£12 per sq.m.
Page | 124
6.0 VIABILITY RESULTS AND POLICY IMPACTS
6.79 The testing shows that in these zone 2 locations, smaller developments in the villages are able to support 30% affordable housing. 50% of the typologies tested can also afford the CIL payment at £55 per sq.m and remain viable. In relation to the lower density development in particular, the Council may have to be flexible in relation to Local Plan policies as our testing indicates that based on a density of 30 dph these smaller developments are not viable at the cumulative policy position.
Zones 3, 4 and 5 - Great Ayton/ South Otterington/ Burneston/ West Tanfield/ Huby/ Crakehall/ Stillington 6.80 The majority of villages in the District fall into these zones, and the viability testing that has been undertaken for smaller rural sites in these locations shows that in all cases assuming 30% affordable housing, a CIL charge at £55 per sq.m and cumulative plan policy requirements development is viable. The level of viability obviously varies with value and the higher value locations have a greater degree of viability. As with the other generic testing undertaken density also has an impact on viability, with densities of 35 dph being more viable than 30 dph.
6.81 The results for zone 3 are contained at tables 6.25 and 6.26. At the cumulative policy position, the range of surpluses is from £18 up to £137 per sq.m dependent on density.
6.82 By comparison the results for zone 4 (tables 6.27 and 6.28) show an increase in the level of surplus at the cumulative policy position, with the range being £147 to £278 per sq.m.
6.83 The most viable results are for zone 5 where the level of surplus based on cumulative plan policies ranges from £241 to £384 per sq.m.
6.84 As noted earlier at para 6.24 the generic testing is necessarily at a high level based on as yet unknown sites, therefore in the event that any currently unknown site specific costs were encountered in relation to the development of these sites then the surplus would provide a further contingency sum. Alternatively the surplus would be available to meet any further planning obligations including any future increases in the CIL charge.
Page | 125
6.0 VIABILITY RESULTS AND POLICY IMPACTS
Summary – Villages
6.85 Summarised below are the key points arising from the generic testing that has been prepared for the smaller sites in the rural villages:
Zone 1 – only Leeming Bar is situated in this value zone. The testing shows that new housing development on smaller sites in Leeming Bar are unlikely to be able to support the cumulative policy requirements and some relaxation of policies, particularly the affordable housing policy is likely to be required. We have considered separately the viability of the much larger proposed allocation sites LB 1 and LB 2.
Zone 2 – testing has been included for zone 2 for completeness as no allocations are identified in zone 2 villages, which are primarily limited to Dalton. The viability testing shows that these sites can all support 30% affordable housing and in many cases CIL, however some limited flexibility may be required in policy requirements to enable some of the sites in these locations to be delivered.
Zones 3 - 5 – the majority of rural villages in the District are located in these zones and new housing development is viable and able to support all pre-existing and proposed policy requirements, and the current CIL charge of £55 per sq.m. Once these requirements are taken into account the level of surplus is such that in many cases funds would be available to meet further planning obligations including any future increase in the CIL charge.
Page | 126
6.0 VIABILITY RESULTS AND POLICY IMPACTS
Allocations
Cumulative Surplus (per sq.m) Impact on Surplus (per sq.m) Dwelling No. 30% Inc Inc Inc M4 Ref Ave Size CIL S106 M4 (2)/(3a) Dwellings Affordable CIL S106 (2)/(3a) (sq.m) NOR 1 840 92 £318 £262 £247 £227 -£56 -£15 -£20 TIS 1 110 92 £238 £189 £172 £160 -£49 -£17 -£13 TIS 2 50 91 £190 £140 £122 £109 -£50 -£18 -£13 TIS 3 45 92 £151 £101 £83 £70 -£50 -£18 -£13 AIB 1 85 92 £244 £195 £177 £165 -£49 -£17 -£13 AIB 2 60 92 £239 £190 £172 £159 -£50 -£18 -£13 EAS 1 125 92 £356 £307 £290 £278 -£49 -£17 -£12 STK 1 205 91 £266 £217 £201 £181 -£49 -£16 -£21 CAM 1 55 91 £223 £173 £155 £142 -£50 -£18 -£13 GTA 1 30 91 £31 -£19 -£36 -£49 -£50 -£18 -£13 LEB 1 85 92 £52 £3 -£15 -£27 -£49 -£17 -£13 LEB 2 80 91 £64 £15 -£3 -£16 -£49 -£18 -£13 SOT 1 40 91 £60 £10 -£7 -£20 -£50 -£18 -£13 Table 6.31: Allocations
Page | 127
6.0 VIABILITY RESULTS AND POLICY IMPACTS
Allocations
6.86 Details of the assumptions that have been made in preparing the viability assessments for the proposed allocations are contained at Appendix 8. Whilst the site specific construction cost assessments are contained in the QS report at Appendix 9.
6.87 All of the allocations are greenfield sites and those that have been tested have capacities in excess of 30 dwellings up to 840 dwellings. The majority of the allocations are located in the market towns however testing has also been undertaken of the sites LEB 1 and LEB 2 in the village of Leeming Bar together with sites GTA 1 and SOT 1 in Great Ayton and South Otterington respectively.
6.88 In line with the results for the viability testing of generic greenfield sites around the market towns, the allocations that have been tested in these locations are all viable and able to support 30% affordable housing, CIL at £55 per sq.m and other cumulative plan policy requirements. The results based on the cumulative policy position show that there are surpluses ranging from £70 up to £278 per sq.m for the greenfield allocations in the market towns.
6.89 The viability assessments for these allocations are based on available evidence and information at the present time. As further investigations are undertaken it is possible that additional site specific requirements and costs may be identified which may need to be funded from these surplus sums. The level of the surplus in all cases would provide a fairly significant contingency sum and would also be available to meet any further planning obligations including any future increases in the CIL charge.
6.90 The allocations that have been tested also include LB 1 and LB 2 in Leeming Bar which are greenfield sites. They differ from the generic testing that has been undertaken for the villages in that they are significant strategic sites with capacities of 85 and 80 dwellings respectively. They are also conveniently located for access to the A1(M). Given the size and characteristics of these sites we would expect them to be developed by larger national and regional housebuilders, and also to achieve a higher sales rate than smaller villages sites. Leeming Gate in Leeming Bar which was developed by Mulberry Homes is an example of a comparable site which was developed for 82 houses. The analysis of sales prices contained at Appendix 5 shows that during 2017 there were 25 sales on this development at a rate of around 2.8 sales per month.
Page | 128
6.0 VIABILITY RESULTS AND POLICY IMPACTS
6.91 The viability testing of these sites reflects the scale of the proposed development and type of housebuilder likely to develop the allocations. The results of the viability testing for these two allocations show that both are viable and able to support 30% affordable housing and CIL. Once the costs for a residual S106 contribution are added into the testing the results become unviable, and then based on the cumulative policy position including M4 (2) the allocations have a deficit of -£27 and -£16 per sq.m respectively.
6.92 The extent of the deficits for these allocations based on the cumulative policy position is equivalent to 1.2% and 0.7% of GDV. This shows that only a fairly small reduction in costs or increase in revenues would be needed to make the development of these sites viable at the cumulative policy position.
6.93 The results for the other village allocations GA 1 and SO 1 also demonstrate a more limited viability position. Both sites are viable with 30% affordable housing however once the CIL charge is added into the testing GA 1 becomes unviable. SO 1 is still viable on this basis however becomes unviable once residual requirements for S106 contributions are taken into account.
6.94 In the case of these two allocations this more limited viability position arises as a result of the slightly lower densities that have been assumed for the development of these sites. The effect of this combined with the housing mix that has been adopted, with a high proportion of 1 and 2 bed dwellings, is to generate a relatively low site coverage. For GA 1 this is 9,936 sq.ft per acre and for SO 1 11,561 sq.ft per acre. This is considerably less than the optimum position for housebuilders and is less than the average position in the District based on our analysis.
6.95 If the current capacities and densities for these two sites are carried forward into the final version of the local plan together with the housing mix requirements, then it is likely that some flexibility may be required in relation to planning contributions for these sites.
Summary - Allocations
6.96 The viability assessments that have been prepared for the proposed allocations show that the majority of sites are viable and able to support all plan policy requirements including 30% affordable housing and CIL at £55 per sq.m. Four of the allocations tested show a more limited viability position. In the case of the sites in Leeming Bar this is due to lower house prices. For the sites in Great Ayton and South Otterington, this more limited viability position arises due to the combined impact of lower density development, and the housing mix adopted which results in a relatively low site coverage.
Page | 129
6.0 VIABILITY RESULTS AND POLICY IMPACTS
Apartments
Impact on Surplus Cumulative Surplus (per sq.m) (per sq.m) Dwelling No. 0% 10% 20% 30% Inc Inc Scheme Ave Size S106 M4 (2) Dwellings Affordable Affordable Affordable Affordable S106 M4 (2) (sq.m) 12 15 59 £22 -£80 -£150 -£267 -£292 -£305 -£25 -£13 13 50 58 £44 -£35 -£115 -£198 -£223 -£235 -£25 -£12 Table 6.32: Northallerton (Inner)
Impact on Surplus Cumulative Surplus (per sq.m) (per sq.m) Dwelling No. 0% 10% 20% 30% Inc Inc Scheme Ave Size S106 M4 (2) Dwellings Affordable Affordable Affordable Affordable S106 M4 (2) (sq.m) 12 15 59 £134 £22 -£57 -£188 -£213 -£225 -£25 -£13 13 50 58 £60 -£30 -£120 -£144 -£157 -£24 -£12 Table 6.33: Northallerton/Thirsk
Impact on Surplus Cumulative Surplus (per sq.m) (per sq.m) Dwelling No. 0% 10% 20% 30% Inc Inc Scheme Ave Size S106 M4 (2) Dwellings Affordable Affordable Affordable Affordable S106 M4 (2) (sq.m) 12 15 59 £43 -£37 -£168 -£193 -£205 -£25 -£13 13 50 58 £84 -£5 -£96 -£120 -£132 -£24 -£12 Table 6.34: Bedale/Aiskew/Stokesley
Page | 130
6.0 VIABILITY RESULTS AND POLICY IMPACTS
Impact on Surplus Cumulative Surplus (per sq.m) (per sq.m) Dwelling No. 0% 10% 20% 30% Inc Inc Scheme Ave Size S106 M4 (2) Dwellings Affordable Affordable Affordable Affordable S106 M4 (2) (sq.m) 12 15 59 £177 £16 -£9 -£21 -£24 -£12 13 50 58 £78 £55 £43 -£23 -£12 Table 6.35: Easingwold
Page | 131
6.0 VIABILITY RESULTS AND POLICY IMPACTS
Apartments
6.97 In preparing the viability testing for apartments we have in the first instance considered viability based on 30% affordable housing provision and have then added requirements for a S106 contribution of £1,500 per dwelling and M4(2) requirements at £750 per dwelling. Apartments are not subject to a CIL charge. The testing assumes that any apartment development that does take place is likely to be on brownfield sites in the market towns.
6.98 Where the results of the testing show that the development is not sufficiently financially viable to support 30% affordable provision we have tested at lower thresholds of affordable provision to determine at what point development is sufficiently viable to support affordable provision together with requirements for S106 contributions and M4 (2). The results of the testing are contained at tables 6.32 to 6.35. As apartments are not subject to CIL, the surplus per sq.m is based on the total net sales area of the market and affordable dwellings.
Northallerton (Inner) 6.99 The results of our viability testing for the development of ‘standalone’ apartments in the inner part of Northallerton are contained at table 6.32. The results show that apartment development in this location is unlikely to be able to support significant affordable housing. On the basis of a scheme of market units development is viable and in the case of the large scheme would be able to support S106 contributions and requirements for M4(2). In relation to the smaller scheme it is likely that there would need to be flexibility in relation to these requirements as the level of surplus is not sufficient to cover all elements.
Northallerton (Outer)/Thirsk/Bedale (and Aiskew)/Stokesley 6.100 The results of the viability testing for apartments in these market towns are similar and show an improvement in viability. However the apartment typologies tested would still not be sufficiently viable to support 30% affordable provision. At 10% affordable housing provision all of the schemes tested are however viable and in three of four cases the level of surplus would be sufficient to cover requirements for S106 contributions and M4 (2).
Easingwold 6.101 The viability testing for Easingwold shows that apartment development would be sufficiently viable to support 30% affordable housing. The largest scheme tested could also support cumulative policy requirements. The level of surplus for the smallest scheme would be sufficient to support requirements for M4(2) but there would need to be some flexibility in terms of any S106 contribution.
Page | 132
6.0 VIABILITY RESULTS AND POLICY IMPACTS
Summary 6.102 The results for the apartment typologies tested in the market towns of Northallerton, Thirsk, Bedale (and Aiskew) and Stokesley show that based on a policy compliant level of affordable housing at 30%, development of standalone apartment schemes is unlikely to be viable. Away for the inner parts of Northallerton standalone apartments developments in these market towns would be able to support at least 10% affordable housing together with the other planning requirements. In Easingwold new apartment development would be sufficiently viable to support cumulative plan policy requirements including 30% affordable housing, although some flexibility may be required in the application of other planning contributions to smaller apartment schemes.
Electric Vehicle Charging Points
6.103 Policy CI 2 requires the provision of charging points in garages for new residential developments. Our QS has estimated the cost of electrical vehicle charging points to be in the region of £220 per dwelling in addition to the base construction costs. Adding these costs into the viability assessments would mean that based on the average dwelling sizes this would lead to a reduction in the level of surplus in the range of £2.39 to £2.27 per sq.m assuming a point was provided to all dwellings. The cost of electric vehicle charging points is minimal and makes no significant difference to the base construction costs and will have a very limited impact on overall viability
Commercial Results
6.104 The results of the testing that we have undertaken in respect of the Commercial development scenarios are listed in table 6.36. As with the residential testing the results are presented to show the development surplus or loss per sq.m once all development costs (including land and developers profit) are deducted from the GDV of the completed development.
6.105 The results differentiate between greenfield and brownfield development scenarios.
Page | 133
6.0 VIABILITY RESULTS AND POLICY IMPACTS
Floor Area Floor Area GF Surplus BF Surplus Type (sq.m) (sq.ft) (per sq.m) (per sq.m) Offices 464 5,000 -£987 -£1,035
Offices 1,857 20,000 -£538 -£586
Industrial B1/B2 464 5,000 -£403 -£457
Industrial B1/B2 1,857 20,000 -£234 -£287
Industrial B2/B8 4,643 50,000 -£242 -£295
Industrial B8 9,287 100,000 -£225 -£277
Retail (Comparison) 279 3,000 £109 £57
Retail (Comparison) 929 10,000 £87 £40
Retail (Comparison) 2,786 30,000 £203 £155
Retail (Convenience) 279 3,000 £567 £518
Retail (Convenience) 929 10,000 £520 £472
Retail (Convenience) 2,786 30,000 £624 £575
Hotel 75 beds -£226 -£274 Table 6.36: Commercial Viability Testing Results – Generic Typologies
6.106 Our viability testing for the commercial development typologies assumes that development is undertaken speculatively and hence includes a market risk adjusted developer’s profit return at 15% of cost. With reference to table 6.36 the results indicate that at present, standalone speculative office and industrial development is unviable across the District on this basis.
6.107 The testing that has been undertaken for new retail development is inclusive of a CIL charge of £40 per sq.m for retail warehousing and £90 per sq.m for supermarkets. The results of the retail testing show that new retail development is viable and is also able to support the current CIL charges.
6.108 The testing that has been undertaken for a new hotel shows that on the basis of a speculative development this is unlikely to be viable with a loss of -£226 per sq.m on greenfield sites and -£275 per sq.m on brownfield sites.
Page | 134
6.0 VIABILITY RESULTS AND POLICY IMPACTS
6.109 Despite the fact that certain forms of commercial development are not considered to be financially viable on a speculative basis at this point in time it is likely that industrial and office development will come forward in the future in Hambleton. Such development is likely to be motivated by specific circumstances such as an existing owner wishing to expand or other business requirements necessitating development of that type in that location, for example to be near a specific piece of existing infrastructure or for business agglomeration reasons. Development of this type may take place with owner occupiers acquiring a site for development themselves, or alternatively procuring new premises through a design and build project which carries a lower profit requirement based on a contractors return. In certain instances such as in the case of hotels, operators such as Premier Inn are likely to acquire and develop the site themselves and hence would not be seeking the full speculative developer’s profit that has been built into our assessments. A good example of this is the new Premier Inn that has recently been constructed in Thirsk.
6.110 Alternatively if such forms of development are to come forward on a speculative basis, it is likely that they may require support from enabling development in the form of more viable forms of development such as certain types of retail accommodation. Alternatively with the aid of public sector funding support such forms of development may also come forward in the District.
6.111 With reference to the employment sites identified in the Local Plan there is likely to be a range of different types of employment development including some offices, industrial and warehousing. Development may be brought forward using a variety of different mechanisms or the landowners may simply service the sites and seek to sell plots for owner occupation or design and build.
6.112 When applying normal development viability criteria including a developer’s profit, office and industrial developments are unviable and as such substantive speculative market development is unlikely to take place in the District on this basis. We do however expect new employment development to come forward in the District with development likely to be in the form of expansion space for existing companies. In addition new employment development is also likely to come forward with the benefit of public sector funding support or possibly as part of a wider mixed use scheme.
Page | 135
7.0 PLAN VIABILITY AND DELIVERY
7.0 PLAN VIABILITY AND DELIVERY
______
Conclusions
7.1 As outlined in Section 3 the NPPF requires that the Local Plan should be deliverable and the policies contained within the plan should not undermine delivery of the plan. The PPG indicates that a viability assessment should be used to ensure that the policies contained within the plan are realistic and that the total cumulative cost of all relevant polices contained in the plan will not undermine its deliverability.
7.2 Having regard to the requirements of the NPPF and PPG we have considered the spatial and strategic policies of the Local Plan, the proposed housing and employment allocations on which new development will be based, the development management policies that will guide the form, design, quality of development and the associated planning obligations.
7.3 In Section 3 we noted the sensitivity of residual appraisals to small changes in any of the assumptions which feed into the appraisal process. In our view we have ensured that we have taken a robust and a rigorous approach based on the appropriate available property market evidence at the time of preparing this study. In accordance with the PPG this evidence is considered to be adequate and proportionate for the purpose of the Viability Assessment.
Housing
7.4 Based on the scale and location of potential future development sites and therefore the type of development that is primarily likely to come forward, we have prepared a representative sample of potential housing typologies for the market towns on which to base our testing. These range in size from 5 to 250 dwellings and are based on brownfield and greenfield development scenarios. Summaries of the generic housing development scenarios that have been tested are contained at table 3.4. Some new development may also take place across the rural villages which is likely to be smaller in scale in comparison with the market towns. Generic housing development scenarios have also been tested for these village sites and details of the typologies tested are contained in table 3.5. There may be some limited new residential development in the form of apartment schemes in the market towns and hence for completeness we have also undertaken viability testing of a number of standalone apartment schemes. Further details are contained in table 3.12.
Page | 136
7.0 PLAN VIABILITY AND DELIVERY
7.5 To assess the viability of larger residential development sites with a capacity above 30 dwellings, then based on the proposed Local Plan allocations, we have also prepared site specific viability appraisals for a representative sample of the housing allocations on which the plan relies. The allocations tested are all greenfield and range in capacity from 30 dwellings to 840 dwellings. Details of the proposed allocation sites tested are contained at Appendix 8.
7.6 The Development Management Policies contained within the Local Plan vary in terms of their impact on development. Not all will have direct implications for development viability. A summary of the key policies is contained at Section 2 of this report and details of their effect on development are contained at table 3.14.
7.7 Of the policies assessed a number will impact on the form and design of development such as those which require provision for SuDS or for onsite open space. Others such as Affordable Housing will place an obligation on the developer which will have a cost implication. Requirements for local infrastructure provision may require a monetary payment either through a S106/S278 contribution or CIL based on the adopted Charging Schedule.
7.8 In preparing our viability assessments we have considered those policies which guide the form and design of development. Firstly we have considered Policy HG 2 which deals amongst other matters with housing mix and dwelling size. We have adopted a housing mix for testing that moves towards the conclusions of the HEDNA and seeks to achieve a greater proportion of 2 and 3 bed dwellings. In addition the typologies tested make provision for 10% of the dwellings to be 2 bedroom bungalows on sites of 10 or more dwellings. Policy HG 2 addresses the Council’s expectations in relation to housing standards and in particular that new housing developments will met the requirements for internal space in the Nationally Described Space Standards. The dwelling sizes that we have adopted therefore accord to the requirements of these standards.
7.9 The construction cost assessments are reflective of this mix and dwelling sizes and have been prepared assuming a development which meets current building regulation requirements and is reflective of Policy requirements in CI 3, RM 1 and RM 3 in relation to matters such as open space, water efficiency and SuDS. In accordance with Policy E 1 the construction cost assessments are also inclusive of the costs of providing adequate ducting for cabinets for broadband.
Page | 137
7.0 PLAN VIABILITY AND DELIVERY
7.10 We have then considered the impact of Policy HG 3 Affordable Housing Requirements and have undertaken viability testing, both generic and site specific, based on the policy compliant level of 30% onsite affordable housing. In the market towns we have also tested lower thresholds of affordable provision at 10% and 20% in those cases where the results suggest that 30% affordable provision may not be viable.
7.11 Full details of our assumptions in relation to policy requirements are contained at table 3.14 whilst the QS report on the build cost assumptions is included at Appendix 9. Tables 6.1- 6.35 contain the results of our viability testing of the Local Plan policies in relation to new residential development. The tables show the results of our testing firstly based on 30% affordable housing adopting a construction cost position which reflects current building regulations requirements, and the policies relating to water consumption, onsite open space and Sustainable Drainage Systems and ducting for fibre.
7.12 We have then considered the impact on viability of requirements under Policy CI 1 for CIL and S106 contributions. These have been included in the testing at £55 per sq.m and £1,500 per dwelling. Finally, also forming part of the requirements under Policy HG 2, we have included the costs associated with achieving M4 (2) and M4 (3a). The results of our viability assessments are presented to enable consideration of these particular policy requirements both cumulatively and individually.
7.13 The results of the viability testing for generic sites demonstrate that greenfield sites across the market towns are viable based on the cumulative plan policy requirements including 30% affordable housing and CIL at £55 per sq.m. The respective allocations in these locations are also viable on this basis. The testing shows a surplus once policy requirements are taken into consideration, and the amount of this surplus is greater in higher value locations such as Easingwold. This surplus sum would provide a further contingency sum (in the event of as yet unknown costs) and would also be available to support further planning obligations including any future increases in CIL.
7.14 The testing of generic brownfield typologies shows that they have more limited viability with higher land costs. No allocations are proposed on brownfield sites at the present time. The results for Inner Northallerton show that at development densities of 35 dph the majority sites can support 20% affordable housing together with cumulative plan requirements and CIL. Albeit the smaller schemes of 15 and 25 dwellings have more limited viability and a more flexible approach to plan policies may be required for smaller sites in these locations.
Page | 138
7.0 PLAN VIABILITY AND DELIVERY
7.15 In the remainder of Northallerton and the other market towns, the brownfield testing at 35 dph is generally viable based on cumulative plan policy requirements including 30% affordable housing and CIL at £55 per sq.m. There are a small number of unviable results (three) relating to the smaller developments of 10 and 25 dwellings. The results suggest that some flexibility may be required in the application of Local Plan Policies to these smaller brownfield sites.
7.16 In the context of any unviable results for the brownfield typologies, National policy provides an incentive for brownfield development on sites containing vacant buildings. Where a vacant building is brought back into any lawful use, or is demolished to be replaced by a new building, the developer should be offered a financial credit equivalent to the existing gross floor space of relevant vacant buildings when the local planning authority calculates any affordable housing contribution which will be sought. Affordable housing contributions may be required for any increase in floor space. In many cases the development of brownfield sites will involve the demolition and replacement of existing buildings, and therefore, as a result of vacant buildings credit some sites will in any event be required to deliver a lower level of affordable housing than the 30% threshold. Similarly in the context of CIL there is a potential for a reduction in the charge on a brownfield site as the gross internal floor space of any existing buildings can be deducted from the total CIL liability subject to meeting the relevant criteria.
7.17 Our viability testing also assumes a no grant position. It is possible that Registered Providers may be able to secure funding through the HCA to assist in the delivery of higher numbers of affordable units on sites where viability is at issue.
7.18 The viability assessments that have been prepared for the smaller sites in the rural villages demonstrate that across most of the District the development of these sites is sufficiently viable to support cumulative plan policy requirements including 30% affordable housing and CIL at £55 per sq.m. The level of surplus is such that particularly in the higher value areas, there would be sufficient funds to support further planning obligations including any future increase in the CIL charge.
7.19 The results for Leeming Bar (zone 1) show that viability is challenging for small sites here and they are unlikely to be able to support cumulative plan policy requirements. The two allocations proposed in Leeming Bar (LEB1 and LEB2) have also been tested. These sites have capacities of 80 dwellings or more. As a result of the construction cost savings due to scale and an increased sales rate, these sites are able to support affordable housing at 30% and CIL, however once other policy requirements are added they become unviable so some flexibility may be required.
Page | 139
7.0 PLAN VIABILITY AND DELIVERY
7.20 Viability assessments have been prepared for sites in zone 2, although no allocations are currently identified here. The results for these sites show that all can support 30% affordable housing and in many cases CIL, however some flexibility may be required particularly for the smaller sites in the application of policy requirements.
7.21 The results of our viability testing for standalone schemes of apartments show that in the majority of market towns they would not be able to support 30% affordable housing. In most cases they are viable at 10% provision and in some cases would be able to support closer to 20% provision. In the inner parts of Northallerton however the likelihood of securing affordable housing provision in apartment developments is limited. In Easingwold apartment development is able to support 30% affordable housing and other policy requirements, save for the smaller scheme tested, where the inclusion of S106 contributions and M4 (2) makes the development unviable however the result is very marginal.
7.22 Policy HG 3 Affordable Housing Requirements (as currently drafted) states that where it can be demonstrated that development is not viable based on the affordable housing requirements due to specific site conditions or other material conditions affecting the development of the site, an alternative dwelling or tenure mix that meets local need or a lower level of provision may be supported. A development viability assessment will be required to be submitted by applicants to justify a lower level of affordable provision which will be subject to an independent check. This viability test provides a level of flexibility in the Plan Policy, and as a result for those sites where viability may be an issue it may be possible to justify a lower level of provision to enable a site to be delivered.
7.23 The viability testing in relation to affordable housing is based on the affordable housing transfer prices that are published by the Council. It is noted that these prices were set in April 2015 and have not been reviewed since. It is anticipated that if a review was undertaken of these transfer prices then they would in all likelihood increase due to increasing rents and local incomes over the period. In turn if the transfer prices were increased then this would lead to an improvement in viability. The testing that has been undertaken therefore reflects a pessimistic position in terms of the prices that could be achieved on the sale of the affordable units to a Register Provider.
Page | 140
7.0 PLAN VIABILITY AND DELIVERY
7.24 We have considered the impact of Policy HG 2 in the context of the requirement for all new build dwellings to meet the optional higher Building Regulations standard for Accessible and Adaptable Dwellings. In this context we have modelled the impact on viability of Optional Technical Standard M4 (2). The results of this testing show the impact of this requirement is a reduction in the level of surplus of between £10 and £14 per sq.m. This is not material and these standards can generally be supported. The additional requirements to achieve M4 (3a) on developments over 200 dwellings increase the viability impact with a reduction in the surplus of around £21 per sq.m.
7.25 As part of this policy, the viability testing also considers the impact of the HEDNA (SHMA) housing mix on viability and in particular the impact of including a higher number of 1, 2 and 3 bed dwellings in the housing mix. The results of the generic testing at a lower density of 30 dph particularly on brownfield sites in the market towns demonstrates that this housing mix does have an impact on viability. The impact of the mix is to increase the number of smaller 1 and 2 bed houses. This leads to a reduction in the level of coverage on the basis of square footage per acre to below a level considered to be an optimum position by the development industry. In addition at lower densities the Council will need to be mindful that a strict application of this mix may not result in an efficient use of land in accordance with Policy E 1: Design. Particularly in the lower value areas the Council will need to balance the target for smaller dwellings identified in the HEDNA (SHMA) with viability issues that may arise as a result.
7.26 The impact of the mix requirements is also demonstrated by the results for the allocations GA 1 and SO 1. As noted at para 6.95 for these sites the density assumptions (at 26 and 29 dph) combined with the housing mix give rise to a low level of site coverage which in turn means that these sites are not able to support all plan policy requirements and remain viable.
7.27 CI 1: Infrastructure Delivery makes provision for on and off site contributions for matters such as infrastructure and for mitigation of the impacts of new development. To understand the impact of developer contributions for offsite matters we have undertaken testing based on a contribution of £1,500 per dwelling. Since the introduction of CIL the residual level of S106 contributions sought by the Council has been limited and often less than the amount assumed in the testing. The level of contribution tested is therefore robust however in reality the contribution being sought for many schemes may be significantly less than this sum.
7.28 We have also considered the implications of Policy CI 2 in terms of the requirements for electric vehicle charging points. Our assessment shows that the impact on viability of this requirement is very limited and hence is deliverable without harming viability.
Page | 141
7.0 PLAN VIABILITY AND DELIVERY
Non-Residential Developments
7.29 The results from the viability testing for the offices and industrial suggest that employment development is not currently viable on a speculative basis. In certain cases for employment development the results indicate that in the absence of a developers profit requirement development may come close to ‘breaking even’.
7.30 In our view the Local Plan Policy obligations, as drafted, do not place such a burden on new employment development so as to prejudice its future delivery. Issues in relation to viability arise because rents and capital values for employment uses are still currently at a relatively low level and in comparison there is a ‘gap’ with build costs. Traditionally in recent years this gap has been met by public sector funding support or in the case of mixed use schemes cross- subsidised by other more viable forms of development.
7.31 Notwithstanding the results of our viability testing it is likely that office and industrial development will come forward in Hambleton in the future motivated by specific circumstances such as an owner occupier wishing to expand or alternatively with the benefit of public sector funding support.
7.32 The results of our viability testing for retail shows that new retail development (both supermarkets and warehousing) is viable and able to support plan policies and CIL at the current rates. It is not anticipated however that significant new retail warehouse or supermarket development will take place over the plan period. The retail testing particularly for supermarkets shows a relatively high level of surplus, however given the current uncertainties in the retail market we do not consider it would be appropriate to implement a review of the CIL charges for retail at the present time. Particularly given the fact that no new development is anticipated.
7.33 New hotel development is currently unviable; however this is principally due to the inclusion of a full speculative developer’s profit. In the absence of this profit such forms of development do come forward in the District as evidenced by the new Premier Inn in Thirsk.
7.34 In summary the viability testing for commercial developments shows a mixed picture however where viability issues do arise this is as result of relatively low rents and capital values for employment uses in comparison with build costs rather than the polices contained in the Local Plan. Also our testing assumes a speculative form of development with a full developers profit included. Many of the developments tested are unlikely to come forward as speculative schemes and hence will have a much lower profit requirement.
Page | 142
7.0 PLAN VIABILITY AND DELIVERY
Overall Conclusion
7.35 Subject to the comments made above, the overall scale of obligations, standards and policy burdens contained in the Local Plan are not of such a scale that cumulatively they threaten the ability of the sites and scale of development identified in the Plan to be developed viably. In certain circumstances there may need to be a balance achieved between policy requirements for example density and mix together with requirements for affordable housing and S106 contributions. The range of house sizes that the Local Plan will be seeking is more compatible with increased density whilst there is sufficient flexibility in the Plan policies as currently drafted to allow a relaxation of policy requirements for example in relation to affordable housing if required to ensure that the delivery of the plan is not undermined.
7.36 The results of our viability testing for speculative commercial developments in Hambleton align with our experiences elsewhere in the north of England where speculative employment development is generally not viable save for high value locations such as Leeds and Manchester City Centres and around key transport hubs.
7.37 When applying normal development viability criteria including a speculative developer’s profit, office and industrial developments are unviable and as such substantive speculative market development is unlikely to take place on this basis. However new employment development is likely to be brought forward using a variety of different mechanisms including the sale of serviced sites for owner occupation or design and build. New employment development will occur in the District as a result, for example existing occupiers wishing to expand or for other business requirements necessitating development of that type in that location, for example to be near a specific piece of existing infrastructure or for business agglomeration reasons. In addition new employment development is also likely to come forward with the benefit of public sector funding support or possibly as part of a wider mixed use scheme.
7.38 Viability issues do arise in relation to certain forms of commercial development however this is as a result of market factors rather than Local Plan policy obligations.
Page | 143
APPENDIX 1 STAKEHOLDER PRESENTATION AND ATTENDEES
HAMBLETON DISTRICT COUNCIL
WHOLE PLAN & COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY VIABILITY ASSESSMENT
3 MARCH 2017
www.keppiemassie.com OVERVIEW o Introduction o Methodology o Local Plan Policies o Evidence Base o Analysis and Assumptions o Next Stages
Introduction
The Team
Ged Massie, Partner
Jenny Adie, Associate
Simon Layland, Senior Surveyor
Tom McDonald, Graduate Surveyor
Roger Prescott, Associate – White Young Green (WYG)
The New Local Plan
The New Local Plan for Hambleton will provide the framework for future development, containing the plans and policies that will guide development to 2035
Preferred Options consultation took place 31 October to 12 December 2016
The New Local Plan is in two parts:
Part 1: Preferred Policies - A vision and objectives for the Plan Area and detailed policies for determining development proposals
Part 2: Preferred Sites - A suite of five documents one for each sub area, which set out where development will take place and how much
The responses to the Preferred Options consultation exercise and emerging evidence base will be used to inform the preparation of the Draft Local Plan in summer 2017.
The Council will be consulting on Draft Local Plan in autumn 2017 and aims to have the new Local Plan adopted by December 2018.
Purpose of the Economic Viability Assessment (‘EVA’)
The EVA will: o Establish the economic viability and deliverability implications of Hambleton’s Local Plan policies o Ensure the emerging policies are realistic and can deliver sustainable development without putting the delivery of the Plan at risk o Consider the viability of sites identified for allocation in Part 2 of the Local Plan o Based on the evidence of whole plan viability testing assess whether revisions are required to the existing CIL charging rates
Purpose of the EVA
National Planning Policy Framework o The NPPF emphasises the importance of delivering ‘sustainable development’
“Pursuing sustainable development requires careful attention to viability and costs in plan-making and decision taking. Plans should be deliverable. Therefore the sites and 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.”
Paragraph 174 goes on to say:
“….. 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…”
Purpose of the EVA o Study assesses the economic viability of new development in Hambleton o Considers emerging new Local Plan Policies o Impact on the Cost of Development o Provides a viability framework for proposed site allocations o Future viability over Plan Period o Part of evidence base to inform the Local Plan o Informs decisions regarding any amendments to existing the CIL charging schedule
Methodology
Methodology - Guidance
‘Viability Testing Local Plans’ – Local Housing Delivery Group
“The approach to assessing plan viability should recognise that it can only provide high level assurance that the policies within the plan are set in a way that is compatible with the likely economic viability. It cannot guarantee that every development in the plan period will be viable, only that the plan policies will be viable for the sufficient number of sites upon which the plan relies in order to fulfil its objectively assessed needs.”
Methodology - Guidance
RICS Guidance Note ‘Financial Viability in Planning’ o What is viability?
“an objective financial viability test of the ability of a development project to meet its costs including the cost of planning obligations, whilst ensuring an appropriate site value for the land owner and a market risk adjusted return to the developer in delivering that project.”
Methodology - Approach to Testing o Residual Approach o Calculate the development surplus or ‘headroom’ o Establish a baseline position o Test the effect of plan policies on ‘headroom’
Methodology - Approach to Testing
Gross Development Value (value of the completed development scheme)
Less
Cost of Development (inclusive of build costs, fees, finance, base input land cost)
Less
Cost of plan policies
Less
Developers Target Profit
= Development Surplus or “Headroom”
Local Plan Preferred Options Policies
Local Plan Preferred Options Policies (Strategic)
Preferred Option 3 : Meeting Hambleton's Development Need
To meet the needs and aspirations of existing and future residents and businesses of Hambleton over the period 2019 to 2035 the Local Plan will deliver at least:
5,500 new homes of mixed type, size and tenure (based on a requirement of 320 homes per year) 41.69 hectares for industrial, warehousing and distribution purposes 4,000 sq. m (gross) of new comparison retail floor space
Local Plan Preferred Options Policies (Strategic)
Preferred Option 4 : The Spatial Distribution of New Development
The preferred approach is that development will be brought forward through a settlement hierarchy based on levels of services and facilities and accessibility.
Northallerton and Thirsk will continue to be the prime focus for new development
Bedale, Easingwold and Stokesley will also play a key role commensurate with their size and character
In smaller rural villages an appropriate level of development commensurate with the existing scale and form of villages will be supported – subject to sustainability criteria, location and relationship with existing development form and character
Local Plan Preferred Options Policies (Strategic)
Preferred Option 4 : The Spatial Distribution of New Development
Indicative levels of growth
Market Towns - 4,550 new dwellings Service and Secondary Villages - 1,000 new dwellings Windfall Development in Other Villages - 650 new dwellings
Local Plan Preferred Options Policies (Strategic)
Preferred Option 4 : The Spatial Distribution of New Development
Development supported at the following key employment sites:
Leeming Bar Industrial Estate;
Northallerton Industrial Area - North, East and West of Darlington Road;
Stokesley Business Park;
Thirsk Industrial Park, Sowerby Gateway and Dalton Airfield
Local Plan Preferred Options Policies (Strategic)
Preferred Options 7 – 11 : Sub Area Strategies
These preferred options provide a strategy for each of the 5 sub areas
Northallerton - delivery of at least 2,000 dwellings (inc existing commitments for 1000 dwellings) and 8.39 ha of employment land
Thirsk - delivery of at least 960 dwellings (inc existing commitments for 560 dwellings) and 18.07 ha of employment land
Bedale - delivery of at least 530 dwellings (inc existing commitments for 230 dwellings) and 8.02 ha of employment land at Leeming Bar
Easingwold - delivery of at least 500 dwellings (inc existing commitments for 200 dwellings) and 2.55 ha of employment land
Stokesley - delivery of at least 530 dwellings (inc existing commitments for 330 dwellings) and 4.62 ha of employment land
Local Plan Preferred Options Policies (Strategic)
Preferred Option 14 : Spatial Strategy for Service Villages and Secondary Villages The preferred strategy is to support new development opportunities to meet the needs of local communities in the most accessible and sustainable villages. To meet this aim provision will be made through allocations in some Service and Secondary Villages to accommodate at least 1000 dwellings.
Preferred Option 15 : Spatial Strategy for Other Settlements In 'Other Settlements' proposals for small-scale infill housing and employment development within and directly adjacent the built up area of the settlement will be supported where it is sustainable development.
Local Plan Preferred Options Policies (Strategic)
Part 2 : Preferred Allocations Site Summary (By Size and Location)
100- 150- 250- <10 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-74 75-99 >500 Total 149 249 500
Bedale 3 3 2 2 3 1 2 16 Easingwold 2 9 6 4 1 2 2 26 Northallerton 1 2 4 1 1 4 1 14 Stokesley 2 2 4 3 4 1 1 17 Thirsk 6 5 4 8 5 2 1 31
Total 14 21 20 15 10 9 2 10 2 1
Local Plan Preferred Options Policies (Strategic)
Strategic Policies : Housing
Testing Approach
• Viability testing based on new development across all sub areas specifically market towns and service and secondary villages
• Generic testing across a range of site sizes from 5 to 250 units
• Greenfield and brownfield sites
• Viability test of individual allocations of larger sites greater than 100 dwellings and mixed use sites
• Sampling of smaller sites around service and secondary villages
Local Plan Preferred Options Policies (Strategic)
Preferred Option 18 : Meeting Hambleton's Employment Needs
The preferred option is to allocate sufficient land to support business growth in line with Employment Land Review and the Council’s Economic Strategy
To allow wider choices in terms of location and quality of sites for investment
The policy provision will be:
To carry forward some allocations from the current Local Development Framework (33 hectares) and to allocate new employment sites at Leeming B a r, Easingwold, Stokesley and Dalton Airfield (39 hectares)
Local Plan Preferred Options Policies (Strategic)
Strategic Policies : Employment
Testing Approach
• Viability testing based on new office and industrial development in key employment locations
• Viability test based on range of sizes and uses
• Viability test for a number of the proposed allocations
Local Plan Preferred Options Policies (DM)
Preferred Option 24 : Delivering the Right Type of Homes (Mix and Size) Requirements for a mix of housing types, sizes, prices to increase the number of smaller homes and single storey properties to improve choice for older people and provide housing that is affordable to local first time buyers and smaller families.
The Council will seek to achieve a minimum market housing mix as a District average as follows: o 10% - One bedroom o 35% - Two bedroom (inc 10% bungalows) o 25% - Three Bedroom o 10-15% - Four/five bedroom
The policy will be based upon the outcome of a viability assessment undertaken by independent consultants and informed by the Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Nationally Described Space Standards and accessibility requirements
Local Plan Preferred Options Policies (DM)
Preferred Option 24 : Delivering the Right Type of Homes
Space Standards - the policy will require that all new housing developments will meet Nationally Described Space Standards
Density – Preferred Option 5 (Design of New Development) proposes a minimum density of 25 dwellings per ha
Local Plan Preferred Options Policies (DM)
Preferred Option 24 : Delivering the Right Type of Homes (Mix and Size)
Testing Approach
• Assumed housing mix broadly accords to that identified in Preferred Option 24
• Mix includes an element of Bungalows
• Viability Testing of Apartments to be undertaken
• Densities of 25, 30 and 35 dwellings per hectare
• All dwelling sizes to accord to National Space Standards
• Assumed developments accord to Lifetime Homes
• Testing of a proportion of dwellings to meet Accessibility Standard M4 (2)
Local Plan Preferred Options Policies (DM)
Preferred Option 24: Delivering the Right Type of Homes (Affordable Homes)
Current requirement is 40% or 50% dependent on location
New Policy: proposals of more than 10 dwellings the on-site target will be 30% of homes the tenure split 75% rented and 25% intermediate Starter homes may contribute to the intermediate tenure element if legislation defines them as 'affordable' housing Flexibility around the tenure split where local need can be demonstrated and where this can support viability Commuted sums will be sought for proposals of between 6 and 10 units in designated rural areas and may be considered where on site provision is demonstrated as not being appropriate Affordable homes to be transferred to a Registered Provider at an agreed transfer price, which will be reviewed annually by the Council. Provision of 2 and 3 bedroom homes unless a local need for different sizes can be demonstrated Starter Homes on sites of 10 or more units to reflect national policies
Local Plan Preferred Options Policies (DM)
Preferred Option 24 : Delivering the Right Type of Homes (Affordable Housing)
Testing Approach • Assumed 30% on site affordable housing provision • Tenure based on 75/25 split between rented and intermediate • Testing of starter homes based on 10% of overall provision both in substitution for and in addition to affordable • Assumed predominantly 2 and 3 beds • Transfer prices • 1 Bed £50,200 • 2 Bed £65,200 • 3 Bed £79,200 • 4 Bed £84,200 • Starter Homes included at 20% discount to market value
Local Plan Preferred Options Policies (DM)
Preferred Option 31 : Flood Risk and Water Management
The use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) will be required on site for proposals of more than 10 dwellings or for major non-residential development unless it is demonstrated that it is inappropriate
Testing Approach
• Provision for attenuation in build costs and further SUDs requirements met using on site POS
Local Plan Preferred Options Policies (DM)
Preferred Option 38 : Open Space, Public Rights of Way and Recreation Provision
Policy requirements include:
Design of developments to include cycleways, trim trials and footpaths
Securing additional provision to meet the required standards through specific onsite provision and through CIL receipts
Testing Approach
• Typologies reflect any requirements for public open space and construction cost assessments are reflective of this
• Testing to be undertaken to model impact of payments in lieu to off-site provision and also CIL
Local Plan Preferred Options Policies (DM)
Preferred Option 35 : Infrastructure Delivery
The improvements required to infrastructure to support the objectives of the Local Plan will be identified through the preparation of an Infrastructure Delivery Plan
Preferred option is that new development will contribute towards meeting the necessary infrastructure improvements
Where there are identified funding gaps in the provision of these services this will be identified in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan.
A Community Infrastructure Levy will be established in order to obtain contributions from developers to meet the identified funding gaps.
Testing Approach
• Testing to incorporate residual S106 contributions and CIL at current/alternative rates
Evidence Base
Evidence Base - Planning
New Local Plan for Hambleton Preferred Options Consultation Parts 1 and 2 (2016) Affordable Housing SPD (2015)
Local Plan Evidence Base: o Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2016) o Employment Land Review (2016) o Retail and Leisure Study (2016)
Other Studies: o Community Infrastructure Levy Viability Study (2013) o Planning Policy for Affordable Housing Including Viability Studies (2014)
Previous Planning Consents
Evidence Base - Borough Characterisation o Economic o Social o Spatial o Environmental
Evidence Base - Property Market
Information Sources o Stakeholders o Internal database, knowledge and experience o Land Registry o EGI/Co-star/EIG Transaction Databases o Rightmove, Net House Prices etc o Agents Reports o Interviews with Stakeholders o Valuation Office Agency Market Reports o Site specific information from owners / agents
Analysis & Assumptions
Development Typologies
Development Typologies - Development Profiling o Potentially different economic profiles and site characteristics o Study doesn’t seek to test every site
“A more proportionate and practical approach in which local authorities create and test a range of appropriate site typologies reflecting the mix of sites upon which the plan relies.” (Ref: Viability Testing Local Plans Guidance) o Recognising this and testing different locations and uses
Development Typologies - Development Profiling
Planning and Property Market evidence to inform hypothetical schemes for testing: o Accord with Planning Policy – form, location and density o Relevant and typical for Hambleton o Form of development in terms of size, location and use likely to be taken forward over the next 15+ years o Regard to spatial strategies and preferred allocations o Brownfield and Greenfield Sites
Development Typologies - Residential Development Scenarios
Housing Development Typologies Scheme Ref No of Dwellings Areas to be Tested Land Type 1 5 All Greenfield and Brownfield 2 10 All Greenfield and Brownfield 3 25 All Greenfield and Brownfield 4 50 All Greenfield and Brownfield 5 75 All Greenfield and Brownfield • Site Specific6 Testing for Range100 of Larger Strategic Sites Allat a later stage Greenfield and Brownfield
7 250 All Greenfield and Brownfield
Testing to be undertaken based on a sample of circa 15 preferred allocations typically above 100 dwellings and also mix of sites around service and secondary villages
Development Typologies - Residential Development Scenarios
Housing Mix o Analysis of available information in relation to 26 recent residential applications providing over 1,900 dwellings o Approx 73% - 3 and 4 bed dwellings
1 bed 2 bed No Beds 1 2 3 4 5 apt apt
% Mix 1.7% 21.3% 38.6% 34.2% 1.8% 0.9% 1.5%
Development Typologies - Residential Development Scenarios
Housing Mix
Proposed Housing mix for testing
No Beds 1 2 3 4 5
% Mix 10% 35% 40% 10% 5% o Mix adjusted to reflect PO 24 requirements o 2 bed bungalows will comprise 10% o Should number of 2 beds be adjusted further reflecting affordable requirements? o Should number of 1 and 2 beds be reduced to reflect district wide provision through other products ie. apartments/extra care?
Development Typologies - Residential Development Scenarios
Apartment Development Typologies
Scheme Ref No of Dwellings Areas to be Tested Land Type 8 15 All Greenfield and Brownfield 9 50 All Greenfield and Brownfield
Development Typologies - Residential Development Scenarios
Apartment Mix Scheme Ref 1 Bed 2 Bed
8 5 units 10 units
9 18 units 32 units
Development Typologies - Residential Development Scenarios
Dwelling Sizes o Analysis of available dwelling sizes from recent applications Average Size
No of Beds Size (sq.m) Size (sq.ft)
1 53.4 575
2 68.2 734
3 86.6 932 4 124.9 1,344
5 168.9 1,818
1 bed apartment 54.1 582
2 bed apartment 60.9 655
Development Typologies - Residential Development Scenarios
Dwelling Sizes o Housing Technical Standards – Space Standard
2 storey dwellings 3 storey dwellings No of Beds Min (sq.m) Max (sq.m) Min (sq.m) Max (sq.m) 1 58 58 2 70 79 3 84 102 90 108 4 97 124 103 130 5 110 128 116 134 1 bed apartment 39 50 2 bed apt/ 61 70 bungalow
Development Typologies - Residential Development Scenarios
Dwelling Sizes o Assumed dwelling sizes reflect analysis of recent schemes adjusted as necessary to meet Housing Technical Standards o Assumed house sizes:
No of Beds Size (sq.m) Size (sq.ft)
1 54 575
2 70 753
3 90 970
4 125 1,350
5 163 1,750
Development Typologies - Residential Development Scenarios
Apartment Sizes
No of Beds Size (sq.m) Size (sq.ft)
1 Apt 54 580
2 Apt 61 655
Development Typologies - Commercial Development Scenarios o Number of development types including mixed use o Various sizes Industrial Office Retail o Differing locations dependent on use o Site area reflects car parking space requirements, circulation space and landscaping
Development Typologies - Commercial Development Scenarios
Industrial, Office and Retail Typologies
Type Floor Area (sq.m) Floor Area (sq.ft)
Industrial B2/B8 464 5,000
Industrial B2/B8 1,857 20,000
Industrial B2/B8 4,643 50,000
Industrial B2/B8 9,287 100,000
Offices (Business Park) 929 10,000
Offices (Business Park) 1,857 20,000
Retail 279 3,000
Retail 929 10,000
Retail 2,787 30,000
Food and Drink 557 6,000
Analysis & Assumptions
Appraisal Assumptions
Residential Appraisal Assumptions
Land Registry Average House Price (Dec 2016)
Area Detached (£) Semi - Terraced Flat All Detached (£) (£) (£) (£) Yorks & £252,748 £152,704 £122,208 £112,417 £154,985 Humberside
North £321,511 £202,702 £170,145 £136,074 £213,850 Yorkshire
Hambleton £330,419 £215,255 £177,916 £117,648 £237,364
Residential Appraisal Assumptions
Land Registry Average House Prices
Residential Appraisal Assumptions
Summary of New Developments (Price Information from Land Registry) Scheme Developer Location Ave Price per sq.ft Current Asking No Adjustment for Price Range Incentives (per sq.ft)
Fox Covert Close, Taylor Wimpey Bedale £230 All sold Aiskew
Bedale Road, Cecil M Yuill Bedale £228 Complete Aiskew
Brookdale, Aiskew Taylor Wimpey Bedale £209 Complete
College Court, Yorvik Homes Bedale £203 Complete Bedale
Leeming Gate, Mullberry Homes Bedale £197 Asking £207 (ave) Leeming Bar
Residential Appraisal Assumptions
Summary of New Developments (Price Information from Land Registry)
Scheme Developer Location Ave Price per sq.ft Current Asking No Adjustment for Price Range Incentives (per sq.ft)
Roseberry/The Daniel Garth Easingwold £307 £291-£312 Oaks, Stillington Homes
Lindendale Linden Homes Easingwold £272 £275-£282
Land at York Road Redrow Easingwold £250 Complete
Land at York Road Persimmon Easingwold £237 Complete
Residential Appraisal Assumptions
Summary of New Developments (Price Information from Land Registry) Scheme Developer Location Ave Price per sq.ft Current Asking No Adjustment for Price Range Incentives (per sq.ft)
Mowberry 2 storey - £230 Barratt/DWH Northallerton Park/Castlegate 2.5storey - £187
2 storey - £243 Mulberry Vale Berkeley DeVeer Northallerton 2.5 storey - £204
The Dales, Morton Linden Homes Northallerton £238-£275 on Swale Stone Bridge Court, Morton on Yorvik Homes Northallerton £209 Complete Swale
Residential Appraisal Assumptions
Summary of New Developments (Price Information from Land Registry) Scheme Developer Location Ave Price per sq.ft Current Asking No Adjustment for Price Range Incentives (per sq.ft)
Land off Ripon Taylor Wimpey Thirsk £234 Complete Way
Sowerby Gateway Mullberry Homes Thirsk £234 £230 (inc 2.5 storey) (The Oaks)
Sowerby Gateway Linden Homes Thirsk £237 - £260 (Mowbray View)
Sowerby Gateway Taylor Wimpey Thirsk £236 (Lime Gardens)
Farefield Close, Whitfield Homes Thirsk £210-£220 £222 Dalton
Residential Appraisal Assumptions
Summary of New Developments (Price Information from Land Registry)
Scheme Developer Location Ave Price per sq.ft Current Asking No Adjustment for Price Range Incentives (per sq.ft)
Stokesley Grange Taylor Wimpey Stokesley £252
Residential Appraisal Assumptions
Sales Prices Adopted – Previous Studies
CIL Study (2013)
Low - £2,000 per sq.m (£186 per sq.ft)
Moderate - £2,150 per sq.m (£200 per sq.ft)
High - £2,350 per sq.m (£218 per sq.ft)
Residential Appraisal Assumptions
Sales Prices Adopted – Previous Studies
Affordable Housing Study (2014)
Overall Averages Across Different House Types o Bedale - £2,447 per sq.m (£227 per sq.ft) o Easingwold - £2,861 per sq.m (£266 per sq.ft) o Northallerton - £2,681 per sq.m (£240 per sq.ft) o Stokesley - £2,871 per sq.m (£267 per sq.ft) o Thirsk - £2,753 per sq.m (£256 per sq.ft)
Residential Appraisal Assumptions
Suggested Net House Prices for Testing
Zone Location Provisional Value Range (£/sq.ft)
Zone 1 Bedale (part) £200
Zone 2 Northallerton/Thirsk/Bedale £220
Zone 3 Northallerton/Thirsk/Bedale £235
Zone 4 Stokesley/Easingwold £250
Zone 5 Easingwold £275
Residential Appraisal Assumptions
Base Input Land Cost
‘Threshold land value’ - Viability Testing in Local Plans o Recommends based on a premium over current use and credible alternative use values o Account for fact that future plan policy requirements will have an impact on land values and landowner expectations
Recent Residential Land Transactions in Hambleton Price Paid (£/acre) No Transactions
<£200,000 1
£200,000 - £299,999 3
£300,000 - £399,000 3
£400,000 - £499,999 2 £500,000-£750,000 3 >£750,000 2
Residential Appraisal Assumptions
Base Input Land Cost
Land Price Adopted Previous Studies
CIL (2013) o Low Value: £283,400 per acre o Medium Value: £384,600 per acre o High Value: £425,000 per acre
Residential Appraisal Assumptions
Base Input Land Cost
Land Price Adopted Previous Studies
Affordable Housing Study (2014) Land prices per acre
Location Greenfield Brownfield Rural Bedale £150,000 £375,000 £150,000
Easingwold £150,000 £375,000 £150,000
Northallerton £187,000 £562,000 £150,000
Stokesley £150,000 £375,000 £150,000
Thirsk £187,000 £450,000 £150,000
Residential Appraisal Assumptions
Base Input Land Cost
Proposed Testing Assumptions o Assumed entire price paid on day 1 of development o Range of Base Input Land Costs (per acre)
Greenfield Range - £200,000 to £350,000 Brownfield Range - £250,000 to £500,000
Residential Appraisal Assumptions
Costing Methodology
Costs for the Buildings o Substructures (normal) and Superstructures - Based on costs per sq.m; costs vary for size and archetype; rates per sq.m are derived from data held by WYG based on a large range of housing projects carried out in recent years
Residential Appraisal Assumptions
Costing Methodology
Costs for the external works o Density based; assessment of plot size from density o Estate roads and footpaths; area and costs assessed from plot size; include kerbs street lighting and road drainage. o Work within curtilage assessed based on areas derived from the plot size and include boundaries, parking area, paving, grassed and planting areas. o Drainage and incoming service supplies are assessed on a cost/dwelling basis and include plot drainage and an allowance for mains drainage, using typical costs. Allowance made for the cost of surface water attenuation o Public Open space: costs based on areas defined by the Council’s policy requirements. Work will include allowances for grass, trees, play areas (for larger schemes) and future maintenance
Residential Appraisal Assumptions
Costing Methodology
Costs for other matters o Preliminaries are costed on a cost per week for a period based on sales rate o Fees for design, planning etc are based on % of the construction costs o Adjustment for costs to reflect the size of the development; large developments are more economic than small ones o Contingencies included at 5% of all costs o Costs benchmarked against BCIS data o Proposed allocations tested will be based on site specific construction cost assessment based on best known information
Residential Appraisal Assumptions
Costing Methodology o Allowance for opening up costs on Greenfield Sites (increased access costs and service reinforcement)
No Dwellings Cost per Dwelling
0-14 £0
15-49 £2,750
50-99 £4,000
100-199 £5,000
200+ £7,500
Residential Appraisal Assumptions
Other Inputs o Acquisition Costs - 1.8% plus SDLT o Finance - 7% o Disposal and Marketing - 3.5% of GDV o Developers Profit 20% GDV 17.5% for 5 and 10 unit schemes 6% GDV for affordable units o Sales rates 2.5 - 3 dwellings per month, 5 per month 250 dwellings and above o Sales rates for villages sites?
Residential Appraisal Assumptions
Other Inputs o Residual S106 costs – previous studies have used £3,750 per dwelling o Analysis to date shows a range of £500 - £8,200 per dwelling , typically range £3,000 - £6,000 per dwelling o Further detailed analysis required but suggest circa £5,000 per dwelling o CIL currently £55 per sq.m (subject to indexation from April 2015)
Commercial Appraisal Assumptions
Commercial o Main Employment locations : Stokesley Business Park Northallerton Industrial Area Sowerby Gateway Leeming Bar Dalton Airfield Shiresbridge Business Park, Easingwold o Retail locations: Town and District Centres
Commercial Appraisal Assumptions
Values
B2 – B8 Prime Rents - £5.50 - £6.00 per sq.ft
Typical capital value: £65 - £70 per sq.ft
Office Prime Rents - £10 - £12 per sq.ft
Typical capital values: Up to £135 per sq.ft
Retail Convenience Prime Rents - £16 per sq.ft Comparison Prime Rents - £12 - £20 per sq.ft
Yields: 6 – 9%
Commercial Appraisal Assumptions
Base Input Land Cost
Range of Land Costs (per acre) o Industrial/Office - £150,000 - £200,000 o Retail - £350,000 - £500,000
Commercial Appraisal Assumptions
Costing Methodology
Costs for the buildings o Normal substructures and superstructures based on costs per sq.m from BCIS for buildings of the same type and comparable size. BCIS data adjusted for location
Costs for the external works o Areas based on parking requirements with allowances for circulation and landscaped areas, footpaths etc
Commercial Appraisal Assumptions
Costing Methodology
Costs for other matters o Preliminaries are costed within the costs per sq.m derived from BCIS for the buildings o Fees for design, planning etc. are based on a % of the construction costs o Contingencies included at 5% of all costs o Abnormal works included on the basis of cost per sq.m of the building or cost per sq.m of the site. These would include allowance for poor ground conditions or similar works
Commercial Appraisal Assumptions
Other Inputs o Marketing costs - 5% o Letting agents fees - 10% or 15% o Legal fees -5% o Sales fees - 1.8%, plus SDLT o Finance Rates - 6% o Developers profit - 20% of cost
Next Stages o Feedback by Friday 24 March 2017 o E-mail to [email protected] o Progress Viability Testing
Any further questions please contact: Ged Massie Partner 0870 705 0001
www.keppiemassie.com
ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF EMERGING HAMBLETON LOCAL PLAN & COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY
STAKEHOLDER EVENT
11.00 – 13.00 – 3 MARCH
COUNCIL CHAMBER, CIVIC CENTRE, STONE CROSS, NORTHALLERTON ______
ATTENDEES:
NAME ORGANISATION SIGNATURE Rob McLackland Taylor Wimpey Jennifer Winyard Linden Homes Ben Holmes DH Land Strategy Daniel Liddell Daniel Gath Homes Daniel Gath Daniel Gath Homes Glen McGill MD2 Consulting Ltd Laura Hardy Strutt & Parker LLP Helen Boston George F White Andrew Cunningham Lavingham Planning Consultants Sarah Jones Strutt & Parker LLP Matthew Gath Yorvik Homes Linda Gray Yorkshire Housing Jill Lomax Banks Group Jane Palmer Stockton Paul Butler Paul Butler Planning Steve Hesmondhalgh Steve Hesmondhalgh & Associates Ross Sandbrook Steve Hesmondhalgh & Associates Steven Fieldsend Strutt & Parker Emma Speight North Star Housing Group Joanne Wakefield Thirteen Group Tony Grayson Technowash Peter Mandefield Ambleside Homes Sarah Fawcett North Star Housing Group Michael Mealing Rebecca Housam Savills Ian Stokes York John Sheehan Stephanie Porter NHS Estates & Capital Iain Godfrey Mulgrave Properties Councillor B Fortune HDC Mark Newby Yew Tree Associates Jane Entwistle Harrogate Borough Council George Arrowsmith Arrowsmith Associates
APPENDIX 2 STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
DANIEL GATH HOMES LIMITED
HAMBLETON DISTRICT COUNCIL
VIABILITY ASSESSMENT CONSULTATION
Daniel Gath 23 March 2017
General
Further to your presentation event on 03 March 2017 we would like to provide feedback as follows: -
The number of smaller potential allocations should be applauded.
This will help grow the SME’s sector, give house buyers more choice.
Smaller sites can be delivered quicker without major infrastructure.
It seems very sensible to consider viability and deliverability before allocating sites.
The draft proposals presented at the 03rd March consultation event favour large national house builders when considering margin and on costs and this should be addressed.
Encouraging local SME’s helps the local economy.
In 2014 only 13% of all housing completions were by SME’s compared to 40% twenty five years ago.
Since 1988 the number of small developers has declined by 80% and a number of issues covered in the 03 March presentation will do nothing to stem this decline, with particular emphasis on allowable profit, on cost allowance on larger sites and finance allowances.
1
Delivering the Right Type and Mix of Houses (mix and Size)
The one size fits all approach does not work for all sites. Each site should be considered on its own merit taking cognisance of the character and form in the local area/surroundings.
The industry is speculative and as such house builders should have the ability to dictate types and mix as they are ultimately taking the risk.
Where are all the unsold 4 and 5 bedroomed houses? If the industry is delivering too many.
Local plans must make provision for a certain number of executive homes if local business are to attract the best employees.
Most families aspire to a larger 4/5 bedroomed house.
In summary the reason for the lack of smaller houses being delivered on the open market is as a direct result of high affordable housing thresholds. Larger open market homes need to be delivered to compensate for the high affordable percentages coupled with derisory transfer values. Only by building a larger proportion of larger houses can reasonable land values be achieved.
2
Dwelling Sizes
Raising the standard and size of dwellings is a sound objective but comes at a cost which could reduce output.
We do not disagree with the minimum size standards.
The maximum size is too prescriptive and totally unnecessary.
Restricting the size of a 5 bedroomed house to 128m² is not a 5 bedroomed house that works in practical terms.
3
Affordable Homes
Realistically if landowners are going to bring sites forward they need to achieve an acceptable land value.
Our view this could be achieved by adopting sensible affordable targets:
1-10 Homes no affordable contribution.
11-20 Homes 20% affordable.
21-30 Homes 25% affordable.
30 + Homes 30% affordable.
Transfer values need to reflect the cost to construct.
Where registered providers make significant profits for selling shared equity houses this could be levied back to the LA.
4
Residential Appraisal Assumptions
When comparing sales revenues it needs to be considered in the context of the product/specification being offered.
For example using your comparisons the build cost of a house at Stillington where the developers are achieving higher levels of revenue will be considerably higher than other sites offering a significantly lower specification.
Eve n allowing extra in build costs for SME’s this will not cover this disparity.
The costs associated with just one specification uplift of say granite worktops could add £3,000 to £4,000 per plot.
Again a one size fits all approach is difficult to adopt when agreeing build costs/viability.
To adopt higher revenues as suggested the net house prices will require build costs to be increased.
5
Costing Methodology
The proposed approach to allowances for opening up greenfield sites is quite obviously incorrect.
Below are a few examples of costs that would be the same on a 4 plot site as opposed to a 200 plot site.
i). Fees - Acquisition Legal Fees would be the same (excluding stamp duty). Same surveys/reports required.
ii). Sales & Marketing - View/show house Spread over much less number of plots.
iii). Services - Existing service diversions. Same cost, fewer plots.
One sewer connection for both scenarios.
Typical sewer connection is £10,000 £2,500 per plot for four plots. £50 per plot for 200 houses.
iv). Site Prelims - Massive economies of scale on larger sites for supervision etc. compared to a smaller site.
If there are major infrastructure requirements for example a roundabout to construct for a large scheme then this can be identified separately as an abnormal cost in any appraisal.
In summary realistically, the on costs of delivering smaller schemes should be reversed from the figures proposed. £7,500 per plot for small sites and no on cost for larger sites.
6
Other Input
Finance
Whilst the base rate is historically low the finance rate for national house builders at 7% is probably realistic.
For SME’s it would be typically as follows, equating to around 10%.
i). Arrangement fees 1.5% of loan.
ii). Security fees to take legal charge.
iii). Third party solicitors to do a report on title.
iv). Margin typically 4% over base.
v). Monitoring fees for quantity surveyors to check progress and agree loan drawn down.
vi). 1.5% exit fees.
Developer Profit
The proposal shows totally skewed thinking.
Overheads for a SME are typically far higher as a percentage of turnover.
As an example Persimmons completed 15,171 homes last year have 390 active sites are sat on £913 million in cash. There turnover was £3.4 billion with a gross operating Margin of 24.8%. A typical SME, £10 million turnover maybe 25-30 completions and a far higher overhead percentage needs to work at a lower margin. This is clearly not viable and fundamentally incorrect.
Directors of National PLC Housebuilders do not have to give personal guarantees to banks yet your methodology implies that SME’s Directors who could risk losing their homes if the business fails should work on a lower margin for significantly more risk.
7
Proposed Reasonable Profits
1-10 units 25% 11-30 units 22.5% 30-50 units 20% 50 + units 17.5%
NB Banks will not lend to SME’s at less than 20% gross blended margin. PLC’s use cash reserves or share issues in the city to raise cash.
8
ECONOMIC VIABILITY ASSESSMENT OF THE EMERGING HAMBLETON LOCAL PLAN: BANKS PROPERTY FEEDBACK
FILE NOTE LP/N/3914/PL-3
1 Introduction
1.1 This document provides Banks Property’s feedback on the Economic Viability Assessment event and presentation of 3 March 2017. It follows the submission of viability and deliverability information for site S/058/015.
2 Preferred Options Policies (Strategic)
2.1 As stated in our Preferred Options consultation response of 12 December 2016, Banks Property believes the preferred approach to spatial distribution of development across the five market towns and villages is the most appropriate approach to deliver Hambleton’s housing requirements.
2.2 The geographical spread of previous housing allocations has previously distorted the housing market, land values and development viability. We believe this has been one of the main reasons why developers have in some instances been unable to afford the full suite of developer contributions sought. A greater geographic range of allocations would reduce the delivery risk associated with large allocations in Northallerton and Thirsk relating to infrastructure requirements and market.
2.3 The presentation notes that in smaller villages, an appropriate level of development commensurate with the existing scale and form of villages will be supported, subject to criteria. Great Ayton is a logical settlement for an increased allocation as the largest Service Village with a range of services and amenities. We believe there is a compelling case for this.
3 Preferred Options Policies (DM)
3.1 In relation to the proposed district average minimum market housing mix, we recognise the requirement to provide choices for older people and affordable options. A district wide approach is welcomed, accounting for local influences on housing need and that it is not appropriate for all sites to provide certain types of accommodation.
3.2 We question whether the aspiration to deliver 10% one bed and 35% two bed units is achievable by the market. Later in the presentation, analysis of 26 recent residential applications is presented which demonstrates a mix of ca. 73% 3 and 4 bed units. The proposed policy is a significant departure from recent market delivery and a flexible approach is advocated to ensure developer investment in Hambleton is not impacted. One bed unit delivery could be accounted for by specialist housing/apartment schemes.
JL/CDS LP/M/3914/PL-3 2 File Note Economic Viability Assessment of the Emerging Hambleton Local Plan 23 March 2017
3.3 In relation to density, we advocate flexibility to deliver development below the minimum density in certain circumstances, for example where it can be demonstrated that a lower density layout integrates well with the existing settlement or significant green infrastructure or connectivity benefits can be delivered.
3.4 We believe the proposed on-site affordable homes target and tenure split are appropriate. It is important to retain flexibility on tenure split where local need and/or viability can be considered.
4 Development Typologies – Residential Development Scenarios
4.1 As noted above, we question whether the proposed housing mix can be achieved by market.
4.2 We believe the assumed dwelling sizes are appropriate.
5 Residential Appraisal Assumptions
5.1 We believe the suggested net house prices are appropriate.
5.2 It is difficult to set parameters for base input land cost at the outset of development. For sites promoted independently or by developers, this cost will not be confirmed until after planning permission when housebuilder offers are received. We agree with the use of a range of costs for testing purposes.
5.3 Developer profit is currently expected to be 20% or up to 25% in some instances. This would also be the case for smaller schemes.
5.4 Sales rates for smaller village sites would be expected to be 2.5 – 3 dwellings per month.
5.5 We believe that an average £5,000 per dwelling Section 106 cost and CIL rate of £55 per square meter are appropriate.
6 Concluding comments
6.1 Whilst consideration of viability is a key issue in plan preparation and is welcomed, it must be emphasised that viability assessment of allocation sites at an early stage is based on a number of assumptions. Is it also noted that due to the fluctuating nature of the property market, assessments provided at the plan preparation stage may no longer be relevant by the time the plan is adopted and planning permission for a site is sought. A site viability framework approach which affords a degree of flexibility moving forwards is advocated. Policies which utilise site viability assessment as part of their evidence base should also afford some flexibility.
Jill Lomax/CDS 23 March 2017
APPENDIX 2 – CONSULTATION RESPONSES : MARCH 2017
Response 1 (James Spearman)
My apologies for not getting some the requested feedback through to you earlier, however should you still need it I have the following general comments to make:
Viability: I would not overestimate the sophistication of developer’s financial modelling, and whilst I can understand that it is convenient for the LPA to try and standardise the methodology so that you are comparing apples with apples, nevertheless you should bear in mind that for developers, one size does not fit all, and quite often we take very substantial investment decisions based on not much more than a gut feeling. I am involved with a £40m mixed use development in another Borough at present and I can honestly say that the development appraisal consists of a single sheet of A4 paper.
Preferred Option 24: This is about trying to steer developers towards delivering the ‘right’ type of homes by attempting to control factors such as type, size, mix and density. It is important to have some guidelines but the LPA should not straitjacket developers, who have their own ideas as to what will sell and what will not; and rightly so since it is they who are shouldering the financial risk. The free market should in general be the ultimate arbiter.
Affordable Homes: We welcome the proposed reduction to 30pc onsite affordable homes, however such provision should still be subject to viability testing particularly if you are promoting preferred option 24 also (which in itself is a form of affordability imposition).
Consultants: Hambleton is assisted in the production of its Plan by professional consultants, and whilst the input of these is sometimes valuable, the LPA should resist the tendency for consultants to over-analyse the situation. Over analysis leads to paralysis. This happens partially because they are keen to demonstrate value-for-money and partly because by nature they are risk-averse. The LA should keep in mind that if it has preferred goals which it would like to achieve, then developers are generally attracted to local authorities who have an ‘open for business’ attitude and who welcome dialogue and innovative solutions.
Response 2 (Richmondshire District Council)
Thanks for sending through the presentation. It all looks very straightforward and logical. The assumptions are very similar to our more recent CIL study. Only a couple of observations. The average (Land Registry) comparison ignores Tees Valley house prices. The purpose of these would be to complete the surrounding geography and show the Yorkshire premium. A minor point is one of consistency. Should the assumptions on build cost be price per square metre rather than an old fashioned square foot? This is what the CIL study did.
Response 3 (York City Council)
Thank you for granting the opportunity to City of York Council (CYC) to attend the workshop on the 3rd March pertaining to the viability assessment of the emerging Hambleton Local Plan 2035 and Community Infrastructure Levy.
I found the workshop to be very informative, showing your methodology to be broadly similar to that being used for the City of York Local Plan Viability Study update, currently underway.
Notwithstanding this, after further examination of the slides I offer the following comments for your consideration:
Slide 13 – I note the term ‘base input land cost’ is used in the ‘Cost of Development row’. In the CYC Local Plan Viability Study update the term ‘Benchmark land value’ is used to represent the land value over and above the existing land use value at which a landowner would be willing the site to market for development. Unless advised otherwise, I assume that the two abovementioned terms are equivalent.
Slide 25 - The housing mix percentages do not add up to 100% (although the housing mix percentages for testing in slide 42 do add up to 100%).
Slide 27 – I note that all developments are assumed to be in accordance with Lifetime Homes and that a proportion of dwellings will be tested as meeting Accessibility Standard M4 (2)
Slide 28 – The 5th bullet states that (for Affordable Housing) ‘Commuted sums will be sought for proposals of between 6 and 10 units in designated rural areas.....’ A recent article reports that A judge has quashed Craven District Council adopted document entitled Negotiating Affordable Housing Contributions August 2016 which set out that financial contributions towards affordable housing would be sought from developers of six-10 homes in designated rural areas. The judge quashed the document on the basis that the council was required to go through all the procedures involved in formally adopting it as a development plan document, or as a supplementary planning document, finding that it clearly contained development management policies that would regulate applications for planning permission. In view of this you may wish to review the current policy position as set out in the 5th bullet of this slide.
Slide 29 – The Third Bullet states ‘Testing of starter homes based on 10% of overall provision both in substitution for and in addition to affordable’ The Housing White Paper ‘Fixing our broken housing market’ (2017) does not appear to continue the Government’s original plans for a mandatory requirement of 20% starter homes on all developments over a certain size. Instead it seeks to impose a ‘general duty on councils to promote the supply of starter homes.’ Furthermore, the Government ‘propose to make it clear in national planning policy that local authorities should seek to ensure that a minimum of 10% of all homes on individual sites are affordable home ownership products.’
Slide 31- The inclusion of ‘trim trails’ in the 1st bullet of the Policy Requirements appears somewhat onerous.
Slide 32 – It may be worth considering preparing a more extensive Infrastructure Delivery Plan showing all the infrastructure requirements together with how these are to be funded and the funding gaps (if any).
Slide 38 – It is also worth noting that the approach to Local Plan level viability testing does not require all sites in the plan to be viable and that the role of typologies testing is not required to provide a precise answer as to the viability of every development likely to take place during the plan period.
Slides 45 and 46 – I note that the assumed dwelling size for a 1 bed house is still smaller than that set out in the Housing Technical Standards - Space Standard (also the recent average 1 and two bed dwelling sizes from recent applications are smaller than the Space Standard).
Slide 69 - The table on Slide 21 includes for one site in Northallerton with >500 dwellings. However, the table on Slide 69 sets the uppermost site size at 200+ dwellings. Therefore this could underestimate the opening up cost for the Northallerton site with .500 dwellings. For comparison, the CYC Viability Study Update includes an opening up cost of £17,000 per unit on a site of >= 500 units per scheme.
I trust you will find these comments of use as you progress your Local Plan towards Examination in Public.
Response 4 (Environment Agency)
Thank you for consulting the Environment Agency regarding the Economic Viability Assessment.
I can confirm that we have no comments to make.
Response 5 (Ambleside Homes)
Further to the above meeting and my previous feedback submitted 2 weeks ago having read the feedback from my industry colleagues the Gath brothers I felt compelled to offer further feedback which consolidates some of their comments apologies for being a few hours passed the deadline and for not following the format of the presentation but I am away at present hence emailing from my phone.
To put some context to my feedback my background is that after 25 years in the Motor trade latterly looking after Reg Vardy's Renault dealerships I took a midlife sabbatical to fulfil my ambition to build our own home that was 16 years ago subsequently fell in love with building starting on singles double triples then 12 at Driffield and 21 at Nawton bringing the total up to about 50 homes.
Our current aim is to build circa 10 quality homes a year.
My first point Margin observation/question:-
How meaningful and locally representative is the sample size of SME builders that were used to provide the data as submitted it worries me that the presentation was made with such confidence yet bore no resemblance whatsoever to commercial reality regarding required profit margins on small sites of 17.5% quoted demonstrates a lack of empathy and understanding for SME builders this is basic step one Janet and John stuff as far as the banks are concerned
I agree with the Gath brothers due to high risks and funding difficulties on smaller sites up to 10 units the margin should be minimum 25% reducing to 20% on sites over 30 units.
My second point:-
I also agree wholeheartedly with the Gath brothers that the £7.5k setting up cost per site for new build ironically should be the other way round, large builders can more easily absorb infrastructure costs across large numbers of houses whereas smaller sites of 4-5 make a significant difference.
Example we recently started building 4 new houses at Raskelf the electric and fresh/foul water connection costs are £5,500/unit my next site at Stillington for 5 units will be £5.000/unit compared to £1500/unit we paid at our site at Nawton for 21 units.
In addition in both cases there are now significant requirements for a range of soil surveys at Raskelf this has been in excess of £5,000 split across 4 units not 50 for larger sites this makes a big difference indeed we spent less for the 21 unit at Nawton.
We also have significant soil excavation works requiring over 1,000 tonnes of soil to be moved at a cost of £10-15,000 not easy to absorb on 4 units. Again at Nawton we spent less than £10k on 21 units
At both Raskelf and Stillington there will be access roads whilst these may not be adopted they will still be to a very high standard to enable the houses to be sold with confidence therefore compared to our Nawton site for 21 homes where we built an adoptable standard road the overall road cost per unit will be more.
We have just employed a site manager for our Raskelf development this represents over 8% of our project costs again easier to absorb on larger 20+ sites.
To recap in my second point I agree wholeheartedly with Daniel Gath's comment if anything the £7,500 set up cost should be added to SME costs and absorbed within the overall figure for large developers.
My third point is finance:-
I agree with the Gath brothers comments we put our personal finances and houses on the line to fund projects despite a track record of building 50 houses (non at a loss thankfully) Banks are still reluctant lenders I agree finance costs should be a minimum of 10% for high street lender 12-15% for second tier lenders.
Breakdown
Arrangement Fees High street 2% Second tier up to 7% many lenders including high street charge a percentage of the end selling price of the completed site this is often 2-2.5 times the loan facility.
Valuations survey and monitoring fees between 1 & 2 %
Interest
High Street 4-5% Second tier 7-10%
To recap:
Overall finance/funding costs:-
High street circa 10% Second tier 12-15%
Given that many new developers on sites of up to 10 units will struggle to obtain high street funding I think there is a very strong argument to set the average finance/funding at mid-point of lenders at say 12%.
My fourth point is:-
Affordable housing contribution thresholds.
Seems The Gath brothers and I are on the same page on so many issue we all agree above 30 units is a sensible threshold for full compliance to provide 30% affordable.
Up to 5 units brilliant just CIL to provide
6-10 units this is a problem area I believe it should be nil affordable contribution to simplify the building process and encourage more SME builders to be created however this requires changing the hearts and minds of planning committee members who still yearn for affordable homes using an outdated ineffective and inappropriate policy on sites of this size.
I have the crazy situation where a site I am looking at could provide 8-10 modest 2 and 3 bed homes exactly what the plan would like us to build however the higher build cost per unit and current affordable policy will kill the land value hence I will submit an application for only 5 houses avoid affordable homes contribution and build more 4 bed homes which I agree with the Gath brothers will sell quickly due to strong local demand despite what the planned mix suggests.
Again to quote the Gath brothers ''One size does not suit all'' we need to allow SME developers to identify and build to local market conditions something the current affordable housing policy has been distorting for years by encouraging all developers to build the minimum amount of small units and the maximum amount of large units to balance the figures and make land values and sites viable.
To recap:
Sites 1-10 nil affordable
Sites of 11-20
First 10 units nil
PLUS
Units 11-20 provide 20 % affordable i.e. 2 affordable homes on a 20 unit site
Sites 21-30
First 10 units nil
PLUS
Units 11-20 provide 20 % i.e. 2 affordable homes on a 20 unit site
PLUS
Units 21-30 to provide 30% affordable i.e. 3 units I.e 5 units in total on a site of 30
In summary for Affordable thresholds all I am suggesting is changing to a tiered system to support sites of between 6-30units to help give SME builders opportunity to sustainably grow and build more houses this simple change would help simplify the land buying process reducing negotiation time and costs with overworked planning departments and bring forward more deliverable more evenly distributed quality sites.
I wonder how many sites nationwide between 6 and 20 units have been approved with affordable housing provision over the last 2 years and how many could be approved if changes were implemented.
In closing I would ask you to look again at my earlier email below along with an email sent to Kevin Hollinrake with various thoughts.
I ask the rhetorical question how have we nationally arrived at a situation where 6 house builders account for over half of all new homes built yet despite record demand and a shortage of homes the planning and Banking system appear impotent to solving the issue.
I sincerely hope fundamental radical change will evolve hopefully first in Hambleton who I believe do a great job in a difficult environment.
These changes must help SME builders to be created to build lots more homes at profit margins banks will feel are less risky to fund.
Further to attending the meeting last Friday and reading the economic viability assessment report there are a couple of areas I would like to comment on these are as follows:-
A) Page 42 45 refers to house sizes mix etc.
Last 1900 applications info:-
Average sizes for 1-3 bed units assume circa 70sqm these represented 61.3% of total units
Average size for 4+ bedroomed homes suggest circa 135qs/m these represent 38.7%
Basically average size circa 95 sq/metres
Proposed
1-3 bedrooms 85% assume same average size circa 70sq.m
4+ bedrooms 15% assume same average size circa 135sq.m
Basically average size will reduce by 15sq/m (161sq/ft) to circa 80sq/metres
Whilst I applaud the proposed reduction in affordable mix to 30% I believe smaller house sizes will increase average sq/m build costs this along with lower gross margins will significantly affect land values and I wonder if Land owners will be educated quickly enough to accept the new terms to enable sufficient house numbers to be built and delivered in line with planned objectives.
B) Page 70 Gdv for small sites 5-10 units is not realistic at 17.5% every lender stipulates minimum 20% margin even at this level High street lenders are reluctant to lend example Barclays who have lent on previous sites for us would lend only £400k on a site where total Gdv was £1.25 million I believe this is due to Brexit concerns. Nat west appear more receptive and will lend up to 60% of land and build costs only if they are comfortable with the margins.
We need more lenders in the market in my opinion due to high risks on a per unit basis sites between 5-10 units and also between 11 to 20 units the developer profit needs to be nearer to 30% to give sufficient margin for Banks to feel comfortable lending.
The email shown further below I sent to our MP whilst not directly relevant to the report may be of interest.
Good Evening Kevin
I really enjoyed your presentation at Hutton Rugby and sensed your heartfelt desire and determination to help get more new homes built.
At your suggestion I read the excellent report Danny Gath had presented I agreed with and share so many of his comments and experiences.
I watched with interest the recent channel 4 Dispatches program where the Business Secretary passionately stated he desperately wants to help SME house builders no doubt building on the comment from Steve Morgan at Redrow '' There are not enough channels for delivery of new homes.''
I believe it is essential that this segment receives helpful support from government to encourage the next generation of Barratt, Persimmon and Redrow to be created as Warren Buffet remarked ''If access or cost of entry to a market is difficult or high it bodes well for the investment'' good news for the large builders shareholders but not so good for delivery of new homes and SME house builders.
I note at the CBI conference the government is looking to create a Fertile Helpful and Supportive environment for smart internet tech companies hopefully it can do the same for SME house builders with all the long term benefits that will bring.
Aside from funding, mortgages, Brexit, and market sentiment issues which are four separate discussions I have a request:-
Please can the government do its utmost to do whatever it can to assist the planning system to help create a Fertile, Helpful and Supportive environment for SME house builders in particular to be supportive of developments of between 6 and 30 homes.
SME house builders need to see a clear pathway to be able to grow and develop, by freeing up the potential bottlenecks in the 6-30 category this would help them to confidently plan for growth.
At present the middle ground planning strategy for SME house builders could be better. It is very good for sites of up to 5 units (with no affordable constraints) and for sites over 30 for the larger house builders but not so easy for the sites of 6-30 units which are too small for the large house builders. This no doubt impacts on delivery of new open market and affordable homes in more rural locations.
On a very positive note for SME house builders the government has effectively forced local authorities to accept sites up to 5 units… less bureaucracy with no affordable, this is great news THANK YOU.
Unfortunately 6-10 unit sites are problematical as they not only have higher costs for infrastructure such as adopted roads street lights etc. they have to bear in mind each authority appears to have their own method to calculate what financial contribution will be required for affordable.
One typical example:-
Site of 10 with an average selling price of £250k
Typical affordable 3 bed transfer price £75k difference = £175k x affordable rate say 50% = £87.5k per house on units 6-10 i.e.5 units = 437.5k ...Wow!
Furthermore sites of 11 or more in many cases need to provide onsite affordable homes (and higher infrastructure costs ) this causes distortion in land values with many sites for 6-10 houses or even 11+ being worth similar or less than sites of up to 5 units.
I suspect for the above reasons this will deter sites of 6-10 units or for that matter sites up to 15+ units from coming forward.
My first request/suggestion is that the planning system takes a leaf out of the stamp duty reform and aim to create a fairer slab system that helps smooth out land value distortions by looking at a fairer standardised tariff fee per house on units 6-10. The government had the courage to insist on nil contribution up to 5 units I hope they can be equally bold on this issue.
On intermediate sites up to say 30 units one suggestion could be that the first 10 units are as per smaller sites policy with units 11-30 providing their share of affordable homes. This would help smooth out the land value variations and bring more sites forward quicker without the need for time consuming expensive negotiations.
On a separate issue I genuinely believe most authorities do an excellent job meticulously preparing 20 year strategic plans with priority on the initial 5 year period but sadly the major house builders and others employ the best consultants in the industry to navigate through the planning system and SOAK UP most if not all of the imminent short term 5 year housing allocation. Regrettably and even more infuriating is that some of these allocations have yet to be built as they are sometimes driven by land value uplift (helping balance sheets and other funding requirements) rather than a sincere desire to deliver.
The sad fact is this results in SME house builders not having the confidence, courage and conviction to pursue an expensive speculative application if the allocation of the 5 year housing supply is already spoken for and they can't get support from the planning department.
Last year for this reason after spending £5k I walked away from a site at Pickering for 18 small 2-3 bed units, presently my former business partner Dan Warrington is concerned about an application he is about to submit for 28 units in Thornton Le Dale.
I believe many SME house builders sites were effectively fresh windfall sites, on a positive note Hambleton's work in progress plan suggests 650 homes will be windfall over the next 20 years dispersed across the authority in the villages thus reducing pressure on facilities in Market towns.
My second request/suggestion is for the next 12-24 months (possibly longer) in a bid to help foster the Fertile Helpful and Supportive environment for SME house builders is that any site of up to 30 units that as Hambleton put it ''snuggles the settlement'', providing the sites meet all other planning criteria should be treated as windfall and be outside the 5 year allocation numbers which are sometimes ruthlessly absorbed by larger operators.
Planning departments Fertile Helpful Support for sites of up to 30 units could help distribute new homes into more rural areas in line with National policies and go some way to help provide new affordable homes in these difficult to source rural areas.
I sincerely hope that a playing field ultimately evolves that is more Fertile Helpful and Supportive for SME house builders, anything that can be done to help planning departments in this role would be most welcome.
Response 6 (Steve Hesmondhalgh & Associates Ltd Planning Consultant)
I have been through the slides and offer the following comments:
These are generally in the order the slides were presented.
Page 22. I believe it is a mistake to only test individual allocations on sites over 100 dwellings. This is hardly representative of most sites in Hambleton. The majority of allocations will be sites of over 50 units and it would seem more sensible to cover all sites over 50 dwellings.
Generic testing of 5+ sites fails to account for the small sites that will be approved under the IPG. This is a policy that has increasing potential to deliver sites. Ignoring the developments up to 5 units fails to consider self builds and smaller scale developers.
Page 40. Testing only sites of 100 plus will only show house builder product. Essential to look at smaller sites as well.
Page 41. 26 sites is too small a sample. It is not representative. It was not clear at the presentation what the sample was – is it all housing schemes or just those over 100 or less? I suggest you sample 50 and include all housing applications.
Page 42. Apartments and extra care must be included for 1 and 2 bed units. They will provide a valuable part of the units that will help satisfy that demand. As far as I remember the SHMA accounted for older people/extra care requirements.
Page 45. I suspect these areas reflect house builder product and not the sizes of houses built by private individuals and small scale developers. This is probably a result of relying too heavily on house builder product in the samples – (at 100 plus).
Page 54-58. Again too much emphasis on house builder product. House size and sales per square foot will be different for smaller builders.
Page 60. Easingwold and Stokesley have highest sales per sqft and yet have lowest proposed build under preferred options. The best way to deliver the range of smaller units through the SHMA is to look at areas of higher demand. This should be explored through this viability testing.
Page 61. Stokesley/Easingwold figure looks low in light of numbers from page 60.
Page 64. During the presentation the wrong assumptions were described about the lower land value for greenfield and versus brownfield.
Greenfield values will appear to be cheaper because these are based on historic purchases. Greenfield land is usually purchased from options – on a longer term basis. The values in those options reflect the uncertainty when they were taken out. Brownfield values reflect a shorter timescale and their immediacy means the values can be higher. If results looked at the last 18-24 months – not 2014 I suspect the figures would be different. In other words greenfield values in more recent times (since the fallout from NPPF and the stronger market) will be higher as there is greater certainty for purchasers.
Page 70. Mentioned during the presentation. The developer profit figures reflect house builder numbers – not smaller scale builders. Smaller site will always need higher returns. That is a basic obvious rule and it was very surprising to read 17.5% in the presentation – it was not a surprise that the smaller developers in the room were unimpressed!
APPENDIX 3 RESPONSES TO STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION
______
On 3 March the Council held a Stakeholder event and as part of this we undertook a presentation to explain the methodology that we were proposing to adopt in preparing the Local Plan and CIL viability assessments and obtain stakeholders views regarding this. In addition the event allowed us to explain the development typologies that we were intending to adopt for testing and the respective financial appraisal inputs. The format of the session included a presentation regarding these key elements and an opportunity for stakeholder questions and discussion both during and at the end of the presentation.
Following the stakeholder event a copy of the presentation was sent to both the attendees and also the full list of stakeholders who had previously been invited to the event. Stakeholders were asked to complete provide their comments about the presentation and in particular the approach and methodology, development typologies that were proposed for testing and the financial appraisal assumptions. A total of 9 responses were received in relation to the presentation.
The responses that were received all related to the viability testing in relation to new residential development. We have summarised below the comments that were received under the respective topic headings and our response.
Development Typologies and Mix
It was suggested that all allocations over 50 dwellings should be tested. Smaller sites of less than 5 dwellings should be tested. Apartments and extra care developments should be tested as part of the District wide requirement to achieve a greater number of 1 and 2 bed dwellings. The house sizes and hence sales prices per sq.ft will be different for smaller developers. Assumed dwelling size for 1 bed house smaller than that set out in the National Space Standard. Larger open market houses need to be delivered – 4 and 5 bed. Do not disagree with minimum space standards but maximum size too prescriptive. Housing mix should have more 4 and 5 bed units. Should be promoting more choice not one size fits all. Question whether the aspiration to deliver 10% one bed and 35% two bed units is achievable by the market. Believe the assumed dwelling sizes are appropriate.
1
Response: The typologies that have been adopted for testing are reflective of the housing mix identified in Preferred Option 24, which aims to deliver a greater number of smaller dwellings. This policy does allow some flexibility in the numbers of units and hence in preparing our typologies for testing we have increased the number of larger dwellings so far as we have been able to fit within the requirements of the policy.
The aim of our testing is ultimately to identify whether this Preferred Options policy is viable and based on the outcome of this adjustments may be made to the policy which are reflective of the comments made above.
In terms of the Nationally Described Space Standards the size of the 1 bed dwelling has been adjusted to 58 sq.m to meet the requirements of the standard.
In terms of the size of the typologies that have been adopted for testing we are proposing to viability test a significant sample of the proposed allocations across all sub-areas and in addition are undertaking viability testing of generic typologies at 50, 75, 100 and 250 dwellings which we consider provides a sufficiently broad framework within which to assess viability across the district. We note the suggestion that sites less than 5 dwellings should be tested and in this context will consider with the Council testing for smaller housing schemes.
Land Values
Greenfield land purchased under options and values reflect uncertainty brownfield land values reflect a shorter timescale and their immediacy means values can be higher. Since NPPF and stronger market values for greenfield are likely to be higher than for brownfield as there is greater certainty. Larger allocations are subject to option agreements that are 10-15 years old when planning gain was less and minimum land values index linked. This distorts land owners/agents views. Agree with the use of a range of land costs for testing purposes.
Response: These comments are noted.
2
Developers Profit
Smaller sites will need higher returns than 17.5%. Banks will not lend to SMEs at less than 20% blended profit. Profits should be based on a scale:
1-10 units 25% 11-30 units 22.5% 30-50 units 20% 50+ units 17.5%
Agree profits on larger sites should be 20%. 20% is the minimum banks require to fund development. Sliding scale suggested as above. 6% on affordable units unrealistic. Developer profit currently expected to be 20% or up to 25% in some cases including smaller schemes. Smaller sites up to 10 units profit should be 25% reducing to 20% on sites over 30 units.
Response: Whilst noting the comments made further evidence has not been provided in support of these higher levels of profit. We have undertaken many viability assessments across the north of England and the Midlands over the last 5 years and have not encountered profit levels at the levels being suggested.
Opening up Costs
City of York assuming open up cost of £17,000 per unit on a site in excess of 500 dwellings. On-costs for smaller schemes should be reversed and allow £7,500 per plot for small sites and no on cost for larger sites. Opening up costs on smaller sites are higher than on smaller sites.
Response: There appears to have been some misunderstanding about what this cost element is included to address, and what costs are already allowed for in the base construction costs. These aspects are addressed more fully in the QS cost report at Appendix 9.
3
Sales Revenues & Costs
Higher sales revenues will require a higher specification of development. National house builders can build at a more economical rate than SMEs. Believe the suggested net house prices are appropriate.
Response: These comments are noted.
Finance Costs
7% for national housebuilders is probably realistic, for SMEs it should be around 10%. Finance costs should be 10% for high street lenders and 12-15% for second tier lenders. For sites of up to 10 units should set average funding cost of 12%.
Response: We note the comments that have been made regarding higher levels of finance cost for smaller developers that said we have come across very few instances where this level of finance rate at 10% or more has been adopted.
Sales Rates
Sales rates in smaller villages would be expected to be 2.5-3 dwellings per month.
Response: This comment is noted but as outlined in Section 5 we have some concerns that new development in the villages may not be able to achieve the same rate of sales as in the main towns, hence we have adopted a sales rate of 1.5 dwellings per month for the smaller sites tested in the villages.
Developer Contributions
Believe an average £5,000 per dwelling in S106 cost and CIL rate of £55 per sq.m are appropriate.
Response: This comment is noted.
4
APPENDIX 4 ANALYSIS OF PLANNING CONSENTS
Appendix 4 - Planning Permissions Analysis (Mix and Dwelling Size)
Planning Site Area Site Area Houses Apartments Developer Application Address Sub Area (Hectares) (Hectares) Net DPH Number Gross Net 1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 4 bed 5 bed 1 bed 2 bed Total No Units 4 6 16 15 41 Fox Covert Close (South east of Taylor Wimpey 14/01228/FUL Bedale 1.32 1.32 Mix 12% 15% 39% 37% 100% 31 Aiskew) Ave Size (sq ft) 603 738 879 1,246 966 No Units 16 36 38 90 Taylor Wimpey 12/00842/REM Brookdale, Aiskew Bedale 2.5 Mix 18% 40% 42% 100% Ave Size (sq ft) 621 866 1,238 980 No Units 2 4 27 26 59 Land To Rear Of 28 - 34 Bedale Cecil M Yuill 11/02543/FUL Bedale 2.3 2.04 Mix 3% 7% 46% 44% 100% 29 Road (South East of Aiskew) Ave Size (sq ft) 558 719 927 1,364 1093 No Units 3 9 2 14 Yorvik Homes 14/00370/FUL Benkhill Drive Bedale 0.4 0.4 Mix 21% 64% 14% 100% 35 Ave Size (sq ft) 635 831 1399 870 No Units 4 7 7 18 Mulgrave 14/02435/FUL Hackworth Road, Little Crakehall Bedale 0.68 Mix 22% 39% 39% 100% Properties Ave Size (sq ft) 783 1,000 1,418 1114 No Units 40 29 10 79 Persimmon 15/00006/FUL South End Bedale 2.48 1.92 Mix 44% 42% 14% 100% 41 Ave Size (sq ft) 715 926 1150 847 No Units 5 20 17 42 Berkeley Station Yard, Mowbray terrace, 16/00529/FUL Bedale 1.55 Mix 12% 48% 40% 100% DeVeer West Tanfield Ave Size (sq ft) 755 978 1,354 1104 No Units 23 45 14 82 Mullberry Leeming Lane, Northallerton Road, 12/01402/FUL Bedale Mix 28% 55% 17% 100% Homes Leeming Bar Ave Size (sq ft) 741 957 1166 932 No Units 11 20 13 44 Persimmon 12/01209/FUL Ward's Trailers, York Road Easingwold 1.5 Mix 25% 46% 29% 100% Ave Size (sq ft) No Units 2 45 52 15 116 Crabmill Lane & Meadowspring Persimmon 14/02285/Ful Easingwold 3.47 Mix 3% 39% 45% 13% 100% Way Ave Size (sq ft) No Units 7 9 8 24 Daniel Garth Land South of South Back Lane, 14/02389/FUL Easingwold 1.03 1.03 Mix 29% 38% 33% 100% 23 Homes Stillington Ave Size (sq ft) 754 1,080 1,659 1,178 No Units 12 3 28 38 12 93 Redrow 11/01661/FUL Land at York Road Easingwold 3.47 3.04 Mix 13% 3% 30% 41% 13% 100% 31 Ave Size (sq ft) 457 680 938 1,336 596 986 No Units 8 13 23 4 48 Linden Homes 15/00175/REM Stillington Road Easingwold 1.58 1.40 Mix 17% 27% 48% 8% 100% 33 Ave Size (sq ft) 758 808 1,924 558 1,050 No Units 21 89 95 9 30 244 Barratt/DWH 13/01956/FUL Mowberry Park/Castlegate Northallerton 8.04 6.77 Mix 9% 36% 39% 4% 12% 100% 36 Ave Size (sq ft) 670 977 1,406 1797 655 1,109 No Units 9 14 23 Berkeley 15/01073/REM Mulberry Vale Northallerton 0.7 0.70 Mix 39% 61% 100% 33 DeVeer Ave Size (sq ft) 839 1,160 1,034 No Units 9 24 16 49 Land at Bungalow Farm off Birkby Yuill Homes 10/01716/FUL Northallerton 2.83 Mix 18% 49% 33% 100% Lane, East Cowton Ave Size (sq ft) 734 938 1,343 1,033 No Units 12 15 21 48 Linden Homes 15/00741/FUL The Dales, Morton on Swale Northallerton 2.01 1.48 Mix 25% 31% 44% 100% 32 Ave Size (sq ft) 754 890 1,245 1,011 No Units 18 42 75 6 141 Land to the East of Darlington Taylor Wimpey 15/01083/HYB Northallerton Mix 13% 30% 53% 4% 100% Road (North Northallerton) Ave Size (sq ft) 771 988 1,312 1,646 1,160 No Units 35 94 21 150 Land to the East of Darlington Persimmon 15/01083/HYB Northallerton Mix 23% 63% 14% 100% Road (North Northallerton) Ave Size (sq ft) 621 884 1,212 868 No Units 4 21 25 Blue Oak 16/00950/FUL Former Buffer Depot, Sowerby Thirsk 1.037 Mix 16% 84% 100% Homes Ave Size (sq ft) 625 950 898 No Units 6 18 14 2 40 Taylor Wimpey 13/01770/FUL Land off Ripon Way Thirsk 1.46 1.23 Mix 15% 45% 35% 5% 100% 33 Ave Size (sq ft) 689 882 1,339 592 999 Appendix 4 - Planning Permissions Analysis (Mix and Dwelling Size)
Planning Site Area Site Area Houses Apartments Developer Application Address Sub Area (Hectares) (Hectares) Net DPH Number Gross Net 1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 4 bed 5 bed 1 bed 2 bed Total No Units 23 44 40 107 Mullberry Land to East & West of Topcliffe 10/02373/OUT Thirsk Mix 21% 41% 37% 100% Homes Road (The Oaks), Sowerby Ave Size (sq ft) 764 990 1,232 1,032 No Units 32 39 27 98 Sowerby Gateway (mowbray Linden Homes 15/02243/REM Thirsk Mix 33% 40% 28% 100% view) Ave Size (sq ft) 740 992 1,198 966 No Units 4 9 10 21 44 Taylor Wimpey 15/02389/REM Sowerby Gateway (Lime Gardens) Thirsk 1.49 1.33 Mix 9% 20% 23% 48% 100% 33 Ave Size (sq ft) 603 760 935 1286 1,037 No Units 17 3 20 3 43 Whitfield 16/00511/FUL Willow Bridge Lane Dalton Thirsk 1.67 1.67 Mix 40% 7% 47% 7% 100% 26 Homes Ave Size (sq ft) 763 1013 1588 2,141 1260 No Units 4 34 51 73 16 178 Taylor Wimpey 15/01943/REM White House Farm, Stokesley Stokesley 6.90 5.33 Mix 2% 19% 29% 41% 9% 100% 33 Ave Size (sq ft) 603 778 908 1,333 1,688 1121
Summary
Mix 1b 2b 3b 4b 5b 1b 2b Total No of Dwellings 32 412 749 663 34 18 30 1938 Percentage 1.7% 21.3% 38.6% 34.2% 1.8% 0.9% 1.5% 100.0%
Size 1b 2b 3b 4b 5b 1b 2b Overall Ave No schemes 6 23 23 23 4 3 1 24 Ave size (sq.ft) 575 734 932 1344 1818 582 655 1027 Appendix 4 - Planning Permissions Analysis - 2019 Update (Mix and Dwelling Size)
Planning Site Area Site Area Houses Apartments Developer Application Address Sub Area (Hectares) (Hectares) Net DPH Number Gross Net 1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 4 bed 5 bed 1 bed 2 bed Total No Units 5 18 19 42 Berkeley Station Yard, Mowbray Terrace, 16/00529/FUL Bedale 1.31 1.22 Mix 12% 43% 45% 100% 34 DeVeer West Tanfield Ave Size (sq ft) 741 971 1,384 1130 No Units 12 60 42 61 175 North of Stillington Road, Kier 17/00519/REM Easingwold 6.69 5.50 Mix 7% 34% 24% 35% 100% 32 Easingwold Ave Size (sq ft) 624 734 915 1561 1058 No Units 5 7 13 25 16/01836/FUL Garbutts Lane, Hutton Rudby Stokesley 1.19 1.05 Mix 20% 28% 52% 100% 24 Ave Size (sq ft) 731 1088 1502 1232 No Units 8 67 84 66 225 Kier 16/02756/REM Tanton Road, Stokesley Stokesley 9.06 6.19 Mix 4% 30% 37% 29% 100% 36 Ave Size (sq ft) 624 762 923 1514 1038 No Units 2 7 7 10 26 Mulgrave 17/00941/FUL Waters Meet, Great Broughton Stokesley Mix 8% 27% 27% 38% 100% Properties Ave Size (sq ft) 633 779 999 1578 1135 No Units 2 23 15 40 Wakefield and 17/02448/REM St Mary's Close, Thirsk Thirsk 1.32 Mix 5% 58% 38% 100% District HA Ave Size (sq ft) 646 758 938 820 No Units 58 21 33 112 Bellway 18/00331/FUL Austin Reed, Station Road, Thirsk Thirsk 4.03 3.45 Mix 52% 19% 29% 100% 32 Ave Size (sq ft) 815 1194 1445 1072
Summary
Mix 1b 2b 3b 4b 5b 1b 2b Total No of Dwellings 24 225 194 202 645 Percentage 3.7% 34.9% 30.1% 31.3% 100.0%
Size 1b 2b 3b 4b 5b 1b 2b Overall Ave No schemes 4 7 7 6 7 Ave size (sq.ft) 632 760 1004 1497 1069 Appendix 4 - Planning Permissions Analysis (Densities and Coverage)
Planning Site Area Net Density (net Total Floorspace per Gross to Net Total Floorspace Developer Application Address Sub Area (Hectares) Developable No Dwellings developable net developable acre Ratio (sq.ft) Number Gross Area (hac) area) (sq.ft)
Yorvik Homes 14/00370/FUL Benkhill Drive Bedale 0.4 0.4 100% 14 35 12,185 12,333
Berkeley DeVeer 15/01073/REM Mulberry Vale Northallerton 0.7 0.7 100% 23 33 23,791 13,760
Daniel Garth Land South of South Back Lane, 14/02389/FUL Easingwold 1.03 1.03 100% 24 23 28,272 11,113 Homes Stillington
Taylor Wimpey 13/01770/FUL Land off Ripon Way Thirsk 1.46 1.23 84% 40 33 39,961 13,145
Fox Covert Close (South east of Taylor Wimpey 14/01228/FUL Bedale 1.32 1.32 100% 41 31 39,600 12,146 Aiskew)
Taylor Wimpey 15/02389/REM Sowerby Gateway (Lime Gardens) Thirsk 1.49 1.33 89% 44 33 45,613 13,864
Linden Homes 15/00175/REM Stillington Road Easingwold 1.58 1.40 88% 48 34 50,400 14,609
Linden Homes 15/00741/FUL The Dales, Morton on Swale Northallerton 2.01 1.48 74% 48 32 48,539 13,278
Whitfield Homes 16/00511/FUL Willow Bridge Lane Dalton Thirsk 1.67 1.67 100% 43 26 54,192 13,138
Persimmon 15/00006/FUL South End Bedale 2.48 1.92 77% 79 41 66,952 14,125
Land To Rear Of 28 - 34 Bedale Cecil M Yuill 11/02543/FUL Bedale 2.3 2.04 89% 59 29 64,467 12,794 Road (South East of Aiskew)
Taylor Wimpey 15/01943/REM White House Farm, Stokesley Stokesley 6.90 5.33 77% 178 33 199,518 15,155
Redrow 11/01661/FUL Land at York Road Easingwold 3.47 3.04 88% 93 31 91,698 12,210
Barratt/DWH 13/01956/FUL Mowberry Park/Castlegate Northallerton 8.1 6.77 84% 244 36 270,503 16,177
Berkeley Station Yard, Mowbray Terrace, 16/00529/FUL Bedale 1.31 1.22 93% 42 34 47,479 15,756 DeVeer West Tanfield
North of Stillington Road, Kier 17/00519/REM Easingwold 6.69 5.50 82% 175 32 185,139 13,625 Easingwold
16/01836/FUL Garbutts Lane, Hutton Rudby Stokesley 1.19 1.05 88% 25 24 30,799 11,906
Kier 16/02756/REM Tanton Road, Stokesley Stokesley 9.06 6.19 68% 225 36 233,473 15,270
Austin Reed, Station Road, Bellway 18/00331/FUL Thirsk 4.03 3.45 86% 112 32 120,018 14,080 Thirsk
Ave 32 13,604
APPENDIX 5 NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS – SALES AND ASKING PRICES
Appendix 5 - Summary of New Build Sales and Asking Prices
Average Sales Average Current Ave Current Ave Sub Area Development Settlement Developer No Sales Price (per Sales Price Asking Prices Asking Prices Comments sq.m) (per sq.ft) (per sq.m) (per sq.ft) Ex 2.5s dwellings sales at £2,568 per sq.m (£239 per sq.ft). Asking prices at £2,462 Stokesley Stokesley Grange Stokesley Taylor Wimpey 42 £2,552 £237 £2,419 £225 per sq. m (£229 per sq.ft)
Tanton Fields Stokesley Kier 2 £2,895 £269 £2,716 £252 Early stages of development. Sales todate relate to 2 bungalows
Waters Meet Great Broughton Mulgrave Homes £2,852 £265 Development recently commenced. A number of reservations
Bedale Fox Covert Aiskew Taylor Wimpey 14 £2,485 £231 All sold All sold All sales were completed during first part of 2017
Leeming Gate Leeming Bar Mullberry Homes 25 £2,137 £198 All sold All sold All sales were completed during 2017
Moorfields Little Crakehall Mulgrave Properties 8 £3,037 £282 £2,842 £264 Two remaining properties. Sales during mid part of 2018
Northallerton The Dales Morton on Swale Linden Homes 25 £2,789 £259 All sold All sold Sales during mid to late 2017 and 2018
Narrow tight site adjacent to railway line with large proportion of 2.5 storey houses. Mulberry Vale Romanby Berkeley Deveer 19 £2,328 £216 All sold All sold Excluding these average sales price is £2,537 per sq.m (£236 per sq.ft)
Castlegate Northallerton David Wilson Homes 36 £2,397 £223 All sold All sold Excluding flats the average selling price is £2,442 per sq.m (£227 per sq.ft)
Mowbray Park Northallerton Barratt 16 £2,533 £235 All sold All sold Sales data relates to sales primarily during 2017
Thurstan Park Northallerton Taylor Wimpey 18 £2,645 £246 £2,600 £242 Development commenced recently and sales are during 2018
Development commenced recently and sales are during 2018. Excluding 2.5s Kings Park Northallerton Persimmon Homes 12 £2,397 £223 £2,721 £253 dwellings average sale price is £2,445 per sq.m (£227 per sq.ft)
Thirsk Lime Gardens Sowerby Taylor Wimpey 15 £2,558 £238 £2,571 £239 Sales data relates to phase 1 sales in 2017. Aksing prices are for phase 2
Mowbray View Sowerby Linden Homes 34 £2,682 £249 All sold All sold
The Oaks Sowerby Mulberry Homes 14 £2,605 £242 No current availability Majority of sales data for 2017
2no renovated and 2no new build. New build have average asking price of £2,901 per The Cottages Kirkby Wiske £2,825 £262 sq.m (£270 per sq.ft)
Outfield Sessay Daniel Gath Homes 6 £2,568 £239 All sold All sold Development of 4 semis and 2 detached houses
Majority of sales relate to smaller 2 and 3 bed semis and terraces. The last phase of Willow Bridge Dalton Whitfield Homes 18 £2,382 £221 £2,516 £234 the development generally larger detahced houses.
Easingwold Stillington Road Easingwold Linden Homes 10 £2,790 £259 All sold All sold Data relates to final new build sales on the development during first part of 2017
Sales data includes all new build sales from end of 2015. Last sale in 2017 was at the Oxenby Place Easingwold Mulgrave Homes 10 £3,382 £314 All sold All sold average price
The Weald Easingwold Persimmon £2,959 £275 Prices released for initial phase of development
Hambleton Chase Easingwold Kier £3,165 £294 Prices released for initial phase of development
South Back Lane Stillington Daniel Gath Homes 6 £3,116 £289 All sold All sold Last Sales All during 2017
Sparrow Way Stillington Ambleside Homes £3,512 £326 Small development of 5 homes - 3 sold stc
Northmead The Meadows Huby 1 £2,738 £254 £2,869 £266 Development of 8 houses - majority sold although sales prices not yet available Developments Sutton on The Manor Court 3 £3,353 £311 Forrest Stephensons The Wickets Raskelf £2,977 £277 Small development of 3 homes Properties
Foxholm Croft Flawith Alcuin Homes £3,138 £291 Small development of 4 homes APPENDIX 5 - NEW BUILD SALES AND ASKING PRICES
Stokesley Grange, Stokesley (Taylor Wimpey)
Price Price Apartment No Street Area Postcode Price Paid Date Sq.m Sq.ft Reference Description No Beds Comments (Per Sq.m) (Per Sq.ft) 9 OAK TREE ROAD STOKESLEY TS9 5FN £219,950 15/06/2017 80 866 £2,734 £254 Gosford S 3 11 OAK TREE ROAD STOKESLEY TS9 5FN £219,950 15/06/2017 80 866 £2,734 £254 Gosford S 3
5 OAK TREE ROAD STOKESLEY TS9 5FN £199,950 21/07/2017 80 866 £2,485 £231 Gosford S 3 3 OAK TREE ROAD STOKESLEY TS9 5FN £199,950 31/08/2017 80 866 £2,485 £231 Gosford S 3
18 APPLE TREE ROAD STOKESLEY TS9 5FA £190,000 22/06/2018 80 866 £2,361 £219 Gosford S 3
14 MAPLE LEAF LANE STOKESLEY TS9 5FP £199,950 22/06/2018 80 866 £2,485 £231 Gosford S 3 16 APPLE TREE ROAD STOKESLEY TS9 5FA £199,950 27/06/2018 80 866 £2,485 £231 Gosford S 3 12 MAPLE LEAF LANE STOKESLEY TS9 5FP £189,953 29/06/2018 80 866 £2,361 £219 Gosford S 3 16 OAK TREE ROAD STOKESLEY TS9 5FN £239,950 30/06/2017 90 973 £2,654 £247 Kirkby D 3 Bungalow 1 MAPLE LEAF LANE STOKESLEY TS9 5FP £239,950 25/08/2017 90 973 £2,654 £247 Kirkby D 3 Bungalow
4 APPLE TREE ROAD STOKESLEY TS9 5FA £279,950 27/01/2017 107 1153 £2,613 £243 Bradenham D 4 3 APPLE TREE ROAD STOKESLEY TS9 5FR £294,950 10/04/2017 107 1153 £2,753 £256 Bradenham D 4 7 OAK TREE ROAD STOKESLEY TS9 5FN £294,950 16/06/2017 107 1153 £2,753 £256 Bradenham D 4
14 APPLE TREE ROAD STOKESLEY TS9 5FA £269,950 15/12/2017 107 1153 £2,520 £234 Bradenham D 4 6 MAPLE LEAF LANE STOKESLEY TS9 5FP £269,950 04/05/2018 107 1153 £2,520 £234 Bradenham D 4 8 OAK TREE ROAD STOKESLEY TS9 5FN £249,950 27/07/2018 107 1153 £2,333 £217 Bradenham D 4
4 OAK TREE ROAD STOKESLEY TS9 5FN £299,950 24/02/2017 110 1182 £2,731 £254 Midford D 4 33 OAK TREE ROAD STOKESLEY TS9 5FN £279,950 15/12/2017 110 1182 £2,549 £237 Midford D 4 15 MAPLE LEAF LANE STOKESLEY TS9 5FP £271,950 27/07/2018 110 1182 £2,476 £230 Midford D 4 22 OAK TREE ROAD STOKESLEY TS9 5FN £259,950 26/10/2018 110 1182 £2,367 £220 Midford D 4
6 OAK TREE ROAD STOKESLEY TS9 5FN £319,950 01/03/2017 116 1244 £2,768 £257 Downham D 4 14 OAK TREE ROAD STOKESLEY TS9 5FN £309,950 24/08/2017 116 1244 £2,682 £249 Downham D 4
39 OAK TREE ROAD STOKESLEY TS9 5FN £309,950 22/09/2017 116 1244 £2,682 £249 Downham D 4
2 OAK TREE ROAD STOKESLEY TS9 5FN £339,950 24/03/2017 124 1334 £2,743 £255 Eynsham D 4 43 OAK TREE ROAD STOKESLEY TS9 5FN £319,950 09/02/2018 124 1334 £2,581 £240 Eynsham D 4 29 OAK TREE ROAD STOKESLEY TS9 5FN £309,950 11/05/2018 124 1334 £2,501 £232 Eynsham D 4 23 MAPLE LEAF LANE STOKESLEY TS9 5FP £274,950 22/10/2018 124 1334 £2,218 £206 Eynsham D 4 4 MAPLE LEAF LANE STOKESLEY TS9 5FP £274,950 25/10/2018 124 1334 £2,218 £206 Eynsham D 4
31 OAK TREE ROAD STOKESLEY TS9 5FN £329,950 23/02/2018 127 1369 £2,594 £241 Shelford D 4
2 MAPLE LEAF LANE STOKESLEY TS9 5FP £334,950 27/04/2018 127 1369 £2,633 £245 Shelford D 4 25 OAK TREE ROAD STOKESLEY TS9 5FN £360,000 10/01/2017 136 1460 £2,654 £247 Haddenham D 4
41 OAK TREE ROAD STOKESLEY TS9 5FN £349,950 08/02/2018 136 1460 £2,580 £240 Haddenham D 4 24 OAK TREE ROAD STOKESLEY TS9 5FN £349,950 26/04/2018 136 1460 £2,580 £240 Haddenham D 4 35 OAK TREE ROAD STOKESLEY TS9 5FN £349,950 27/04/2018 136 1460 £2,580 £240 Haddenham D 4 1 OAK TREE ROAD STOKESLEY TS9 5FN £349,950 16/08/2018 136 1460 £2,580 £240 Haddenham D 4
18 OAK TREE ROAD STOKESLEY TS9 5FN £389,950 21/07/2017 142 1530 £2,743 £255 Langdale D 4 2 APPLE TREE ROAD STOKESLEY TS9 5FA £374,950 01/09/2017 142 1530 £2,638 £245 Langdale D 4 37 OAK TREE ROAD STOKESLEY TS9 5FN £379,950 04/05/2018 145 1562 £2,618 £243 Thornford D 4
17 MAPLE LEAF LANE STOKESLEY TS9 5FP £364,950 18/10/2018 145 1562 £2,515 £234 Thornford D 4 23 OAK TREE ROAD STOKESLEY TS9 5FN £410,000 10/01/2017 163 1759 £2,509 £233 Wilton D 5 2.5s 12 APPLE TREE ROAD STOKESLEY TS9 5FA £339,950 29/06/2017 163 1759 £2,080 £193 Wilton D 5 2.5s
8 MAPLE LEAF LANE STOKESLEY TS9 5FP £399,950 29/06/2018 163 1759 £2,447 £227 Wilton D 5 2.5s Ave £2,552 £237 Sales 42 Ave ex 2.5 £2,568 £239 2017 £2,627 £244 2018 £2,478 £230 APPENDIX 5 - NEW BUILD SALES AND ASKING PRICES
Stokesley Grange, Stokesley (Taylor Wimpey)
Affordable Housing Price Price Apartment No Street Area Postcode Price Paid Date Sq.m Sq.ft Reference Description No Beds Comments (Per Sq.m) (Per Sq.ft) 15 OAK TREE ROAD STOKESLEY TS9 5FN £65,500 28/04/2017 71 759 £929 £86 Cotterdale S 2 AH
17 OAK TREE ROAD STOKESLEY TS9 5FN £65,500 28/04/2017 71 759 £929 £86 Cotterdale S 2 AH
19 OAK TREE ROAD STOKESLEY TS9 5FN £65,500 28/04/2017 71 759 £929 £86 Cotterdale S 2 AH
21 OAK TREE ROAD STOKESLEY TS9 5FN £65,500 28/04/2017 71 759 £929 £86 Cotterdale S 2 AH
Availability at 11 Jan 2019
Size Size Asking Price (per Price (per Plot Ref No Beds Type Comments (sq.m) (sq.ft) Price sq.m) sq.ft)
97 Langdale 4 Det 142 1530 £369,950 £2,603 £242 71 Thornford 4 Det 145 1562 £364,950 £2,515 £234 102 Wilton 5 Det 163 1759 £359,950 £2,203 £205 2.5s 141 Lavenham 5 Det 153 1646 £359,950 £2,354 £219 163 Lavenham 5 Det 153 1646 £359,950 £2,354 £219 96 Gosford 3 Semi 80 866 £199,950 £2,485 £231 Ave £2,419 £225
Ave ex 2.5 £2,462 £229 APPENDIX 5- NEW BUILD SALES AND ASKING PRICES
Tanton Fields, Stokesley (Kier)
Price Price Apartment No Street Area Postcode Price Paid Date Sq.m Sq.ft Reference Description No Beds Comments (Per Sq.m) (Per Sq.ft) 33 THE FIRS STOKESLEY TS9 5FT £204,950 18/10/2018 71 762 £2,895 £269 Horsham S 2 Bungalow
35 THE FIRS STOKESLEY TS9 5FT £204,950 28/09/2018 71 762 £2,895 £269 Horsham S 2 Bungalow
Sales 2 Ave £2,895 £269
Availability at 11 Jan 2019
Size Asking Price (per Price (per Plot Ref No Beds Type Size (sq.ft) Comments (sq.m) Price sq.m) sq.ft)
49 Horsham 2 Bungalow- semi 71 762 £204,950 £2,895 £269
50 Horsham 2 Bungalow- semi 71 762 £204,950 £2,895 £269
53 Horsham 2 Bungalow- semi 71 762 £204,950 £2,895 £269
15 Holmewood 3 Semi 84 906 £215,995 £2,566 £238
16 Holmewood 3 Semi 84 906 £225,000 £2,673 £248
17 Holmewood 3 Semi 84 906 £225,000 £2,673 £248
18 Holmewood 3 Semi 84 906 £225,000 £2,673 £248
19 Holmewood 3 Semi 84 906 £215,995 £2,566 £238
22 Oakwood 3 Det 93 1001 £249,995 £2,688 £250
8 Mapleford 4 Det 128 1376 £339,950 £2,659 £247
9 Mapleford 4 Det 128 1376 £349,950 £2,738 £254
35 Oakford 4 Det 139 1498 £375,000 £2,695 £250
36 Oakford 4 Det 139 1498 £375,000 £2,695 £250
Ave £2,716 £252 APPENDIX 5 - NEW BUILD SALES AND ASKING PRICES
Waters Meet, Great Broughton (Mulgrave Homes)
Availability at 11 Jan 2019
Size Size Price (per Price (per Plot Ref No Beds Type Asking Price Comments (sq.m) (sq.ft) sq.m) sq.ft) 1 Ash 4 Det 181 1946 £550,000 £3,042 £283 2 Beech 4 Det 131 1411 £375,000 £2,862 £266 Reserved 3 Chestnut 4 Det 155 1672 £395,000 £2,543 £236 Reserved 4 Willow 3 Semi 96 1037 £245,000 £2,543 £236 6 Elm 3 Semi 96 1037 £245,000 £2,543 £236 Reserved 7 Oak 2 Semi 72 773 £220,000 £3,063 £285 8 Oak 2 Semi 72 773 £220,000 £3,063 £285 9 Oak 2 Semi 72 773 £222,000 £3,091 £287 10 Sycamore 4 Det 126 1352 £350,000 £2,787 £259 Reserved 11 Hazel 4 Det 140 1506 £395,000 £2,824 £262 12 Hazel 4 Det 140 1506 £398,000 £2,845 £264 13 Holly 4 Det 187 2017 £550,000 £2,935 £273 14 Hazel 4 Det 141 1517 £399,000 £2,831 £263 15 Sycamore 4 Det 126 1353 £350,000 £2,785 £259 Reserved 16 Hazel 4 Det 140 1506 To be released 17 Elm 3 Semi 96 1037 £260,000 £2,700 £251 18 Elm 3 Semi 96 1037 £260,000 £2,700 £251 19 Oak 2 Semi 72 774 £222,000 £3,088 £287 20 Oak 2 Semi 72 774 £222,000 £3,088 £287 Ave £2,852 £265 APPENDIX 5 - NEW BUILD SALES AND ASKING PRICES
Fox Covert, Aiskew
Price Price Apartment No Street Area Postcode Price Paid Date Sq.m Sq.ft Reference Description No Beds Comments (Per Sq.m) (Per Sq.ft) 10 FALCON PLACE AISKEW DL8 1FQ £199,950 13/04/2017 80 866 £2,485 £231 Gosford S 3
9 FALCON PLACE AISKEW DL8 1FQ £204,950 13/04/2017 80 866 £2,547 £237 Gosford S 3
11 FALCON PLACE AISKEW DL8 1FQ £189,953 20/04/2017 80 866 £2,361 £219 Gosford S 3
2 FALCON PLACE AISKEW DL8 1FQ £199,950 27/04/2017 80 866 £2,485 £231 Gosford S 3
1 FALCON PLACE AISKEW DL8 1FQ £199,950 28/04/2017 80 866 £2,485 £231 Gosford S 3
12 FALCON PLACE AISKEW DL8 1FQ £199,950 28/07/2017 80 866 £2,485 £231 Gosford S 3
14 FALCON PLACE AISKEW DL8 1FQ £174,950 31/03/2017 58 620 £3,037 £282 Foxdale D 2 Bungalow
34 FALCON PLACE AISKEW DL8 1FQ £278,950 07/02/2017 116 1244 £2,413 £224 Downham D 4
25 FALCON PLACE AISKEW DL8 1FQ £264,950 31/03/2017 116 1244 £2,292 £213 Downham D 4
33 FALCON PLACE AISKEW DL8 1FQ £278,950 31/03/2017 116 1244 £2,413 £224 Downham D 4
12 FOXCOVERT CLOSE AISKEW DL8 1XJ £259,950 14/06/2017 116 1244 £2,249 £209 Downham D 4
31 FALCON PLACE AISKEW DL8 1FQ £286,950 16/01/2017 116 1248 £2,475 £230 Whitford D 4
10 FOXCOVERT CLOSE AISKEW DL8 1XJ £304,950 30/05/2017 116 1248 £2,630 £244 Whitford D 4
32 FALCON PLACE AISKEW DL8 1FQ £282,450 31/05/2017 116 1248 £2,436 £226 Whitford D 4
Ave £2,485 £231
Sales 14
Exc B £2,443 £227 APPENDIX 5 - NEW BUILD SALES AND ASKING PRICES
Leeming Gate, Leeming Bar (Mulberry Homes)
Price Price Apartment No Street Area Postcode Price Paid Date Sq.m Sq.ft Reference Description No Beds Comments (Per Sq.m) (Per Sq.ft) 3 FOUNDRY WAY LEEMING BAR DL7 9EJ £150,000 11/08/2017 73 783 £2,062 £192 HT35 S 2
1 FOUNDRY WAY LEEMING BAR DL7 9EJ £150,000 08/09/2017 73 783 £2,062 £192 HT35 S 2
4 FOUNDRY WAY LEEMING BAR DL7 9EJ £150,000 06/11/2017 73 783 £2,062 £192 HT35 S 2
8 BEDALE ROSE AVENUE LEEMING BAR DL7 9FA £210,000 28/02/2017 82 879 £2,572 £239 HT31 D 3
2 FOUNDRY WAY LEEMING BAR DL7 9EJ £165,000 15/09/2017 90 970 £1,831 £170 HT30A S 3
50 FOUNDRY WAY LEEMING BAR DL7 9EJ £193,000 03/02/2017 92 990 £2,098 £195 HT24 S 3
4 BEDALE ROSE AVENUE LEEMING BAR DL7 9FA £193,000 10/03/2017 92 990 £2,098 £195 HT24 S 3
2 BEDALE ROSE AVENUE LEEMING BAR DL7 9FA £193,000 28/04/2017 92 990 £2,098 £195 HT24 S 3
6 FOUNDRY WAY LEEMING BAR DL7 9EJ £190,000 14/07/2017 92 990 £2,066 £192 HT24 S 3
8 FOUNDRY WAY LEEMING BAR DL7 9EJ £197,000 14/07/2017 92 990 £2,142 £199 HT24 S 3
23 FOUNDRY WAY LEEMING BAR DL7 9EJ £198,000 17/03/2017 93 1003 £2,125 £197 HT26 S 3
22 FOUNDRY WAY LEEMING BAR DL7 9EJ £188,000 31/03/2017 93 1003 £2,018 £187 HT26 S 3
39 FOUNDRY WAY LEEMING BAR DL7 9EJ £185,000 30/06/2017 93 1003 £1,985 £184 HT26 S 3
10 FOUNDRY WAY LEEMING BAR DL7 9EJ £180,000 03/07/2017 93 1003 £1,932 £179 HT26 S 3
37 FOUNDRY WAY LEEMING BAR DL7 9EJ £185,000 28/07/2017 93 1003 £1,985 £184 HT26 S 3
25 FOUNDRY WAY LEEMING BAR DL7 9EJ £185,000 11/08/2017 93 1003 £1,985 £184 HT26 S 3
31 FOUNDRY WAY LEEMING BAR DL7 9EJ £185,000 15/09/2017 93 1003 £1,985 £184 HT26 S 3
12 FOUNDRY WAY LEEMING BAR DL7 9EJ £180,000 20/10/2017 93 1003 £1,932 £179 HT26 S 3
5 BEDALE ROSE AVENUE LEEMING BAR DL7 9FA £255,000 28/02/2017 106 1137 £2,414 £224 HT22 D 4
27 FOUNDRY WAY LEEMING BAR DL7 9EJ £250,000 23/03/2017 106 1137 £2,367 £220 HT22 D 4
6 BEDALE ROSE AVENUE LEEMING BAR DL7 9FA £245,000 15/09/2017 106 1137 £2,319 £215 HT22 D 4
23 BEDALE ROSE AVENUE LEEMING BAR DL7 9FA £250,000 29/09/2017 106 1137 £2,367 £220 HT22 D 4
1 BEDALE ROSE AVENUE LEEMING BAR DL7 9FA £240,000 27/01/2017 107 1147 £2,252 £209 HT38 D 4
3 BEDALE ROSE AVENUE LEEMING BAR DL7 9FA £260,000 03/02/2017 114 1225 £2,285 £212 HT34 D 4
11 FOUNDRY WAY LEEMING BAR DL7 9EJ £270,000 25/08/2017 114 1225 £2,372 £220 HT34 D 4
Ave £2,137 £198
No sales 25 APPENDIX 5 - NEW BUILD SALES AND ASKING PRICES
Little Crakehall (Mulgrave Properties)
Price Price Apartment No Street Area Postcode Price Paid Date Sq.m Sq.ft Reference Description No Beds Comments (Per Sq.m) (Per Sq.ft) EASTFIELD HACKFORTH ROAD LITTLE CRAKEHALL DL8 1HY £230,000 11/05/2018 71 764 £3,240 £301 Det 2 Bungalow GARTHENDE HACKFORTH ROAD LITTLE CRAKEHALL DL8 1HY £260,000 20/06/2018 85 915 £3,059 £284 Det 3
MIRLAND HACKFORTH ROAD LITTLE CRAKEHALL DL8 1HY £260,000 12/04/2018 85 915 £3,059 £284 Det 3
6 CRINGLEFIELDS LITTLE CRAKEHALL DL8 1GY £365,000 04/05/2018 120 1292 £3,041 £283 Det 4
1 MOORFIELDS LITTLE CRAKEHALL DL8 1GZ £365,000 27/07/2018 120 1292 £3,041 £283 Det 4
OXMYRE HACKFORTH ROAD LITTLE CRAKEHALL DL8 1HY £345,000 10/09/2018 120 1292 £2,874 £267 Det 4
4 MOORFIELDS LITTLE CRAKEHALL DL8 1GZ £395,000 03/08/2018 132 1421 £2,992 £278 Det 4 5 MOORFIELDS LITTLE CRAKEHALL DL8 1GZ £395,000 23/07/2018 132 1421 £2,992 £278 Det 4
Sales 8 Ave £3,037 £282
Availability at 11 Jan 2019
Size Asking Price (per Price (per Plot Address No Beds Type Size (sq.m) Comments (sq.ft) Price sq.m) sq.ft)
3 Cringlefields 4 Det 120 1292 £340,000 £2,833 £263 Morstyle Hackforth Road 4 Det 114 1227 £325,000 £2,851 £265
Ave £2,842 £264 APPENDIX 5 - NEW BUILD SALES AND ASKING PRICES
The Dales, Morton on Swale (Linden Homes)
Price Price Apartment No Street Area Postcode Price Paid Date Sq.m Sq.ft Reference Description No Beds Comments (Per Sq.m) (Per Sq.ft) 22 MEADOWFIELDS MORTON ON SWALE DL7 9SE £209,950 22/09/2017 69 744 £3,037 £282 Worsley Semi 3
7 MEADOWFIELDS MORTON ON SWALE DL7 9SE £209,950 20/10/2017 69 744 £3,037 £282 Worsley Semi 3
6 MEADOWFIELDS MORTON ON SWALE DL7 9SE £209,950 20/12/2017 69 744 £3,037 £282 Worsley Semi 3
21 MEADOWFIELDS MORTON ON SWALE DL7 9SE £209,960 27/06/2018 69 744 £3,038 £282 Worsley Semi 3
25 MEADOWFIELDS MORTON ON SWALE DL7 9SE £209,960 27/06/2018 69 744 £3,038 £282 Worsley Semi 3
43 MEADOWFIELDS MORTON ON SWALE DL7 9SE £269,950 01/09/2017 97 1047 £2,775 £258 Hampton Det 3
44 MEADOWFIELDS MORTON ON SWALE DL7 9SE £279,950 29/09/2017 98 1054 £2,859 £266 Duxford Det 4
47 MEADOWFIELDS MORTON ON SWALE DL7 9SE £279,950 15/11/2017 98 1054 £2,859 £266 Duxford Det 4
5 MEADOWFIELDS MORTON ON SWALE DL7 9SE £279,950 06/07/2018 98 1054 £2,859 £266 Duxford Det 4
1 MEADOWFIELDS MORTON ON SWALE DL7 9SE £289,950 28/04/2017 107 1153 £2,707 £251 Lumley Det 4
4 MEADOWFIELDS MORTON ON SWALE DL7 9SE £289,950 28/04/2017 107 1153 £2,707 £251 Lumley Det 4
42 MEADOWFIELDS MORTON ON SWALE DL7 9SE £289,950 28/07/2017 107 1153 £2,707 £251 Lumley Det 4
10 MEADOWFIELDS MORTON ON SWALE DL7 9SE £289,950 13/12/2017 107 1153 £2,707 £251 Lumley Det 4
23 MEADOWFIELDS MORTON ON SWALE DL7 9SE £292,000 22/03/2018 107 1153 £2,726 £253 Lumley Det 4
9 MEADOWFIELDS MORTON ON SWALE DL7 9SE £289,950 29/06/2018 107 1153 £2,707 £251 Lumley Det 4
41 MEADOWFIELDS MORTON ON SWALE DL7 9SE £292,950 19/09/2018 107 1153 £2,735 £254 Lumley Det 4
30 MEADOWFIELDS MORTON ON SWALE DL7 9SE £293,995 28/09/2018 107 1153 £2,745 £255 Lumley Det 4
45 MEADOWFIELDS MORTON ON SWALE DL7 9SE £340,000 26/05/2017 133 1430 £2,559 £238 Fairfax Det 4
3 MEADOWFIELDS MORTON ON SWALE DL7 9SE £364,950 26/10/2017 133 1430 £2,747 £255 Fairfax Det 4
2 MEADOWFIELDS MORTON ON SWALE DL7 9SE £325,000 10/11/2017 133 1430 £2,446 £227 Fairfax Det 4
46 MEADOWFIELDS MORTON ON SWALE DL7 9SE £355,950 30/11/2017 133 1430 £2,679 £249 Fairfax Det 4
HAMBLETON HOUSE MORTON ON SWALE DL7 9QX £364,950 30/11/2017 133 1430 £2,747 £255 Fairfax Det 4
31 MEADOWFIELDS MORTON ON SWALE DL7 9SE £364,950 29/03/2018 133 1430 £2,747 £255 Fairfax Det 4
THE SWALES MORTON ON SWALE DL7 9QX £384,950 30/11/2017 138 1485 £2,790 £259 Burghley Det 4
11 MEADOWFIELDS MORTON ON SWALE DL7 9SE £374,950 31/01/2018 138 1485 £2,718 £252 Burghley Det 4
25 Ave £2,789 £259
At 12 January 2019 no outright sale left all part buy part rent APPENDIX 5 - NEW BUILD SALES AND ASKING PRICES
Mulberry Vale, Northallerton (Berkeley Deveer)
Price Price Apartment No Street Area Postcode Price Paid Date Sq.m Sq.ft Reference Description No Beds Comments (Per Sq.m) (Per Sq.ft) 100 ROMANBY ROAD ROMANBY DL7 8UN £199,995 24/03/2017 76 822 £2,619 £243 Buckingham Ter 3
12 MULBERRY VALE ROMANBY DL7 8US £199,950 27/03/2017 76 822 £2,618 £243 Buckingham Ter 3
104 ROMANBY ROAD ROMANBY DL7 8UN £199,995 19/05/2017 76 822 £2,619 £243 Buckingham Ter 3
9 MULBERRY VALE ROMANBY DL7 8US £197,500 09/06/2017 76 822 £2,586 £240 Buckingham Ter 3
102 ROMANBY ROAD ROMANBY DL7 8UN £200,000 09/06/2017 76 822 £2,619 £243 Buckingham Ter 3
8 MULBERRY VALE ROMANBY DL7 8US £199,950 30/06/2017 76 822 £2,618 £243 Buckingham Ter 3
11 MULBERRY VALE ROMANBY DL7 8US £185,000 12/10/2017 76 822 £2,423 £225 Buckingham Ter 3
7 MULBERRY VALE ROMANBY DL7 8US £193,000 29/03/2018 76 822 £2,527 £235 Buckingham Ter 3
10 MULBERRY VALE ROMANBY DL7 8US £200,000 31/07/2017 91 975 £2,208 £205 Easingwold Semi 3
14 MULBERRY VALE ROMANBY DL7 8US £225,000 24/03/2017 105 1125 £2,153 £200 Kensington Ter 4 2.5s
1 MULBERRY VALE ROMANBY DL7 8US £240,000 02/08/2017 105 1125 £2,296 £213 Kensington Ter 4 2.5s
106 ROMANBY ROAD ROMANBY DL7 8UN £225,000 08/11/2017 105 1125 £2,153 £200 Kensington Ter 4 2.5s
108 ROMANBY ROAD ROMANBY DL7 8UN £216,000 21/11/2017 105 1125 £2,067 £192 Kensington Ter 4 2.5s
4 MULBERRY VALE ROMANBY DL7 8US £230,000 20/12/2017 105 1125 £2,201 £204 Kensington Ter 4 2.5s
2 MULBERRY VALE ROMANBY DL7 8US £222,000 31/07/2018 105 1125 £2,124 £197 Kensington Ter 4 2.5s
15 MULBERRY VALE ROMANBY DL7 8US £225,000 22/08/2018 105 1125 £2,153 £200 Kensington Ter 4 2.5s
112 ROMANBY ROAD ROMANBY DL7 8UN £250,000 29/03/2018 114 1224 £2,199 £204 Mayfair Ter 4 2.5s
6 MULBERRY VALE ROMANBY DL7 8US £240,000 17/08/2018 114 1224 £2,111 £196 Mayfair Ter 4 2.5s
3 MULBERRY VALE ROMANBY DL7 8US £220,000 07/09/2018 114 1224 £1,935 £180 Mayfair Ter 4 2.5s
Ave £2,328 £216
Sales 19 Ex 2.5s £2,537 £236 APPENDIX 5 - NEW BUILD SALES AND ASKING PRICES
Castlegate, Northallerton (DWH)
Price Price Apartment No Street Area Postcode Price Paid Date Sq.m Sq.ft Reference Description No Beds Comments (Per Sq.m) (Per Sq.ft) GROUND FLOOR 11 BEN HYDE WAY NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WA £129,995 01/06/2018 61 655 £2,136 £198 SB7 Flat 2 17 BEN HYDE WAY NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WA £129,995 18/06/2018 61 655 £2,136 £198 SB7 Flat 2 GROUND FLOOR 15 BEN HYDE WAY NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WA £129,995 29/06/2018 61 655 £2,136 £198 SB7 Flat 2 29 BEN HYDE WAY NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WA £131,995 10/08/2018 61 655 £2,169 £202 SB7 Flat 2 27 BEN HYDE WAY NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WA £139,995 24/08/2018 61 655 £2,301 £214 SB7 Flat 2 21 BEN HYDE WAY NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WA £129,995 28/09/2018 61 655 £2,136 £198 SB7 Flat 2
16 RUFUS WAY NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WF £267,495 20/01/2017 108 1167 £2,467 £229 Irving Det 4 14 RUFUS WAY NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WF £278,495 02/03/2017 108 1167 £2,569 £239 Irving Det 4 59 CASTLEGATE ROAD NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WE £237,095 29/06/2017 116 1248 £2,045 £190 Houghton Ter 3 2.5s 21 CASTLEGATE ROAD NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WE £254,995 22/06/2018 116 1248 £2,199 £204 Houghton Ter 3 2.5s 25 CASTLEGATE ROAD NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WE £256,995 22/06/2018 116 1248 £2,217 £206 Houghton Ter 3 2.5s 23 CASTLEGATE ROAD NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WE £249,995 28/06/2018 116 1248 £2,156 £200 Houghton Ter 3 2.5s
22 RUFUS WAY NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WF £298,995 04/04/2017 124 1335 £2,411 £224 Milford Det 4 4 RUFUS WAY NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WF £306,595 17/11/2017 124 1335 £2,472 £230 Milford Det 4 19 CASTLEGATE ROAD NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WE £323,995 10/08/2018 124 1335 £2,612 £243 Milford Det 4 6 RUFUS WAY NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WF £339,995 15/12/2017 131 1406 £2,603 £242 Bradbury Det 4 12 RUFUS WAY NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WF £337,995 01/03/2018 131 1406 £2,588 £240 Bradbury Det 4
29 CASTLEGATE ROAD NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WE £333,495 25/05/2018 131 1406 £2,553 £237 Bradbury Det 4 1 RUFUS WAY NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WF £375,995 31/03/2017 143 1536 £2,635 £245 Holden Det 4
5 RUFUS WAY NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WF £364,995 26/05/2017 143 1536 £2,558 £238 Holden Det 4 65 CASTLEGATE ROAD NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WE £354,046 30/06/2017 143 1536 £2,481 £230 Holden Det 4 71 CASTLEGATE ROAD NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WE £381,500 29/09/2017 143 1536 £2,673 £248 Holden Det 4
67 CASTLEGATE ROAD NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WE £348,895 26/01/2018 143 1536 £2,445 £227 Holden Det 4 41 CASTLEGATE ROAD NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WE £359,995 29/06/2018 143 1536 £2,523 £234 Holden Det 4 26 CASTLEGATE ROAD NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WE £376,695 08/12/2017 150 1611 £2,517 £234 Layton Det 4 35 CASTLEGATE ROAD NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WE £369,995 15/12/2017 150 1611 £2,472 £230 Layton Det 4
2 RUFUS WAY NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WF £367,995 24/04/2018 153 1644 £2,409 £224 Layton Det 4
37 CASTLEGATE ROAD NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WE £364,995 09/08/2018 150 1611 £2,439 £227 Layton Det 4 3 RUFUS WAY NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WF £394,995 24/05/2017 158 1703 £2,497 £232 Chelworth Det 4 24 CASTLEGATE ROAD NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WE £402,995 15/12/2017 158 1703 £2,547 £237 Chelworth Det 4 8 RUFUS WAY NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WF £394,995 23/03/2018 158 1703 £2,497 £232 Chelworth Det 4 39 CASTLEGATE ROAD NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WE £398,995 26/04/2018 158 1703 £2,522 £234 Chelworth Det 4
31 CASTLEGATE ROAD NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WE £376,195 10/05/2018 158 1703 £2,378 £221 Chelworth Det 4 24 RUFUS WAY NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WF £386,995 30/01/2017 167 1797 £2,318 £215 Maddoc Det 5 2.5s 10 RUFUS WAY NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WF £375,995 27/04/2018 167 1797 £2,252 £209 Maddoc Det 5 2.5s 27 CASTLEGATE ROAD NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WE £369,995 28/09/2018 167 1797 £2,216 £206 Maddoc Det 5 2.5s
Ave £2,397 £223
No sales 36 Ex 2.5s £2,444 £227
Ex Flats £2,442 £227 APPENDIX 5 - NEW BUILD SALES AND ASKING PRICES
Mowbray Park, Northallerton (Barratt)
Price Price Apartment No Street Area Postcode Price Paid Date Sq.m Sq.ft Reference Description No Beds Comments (Per Sq.m) (Per Sq.ft) 24 DE LACY ROAD NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WD £191,995 23/06/2017 74 798 £2,590 £241 Dewsbury Semi 3
22 DE LACY ROAD NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WD £189,495 29/06/2017 74 798 £2,556 £237 Dewsbury Semi 3
28 DE LACY ROAD NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WD £199,995 23/06/2017 77 834 £2,581 £240 Finchley Semi 3
26 DE LACY ROAD NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WD £194,995 30/06/2017 77 834 £2,517 £234 Finchley Semi 3
3 ALL SAINTS LANE NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WH £234,646 29/06/2017 89 957 £2,639 £245 Morpeth Det 3
1 ALL SAINTS LANE NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WH £247,995 11/08/2017 89 957 £2,789 £259 Morpeth Det 3
30 DE LACY ROAD NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WD £241,995 30/06/2017 93 1004 £2,594 £241 Cheadle Det 3
32 DE LACY ROAD NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WD £240,995 30/06/2017 93 1004 £2,584 £240 Cheadle Det 3
11 ALL SAINTS LANE NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WH £264,995 16/06/2017 108 1158 £2,463 £229 Chesham Det 4
9 ALL SAINTS LANE NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WH £251,746 23/06/2017 108 1158 £2,340 £217 Chesham Det 4
36 DE LACY ROAD NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WD £262,495 29/09/2017 108 1158 £2,440 £227 Chesham Det 4
34 DE LACY ROAD NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WD £264,995 02/03/2018 108 1158 £2,463 £229 Chesham Det 4
15 ALL SAINTS LANE NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WH £279,995 16/06/2017 112 1204 £2,503 £233 Heathfield Det 4
7 ALL SAINTS LANE NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WH £279,995 29/06/2017 112 1204 £2,503 £233 Heathfield Det 4
5 ALL SAINTS LANE NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WH £279,995 30/06/2017 112 1204 £2,503 £233 Heathfield Det 4
38 DE LACY ROAD NORTHALLERTON DL7 8WD £274,995 16/11/2017 112 1204 £2,458 £228 Heathfield Det 4
Ave £2,533 £235
Sales 16 APPENDIX 5 - NEW BUILD SALES AND ASKING PRICES
Thurstan Park, Northallerton (Taylor Wimpey)
Price Price Apartment No Street Area Postcode Price Paid Date Sq.m Sq.ft Reference Description No Beds Comments (Per Sq.m) (Per Sq.ft) 36 PORTLAND ROAD BROMPTON DL6 2BQ £174,950 22/06/2018 64 689 £2,733 £254 Cranford S 2 35 PORTLAND ROAD BROMPTON DL6 2BQ £174,950 29/06/2018 64 689 £2,733 £254 Cranford S 2
37 PORTLAND ROAD BROMPTON DL6 2BQ £174,950 26/07/2018 64 689 £2,733 £254 Cranford S 2
38 PORTLAND ROAD BROMPTON DL6 2BQ £174,950 28/09/2018 64 689 £2,733 £254 Cranford S 2
26 PORTLAND ROAD BROMPTON DL6 2BQ £194,950 27/06/2018 67 722 £2,906 £270 Hollywell S 2 Bungalow
39 PORTLAND ROAD BROMPTON DL6 2BQ £209,950 10/08/2018 80 866 £2,610 £242 Gosford S 3
40 PORTLAND ROAD BROMPTON DL6 2BQ £209,950 20/08/2018 80 866 £2,610 £242 Gosford S 3 3 DALESBRED ROW BROMPTON DL6 2EG £239,950 26/06/2018 90 967 £2,671 £248 Aldenham D 3
24 PORTLAND ROAD BROMPTON DL6 2BQ £279,950 29/06/2018 107 1153 £2,613 £243 Bradenham D 4
33 PORTLAND ROAD BROMPTON DL6 2BQ £284,950 23/05/2018 110 1182 £2,595 £241 Millford D 4
28 PORTLAND ROAD BROMPTON DL6 2BQ £294,950 29/05/2018 116 1244 £2,552 £237 Downham D 4
34 PORTLAND ROAD BROMPTON DL6 2BQ £294,950 18/06/2018 116 1244 £2,552 £237 Downham D 4 21 PORTLAND ROAD BROMPTON DL6 2BQ £294,950 28/06/2018 116 1244 £2,552 £237 Downham D 4
2 DALESBRED ROW BROMPTON DL6 2EG £294,950 29/06/2018 116 1244 £2,552 £237 Downham D 4 29 PORTLAND ROAD BROMPTON DL6 2BQ £334,950 25/05/2018 127 1369 £2,634 £245 Shelford D 4
1 DALESBRED ROW BROMPTON DL6 2EG £334,950 15/06/2018 127 1369 £2,634 £245 Shelford D 4
30 PORTLAND ROAD BROMPTON DL6 2BQ £369,950 21/06/2018 142 1530 £2,603 £242 Langdale D 4
22 PORTLAND ROAD BROMPTON DL6 2BQ £369,950 29/06/2018 142 1530 £2,603 £242 Langdale D 4 Ave £2,645 £246
No sales 18
Availability at 11 Jan 2019
Size Size Asking Price (per Price (per Plot Ref No Beds Type Comments (sq.m) (sq.ft) Price sq.m) sq.ft) 123 Hollywell 2 Semi-Bungalow 67 722 £179,950 £2,683 £249 12 Gosford 3 Semi 80 866 £214,950 £2,672 £248
13 Gosford 3 Semi 80 866 £214,950 £2,672 £248 132 Bradenham 4 Det 107 1153 £278,950 £2,604 £242
133 Downham 4 Det 116 1244 £289,950 £2,509 £233
136 Haddenham 4 Det 136 1460 £342,950 £2,528 £235
85 Haddenham 4 Det 136 1460 £344,950 £2,543 £236
137 Langdale 4 Det 142 1530 £364,950 £2,568 £239
8 Langdale 4 Det 142 1530 £372,950 £2,624 £244
Ave £2,600 £242 APPENDIX 5 - NEW BUILD SALES AND ASKING PRICES
Kings Park, Northallerton (Persimmon)
Price Price Apartment No Street Area Postcode Price Paid Date Sq.m Sq.ft Reference Description No Beds Comments (Per Sq.m) (Per Sq.ft) 3 FRIARS CLOSE NORTHALLERTON DL6 2FA £171,950 29/06/2018 71 761 £2,432 £226 Henley T 2
4 FRIARS CLOSE NORTHALLERTON DL6 2FA £176,950 29/06/2018 71 761 £2,503 £233 Henley T 2 5 FRIARS CLOSE NORTHALLERTON DL6 2FA £189,950 29/06/2018 71 761 £2,687 £250 Hanbury S 3
11 RUNNYMEDE WAY NORTHALLERTON DL6 2FB £209,950 29/06/2018 81 870 £2,598 £241 Rufford D 3
12 RUNNYMEDE WAY NORTHALLERTON DL6 2FB £214,950 29/06/2018 81 870 £2,659 £247 Rufford D 3
1 RUNNYMEDE WAY NORTHALLERTON DL6 2FB £174,950 29/06/2018 85 918 £2,051 £191 Bickleigh T 3 2.5s
3 RUNNYMEDE WAY NORTHALLERTON DL6 2FB £169,950 29/06/2018 85 918 £1,993 £185 Bickleigh T 3 2.5s 5 RUNNYMEDE WAY NORTHALLERTON DL6 2FB £174,950 29/06/2018 85 918 £2,051 £191 Bickleigh T 3 2.5s
1 FRIARS CLOSE NORTHALLERTON DL6 2FA £229,950 29/06/2018 90 969 £2,554 £237 Hatfield D 3
4 RUNNYMEDE WAY NORTHALLERTON DL6 2FB £229,950 25/05/2018 90 969 £2,554 £237 Hatfield D 3
10 FRIARS CLOSE NORTHALLERTON DL6 2FA £244,950 24/08/2018 102 1096 £2,406 £223 Roseberry D 4
11 FRIARS CLOSE NORTHALLERTON DL6 2FA £269,950 14/09/2018 118 1275 £2,279 £212 Winster D 4
Ave £2,397 £223
Sales 12 Exc 2.5s £2,445 £227
Availability at 11 Jan 2019
Size Size Asking Price (per Price (per Plot Ref No Beds Type Comments (sq.m) (sq.ft) Price sq.m) sq.ft) 25 Chedworth 4 Det 114 1222 £279,950 £2,466 £229
4 Chedworth 4 Det 114 1222 £284,950 £2,510 £233
6 Chedworth 4 Det 114 1222 £284,950 £2,510 £233 116 Corfe 5 Det 131 1414 £329,950 £2,512 £233
8 Folkstone 2 Semi - bungalow 62 670 £189,950 £3,052 £284
125 Folkstone 2 Semi - bungalow 62 670 £194,950 £3,132 £291
117 Hatfield 3 Det 90 969 £239,950 £2,665 £248
119 Hatfield 3 Det 90 969 £239,950 £2,665 £248 110 Hatfield 3 Det 90 969 £241,950 £2,688 £250
58 Morden 2 Ter 51 548 £142,950 £2,808 £261
59 Morden 2 Ter 51 548 £142,950 £2,701 £251
62 Moseley 3 Ter 69 739 £149,950 £2,724 £253
63 Moseley 3 Ter 69 739 £149,950 £2,746 £255 61 Moseley 3 Ter 69 739 £154,950 £2,769 £257
64 Moseley 3 Ter 69 739 £154,950 £2,795 £260
9 Pickering 2 Semi - bungalow 53 570 £189,950 £2,769 £257
124 Pickering 2 Semi - bungalow 53 570 £194,950 £2,733 £254 48 Rufford 3 Det 81 870 £219,950 £2,740 £255
Ave £2,721 £253
Ex Bung £2,664 £248 APPENDIX 5 - NEW BUILD SALES AND ASKING PRICES
Lime Gardens, Thirsk (Taylor Wimpey) 2017 Price Price Apartment No Street Area Postcode Price Paid Date Sq.m Sq.ft Reference Description No Beds Comments (Per Sq.m) (Per Sq.ft) 18 SWAN WAY SOWERBY YO7 3SN £269,950 20/02/2017 97 1044 £2,783 £259 Yarrow Det 3 Bungalow 7 BUTTERFLY CLOSE SOWERBY YO7 3SP £269,950 28/04/2017 107 1153 £2,520 £234 Bradenham Det 4 6 BUTTERFLY CLOSE SOWERBY YO7 3SP £279,950 24/02/2017 110 1182 £2,549 £237 Midford Det 4 16 SWAN WAY SOWERBY YO7 3SN £294,950 26/05/2017 116 1244 £2,552 £237 Downham Det 4
22 SWAN WAY SOWERBY YO7 3SN £292,450 31/05/2017 116 1244 £2,530 £235 Downham Det 4 3 SWAN WAY SOWERBY YO7 3SN £294,950 27/10/2017 116 1244 £2,552 £237 Downham Det 4 8 BUTTERFLY CLOSE SOWERBY YO7 3SP £314,950 25/05/2017 124 1334 £2,541 £236 Eynsham Det 4 1 SWAN WAY SOWERBY YO7 3SN £314,950 28/09/2017 124 1334 £2,541 £236 Eynsham Det 4 12 SWAN WAY SOWERBY YO7 3SN £310,000 25/01/2017 124 1334 £2,501 £232 Eynsham Det 4 20 SWAN WAY SOWERBY YO7 3SN £314,950 28/06/2017 124 1334 £2,541 £236 Eynsham Det 4
24 SWAN WAY SOWERBY YO7 3SN £314,950 23/06/2017 124 1334 £2,541 £236 Eynsham Det 4 10 BUTTERFLY CLOSE SOWERBY YO7 3SP £324,950 31/03/2017 127 1369 £2,555 £237 Shelford Det 4 11 SWAN WAY SOWERBY YO7 3SN £324,950 26/05/2017 127 1369 £2,555 £237 Shelford Det 4 26 SWAN WAY SOWERBY YO7 3SN £324,950 30/05/2017 127 1369 £2,555 £237 Shelford Det 4 9 SWAN WAY SOWERBY YO7 3SN £324,950 15/03/2017 127 1369 £2,555 £237 Shelford Det 4 Ave £2,558 £238
Sales 15
2016 Price Price Apartment No Street Area Postcode Price Paid Date Sq.m Sq.ft Reference Description No Beds Comments (Per Sq.m) (Per Sq.ft) 4 BUTTERFLY CLOSE SOWERBY YO7 3SP £199,950 02/12/2016 80 866 £2,485 £231 Gosford Semi 3 5 BUTTERFLY CLOSE SOWERBY YO7 3SP £202,950 02/12/2016 80 866 £2,523 £234 Gosford Semi 3 4 SWAN WAY SOWERBY YO7 3SN £199,950 12/10/2016 80 866 £2,485 £231 Gosford Semi 3 6 SWAN WAY SOWERBY YO7 3SN £199,950 29/09/2016 80 866 £2,485 £231 Gosford Semi 3 14 SWAN WAY SOWERBY YO7 3SN £269,950 28/10/2016 107 1153 £2,520 £234 Bradenham Det 4 10 SWAN WAY SOWERBY YO7 3SN £274,950 30/09/2016 110 1182 £2,504 £233 Midford Det 4 7 SWAN WAY SOWERBY YO7 3SN £274,950 16/12/2016 110 1182 £2,504 £233 Midford Det 4 9 BUTTERFLY CLOSE SOWERBY YO7 3SP £294,950 02/12/2016 116 1244 £2,552 £237 Downham Det 4 5 SWAN WAY SOWERBY YO7 3SN £314,950 25/11/2016 124 1334 £2,541 £236 Eynsham Det 4 8 SWAN WAY SOWERBY YO7 3SN £314,950 26/09/2016 124 1334 £2,541 £236 Eynsham Det 4 Ave £2,514 £234
Phase 2 - Availability at 14 Jan 2019
Size Size Asking Price (per Price (per Plot Ref No Beds Type Comments (sq.m) (sq.ft) Price sq.m) sq.ft) 67 Cotterdale 2 Semi 71 759 £184,950 £2,623 £244 63 Bellerby 3 Semi 90 969 £229,950 £2,554 £237 65 Bellerby 3 Semi 90 969 £229,920 £2,554 £237 74 Milford 4 Det 110 1182 £279,950 £2,549 £237 70 Milford 4 Det 110 1182 £282,950 £2,577 £239 7 Whitford 4 Det 116 1248 £292,950 £2,527 £235 15 Downham 4 Det 116 1244 £294,950 £2,552 £237 28 Whitford 4 Det 116 1248 £299,950 £2,587 £240 29 Whitford 4 Det 116 1248 £299,950 £2,587 £240 20 Shelford 4 Det 128 1378 £332,950 £2,601 £242 32 Haddenham 4 Det 136 1460 £339,950 £2,571 £239 Ave £2,571 £239 APPENDIX 5 - NEW BUILD SALES AND ASKING PRICES
Mowbray View, Thirsk (Linden Homes) 2017/18 Price Price Apartment No Street Area Postcode Price Paid Date Sq.m Sq.ft Reference Description No Beds Comments (Per Sq.m) (Per Sq.ft) 5 POPPY DRIVE SOWERBY YO7 3SJ £157,950 12/05/2017 56 603 £2,820 £262 W1 Ter 2 Bungalow 3 POPPY DRIVE SOWERBY YO7 3SJ £157,950 19/05/2017 56 603 £2,820 £262 W1 Ter 2 Bungalow 1 POPPY DRIVE SOWERBY YO7 3SJ £157,950 07/07/2017 56 603 £2,820 £262 W1 Ter 2 Bungalow 11 ROSEMARY CLOSE SOWERBY YO7 3SL £185,600 29/06/2018 65 701 £2,850 £265 202 Semi 2 22 POPPY DRIVE SOWERBY YO7 3SJ £229,950 20/12/2017 78 838 £2,954 £274 301 Semi 3 4 ROSEMARY CLOSE SOWERBY YO7 3SL £245,960 29/06/2018 78 838 £3,159 £294 301 Semi 3 16 POPPY DRIVE SOWERBY YO7 3SJ £242,950 30/06/2017 85 916 £2,855 £265 304 Semi 3 2 POPPY DRIVE SOWERBY YO7 3SJ £241,950 09/06/2017 88 949 £2,744 £255 310 Det 3 11 HONEYSUCKLE WAY SOWERBY YO7 3SH £244,950 30/01/2017 94 1012 £2,605 £242 EV Det 3 2 HONEYSUCKLE WAY SOWERBY YO7 3SH £274,950 17/03/2017 104 1120 £2,642 £245 401 Det 4 12 POPPY DRIVE SOWERBY YO7 3SJ £259,950 29/03/2018 104 1120 £2,498 £232 401 Det 4 10 POPPY DRIVE SOWERBY YO7 3SJ £259,950 27/04/2018 104 1120 £2,498 £232 401 Det 4 28 POPPY DRIVE SOWERBY YO7 3SJ £259,950 04/05/2018 104 1120 £2,498 £232 401 Det 4 27 HONEYSUCKLE WAY SOWERBY YO7 3SH £284,950 28/04/2017 107 1156 £2,653 £246 412 Det 4 20 HONEYSUCKLE WAY SOWERBY YO7 3SH £284,950 05/05/2017 107 1156 £2,653 £246 412 Det 4 29 HONEYSUCKLE WAY SOWERBY YO7 3SH £284,950 21/06/2017 107 1156 £2,653 £246 412 Det 4 23 POPPY DRIVE SOWERBY YO7 3SJ £293,950 30/03/2018 107 1156 £2,737 £254 412 Det 4 26 HONEYSUCKLE WAY SOWERBY YO7 3SH £293,950 17/05/2018 107 1156 £2,737 £254 412 Det 4 33 POPPY DRIVE SOWERBY YO7 3SJ £329,950 10/08/2018 107 1156 £3,072 £285 412 Det 4 14 HONEYSUCKLE WAY SOWERBY YO7 3SH £287,950 13/04/2017 109 1176 £2,636 £245 BU Det 4 15 HONEYSUCKLE WAY SOWERBY YO7 3SH £287,950 21/04/2017 109 1176 £2,636 £245 BU Det 4 8 POPPY DRIVE SOWERBY YO7 3SJ £288,950 29/06/2017 109 1176 £2,645 £246 BU Det 4 26 POPPY DRIVE SOWERBY YO7 3SJ £294,950 31/08/2017 109 1176 £2,700 £251 BU Det 4 9 HONEYSUCKLE WAY SOWERBY YO7 3SH £289,950 31/03/2017 111 1195 £2,612 £243 403 Det 4 24 HONEYSUCKLE WAY SOWERBY YO7 3SH £308,950 27/04/2018 111 1195 £2,783 £259 403 Det 4 22 HONEYSUCKLE WAY SOWERBY YO7 3SH £308,950 31/05/2018 111 1195 £2,783 £259 403 Det 4 6 HONEYSUCKLE WAY SOWERBY YO7 3SH £289,950 01/06/2017 117 1261 £2,475 £230 307 Det 3 4 POPPY DRIVE SOWERBY YO7 3SJ £299,950 30/06/2017 117 1261 £2,560 £238 307 Det 3 18 POPPY DRIVE SOWERBY YO7 3SJ £279,950 25/08/2017 117 1261 £2,390 £222 307 Det 3 20 POPPY DRIVE SOWERBY YO7 3SJ £259,950 22/02/2018 117 1261 £2,219 £206 307 Det 3 27 ROSEMARY CLOSE SOWERBY YO7 3SL £339,950 30/07/2018 117 1261 £2,902 £270 307 Det 3 31 POPPY DRIVE SOWERBY YO7 3SJ £302,950 23/02/2018 119 1277 £2,554 £237 402 Det 4 6 POPPY DRIVE SOWERBY YO7 3SJ £346,950 30/05/2017 133 1436 £2,601 £242 HU Det 4 12 HONEYSUCKLE WAY SOWERBY YO7 3SH £324,950 20/07/2017 133 1436 £2,436 £226 HU Det 4
Ave £2,682 £249
Sales 34
Availability at 11 Jan 2019 all part rent/buy
2016 Price Price Apartment No Street Area Postcode Price Paid Date Sq.m Sq.ft Reference Description No Beds Comments (Per Sq.m) (Per Sq.ft) 16 HONEYSUCKLE WAY SOWERBY YO7 3SH £174,950 20/12/2016 65 701 £2,686 £250 202 Semi 2 18 HONEYSUCKLE WAY SOWERBY YO7 3SH £174,950 20/12/2016 65 701 £2,686 £250 202 Semi 2 10 HONEYSUCKLE WAY SOWERBY YO7 3SH £247,995 22/12/2016 94 1012 £2,638 £245 EV Det 3 4 HONEYSUCKLE WAY SOWERBY YO7 3SH £279,950 20/12/2016 107 1156 £2,607 £242 412 Det 4 8 HONEYSUCKLE WAY SOWERBY YO7 3SH £265,000 22/12/2016 117 1261 £2,262 £210 307 Det 3 7 HONEYSUCKLE WAY SOWERBY YO7 3SH £284,950 22/12/2016 119 1277 £2,402 £223 402 Det 4
Ave £2,547 £237 APPENDIX 5 - NEW BUILD SALES AND ASKING PRICES
The Oaks, Thirsk (Mulberry Homes) 2017 Price Price Apartment No Street Area Postcode Price Paid Date Sq.m Sq.ft Reference Description No Beds Comments (Per Sq.m) (Per Sq.ft) 17 MAPLE GARDENS SOWERBY YO7 3PY £225,000 20/01/2017 82 879 £2,755 £256 Nidderdale Det 3
23 MAPLE GARDENS SOWERBY YO7 3PY £225,000 24/03/2017 82 879 £2,755 £256 Nidderdale Det 3
26 MAPLE GARDENS SOWERBY YO7 3PY £225,000 30/06/2017 82 879 £2,755 £256 Nidderdale Det 3
9 OAK DRIVE SOWERBY YO7 3RF £225,000 04/10/2017 82 879 £2,755 £256 Nidderdale Det 3
19 MAPLE GARDENS SOWERBY YO7 3PY £240,000 30/06/2017 92 990 £2,609 £242 Cowesby Ter 3
31 MAPLE GARDENS SOWERBY YO7 3PY £225,000 28/04/2017 93 1003 £2,415 £224 Farndale Ter 3 2.5s
33 MAPLE GARDENS SOWERBY YO7 3PY £225,000 28/04/2017 93 1003 £2,415 £224 Farndale Ter 3 2.5s
31 MAPLE GARDENS SOWERBY YO7 3PY £225,000 28/04/2017 93 1003 £2,415 £224 Farndale Ter 3 2.5s
33 MAPLE GARDENS SOWERBY YO7 3PY £225,000 28/04/2017 93 1003 £2,415 £224 Farndale Ter 3 2.5s
5 OAK DRIVE SOWERBY YO7 3RF £240,000 08/08/2017 93 1003 £2,576 £239 Farndale Ter 3 2.5s
3 OAK DRIVE SOWERBY YO7 3RF £240,000 05/09/2017 93 1003 £2,576 £239 Farndale Ter 3 2.5s
1 OAK DRIVE SOWERBY YO7 3RF £285,000 26/05/2017 106 1137 £2,698 £251 Barnsdale Corner Det 4
24 MAPLE GARDENS SOWERBY YO7 3PY £285,000 16/03/2018 106 1137 £2,698 £251 Barnsdale Det 4
11 OAK DRIVE SOWERBY YO7 3RF £300,000 10/03/2017 114 1225 £2,636 £245 Ravensworth Det 4
Ave £2,605 £242
Sales 14 APPENDIX 5 - NEW BUILD SALES AND ASKING PRICES
Kirkby Wiske
Availability at 14 Jan 2019
Size Size Asking Price (per Price (per Plot Ref No Beds Type Comments (sq.m) (sq.ft) Price sq.m) sq.ft) Daffodil Cottage Kirkby Wiske 3 Semi 96 1038 £275,000 £2,852 £265 renovation
Jasmine Cottage Kirkby Wiske 3 Semi 113 1220 £299,950 £2,646 £246 renovation
Honey Suckle CottageKirkby Wiske 3 Semi 131 1406 £385,000 £2,947 £274 New build
Rose Cottage Kirkby Wiske 3 Semi 135 1451 £385,000 £2,856 £265 New build
Ave £2,825 £262 APPENDIX 5 - NEW BUILD SALES AND ASKING PRICES
Outfield, Sessay (Daniel Gath)
Price Price Apartment No Street Area Postcode Price Paid Date Sq.m Sq.ft Reference Description No Beds Comments (Per Sq.m) (Per Sq.ft) 1 BUTTER HILL VIEW SESSAY YO7 3FE £229,950 23/02/2018 81 872 £2,839 £264 Spode S 3
2 BUTTER HILL VIEW SESSAY YO7 3FE £187,960 23/02/2018 81 872 £2,320 £216 Spode S 3
3 BUTTER HILL VIEW SESSAY YO7 3FE £204,950 02/03/2018 75 807 £2,733 £254 Hepton S 3
4 BUTTER HILL VIEW SESSAY YO7 3FE £204,950 29/06/2018 75 807 £2,733 £254 Hepton S 3
5 BUTTER HILL VIEW SESSAY YO7 3FE £379,950 12/11/2018 160 1722 £2,375 £221 Ainsty D 4
6 BUTTER HILL VIEW SESSAY YO7 3FE £385,000 24/09/2018 160 1722 £2,406 £224 Ainsty D 4
Ave £2,568 £239
EPC Areas Ex No2 £2,617 £243 APPENDIX 5 - NEW BUILD SALES AND ASKING PRICES
Willow Bridge, Dalton (Whitfield Homes)
Price Price Apartment No Street Area Postcode Price Paid Date Sq.m Sq.ft Reference Description No Beds Comments (Per Sq.m) (Per Sq.ft) 23 FAREFIELD CLOSE DALTON YO7 3FD £175,000 29/03/2018 71 764 £2,465 £229 End t 2
25 FAREFIELD CLOSE DALTON YO7 3FD £168,000 29/03/2018 71 764 £2,366 £220 T 2
27 FAREFIELD CLOSE DALTON YO7 3FD £175,000 29/03/2018 71 764 £2,465 £229 T 2
29 FAREFIELD CLOSE DALTON YO7 3FD £170,000 28/07/2017 71 764 £2,394 £222 T 2
31 FAREFIELD CLOSE DALTON YO7 3FD £165,000 30/11/2017 71 764 £2,324 £216 T 2
33 FAREFIELD CLOSE DALTON YO7 3FD £172,000 31/10/2017 71 764 £2,423 £225 T 2
35 FAREFIELD CLOSE DALTON YO7 3FD £175,000 28/07/2017 71 764 £2,465 £229 S 2
37 FAREFIELD CLOSE DALTON YO7 3FD £175,000 13/12/2017 71 764 £2,465 £229 S 2
39 FAREFIELD CLOSE DALTON YO7 3FD £175,000 11/08/2017 71 764 £2,465 £229 S 2
41 FAREFIELD CLOSE DALTON YO7 3FD £175,000 04/08/2017 71 764 £2,465 £229 S 2
43 FAREFIELD CLOSE DALTON YO7 3FD £200,000 08/08/2017 85 915 £2,353 £219 S 3
45 FAREFIELD CLOSE DALTON YO7 3FD £200,000 04/08/2017 85 915 £2,353 £219 S 3
19 FAREFIELD CLOSE DALTON YO7 3FD £270,000 01/05/2018 103 1109 £2,621 £244 S 4
21 FAREFIELD CLOSE DALTON YO7 3FD £268,000 03/05/2018 103 1109 £2,602 £242 S 4
8A FAREFIELD CLOSE DALTON YO7 3FD £285,000 29/03/2018 114 1227 £2,500 £232 D 3
47 FAREFIELD CLOSE DALTON YO7 3FD £325,000 23/06/2017 143 1539 £2,273 £211 D
14 WILLOW BRIDGE LANE DALTON YO7 3QQ £435,000 18/01/2017 203 2185 £2,143 £199 Det 4
14 FAREFIELD CLOSE DALTON YO7 3FD £415,000 01/02/2017 240 2583 £1,729 £161 D 5
Ave £2,382 £221 Sales 18
Availability at 11 Jan 2019
Size Size Asking Price (per Price (per Plot Ref No Beds Type Comments (sq.m) (sq.ft) Price sq.m) sq.ft) 9 4 Det 140 1510 £345,000 £2,459 £228 10 4 Det 103 1110 £270,000 £2,618 £243 11 4 Semi 103 1110 £260,000 £2,521 £234 14 5 Det 194 2092 £475,000 £2,444 £227 15 4 Det 170 1827 £440,000 £2,592 £241 23 4 Det 140 1510 £345,000 £2,459 £228 Ave £2,516 £234 APPENDIX 5 - NEW BUILD SALES AND ASKING PRICES
Stillington Road, Easingwold (Linden Homes)
Price Price Apartment No Street Area Postcode Price Paid Date Sq.m Sq.ft Reference Description No Beds Comments (Per Sq.m) (Per Sq.ft) 3 REGENT DRIVE EASINGWOLD YO61 3QX £399,950 31/03/2017 133 1436 £2,998 £279 Hunsley D 4
20 REGENT DRIVE EASINGWOLD YO61 3QX £299,950 03/02/2017 109 1176 £2,745 £255 Burnby D 4
5 ABBOTT CLOSE EASINGWOLD YO61 3QY £439,950 10/05/2017 149 1603 £2,954 £274 Riplingham D 4
9 ABBOTT CLOSE EASINGWOLD YO61 3QY £285,000 31/03/2017 109 1176 £2,609 £242 Burnby D 4
10 ABBOTT CLOSE EASINGWOLD YO61 3QY £376,000 22/05/2017 133 1436 £2,818 £262 Hunsley D 4
11 ABBOTT CLOSE EASINGWOLD YO61 3QY £299,950 10/03/2017 109 1176 £2,745 £255 Burnby D 4
12 ABBOTT CLOSE EASINGWOLD YO61 3QY £292,000 15/05/2017 109 1176 £2,673 £248 Burnby D 4
14 ABBOTT CLOSE EASINGWOLD YO61 3QY £380,000 03/08/2017 133 1436 £2,848 £265 Hunsley D 4
19 ABBOTT CLOSE EASINGWOLD YO61 3QY £260,000 30/05/2017 94 1012 £2,765 £257 Everingham D 3
21 ABBOTT CLOSE EASINGWOLD YO61 3QY £299,950 05/05/2017 109 1176 £2,745 £255 Burnby D 4
Ave £2,790 £259 Sales 10
APPENDIX 5 - NEW BUILD SALES AND ASKING PRICES
Oxenby Place, Easingwold (Mulgrave Properties)
Price Price Apartment No Street Area Postcode Price Paid Date Sq.m Sq.ft Reference Description No Beds Comments (Per Sq.m) (Per Sq.ft) 5 CRAYKEFIELDS EASINGWOLD YO61 3QJ £415,755 15/04/2016 129 1,389 £3,223 £299 D 3
6 CRAYKEFIELDS EASINGWOLD YO61 3QJ £570,000 26/05/2016 185 1,991 £3,081 £286 D 3
7 CRAYKEFIELDS EASINGWOLD YO61 3QJ £525,000 11/11/2015 147 1,582 £3,571 £332 D 4
8 CRAYKEFIELDS EASINGWOLD YO61 3QJ £675,000 16/12/2015 202 2,174 £3,342 £310 D 4
9 CRAYKEFIELDS EASINGWOLD YO61 3QJ £680,000 12/01/2017 201 2,164 £3,383 £314 D 4
10 CRAYKEFIELDS EASINGWOLD YO61 3QJ £600,000 02/09/2016 193 2,077 £3,109 £289 D 5
11 CRAYKEFIELDS EASINGWOLD YO61 3QJ £475,000 30/03/2016 130 1,399 £3,654 £339 D 3 bungalow
12 CRAYKEFIELDS EASINGWOLD YO61 3QJ £475,000 30/12/2015 130 1,399 £3,654 £339 D 3 bungalow
14 CRAYKEFIELDS EASINGWOLD YO61 3QJ £639,950 06/11/2015 199 2,142 £3,216 £299 D 4
15 CRAYKEFIELDS EASINGWOLD YO61 3QJ £535,000 04/11/2015 149 1,604 £3,591 £334 D 3
Ave £3,382 £314
Sales 10 Areas from EPCs
APPENDIX 5 - NEW BUILD SALES AND ASKING PRICES
The Weald, Easingwold (Persimmon)
Availability at 14 Jan 2019
Size Size Asking Price (per Price (per Plot Ref No Beds Type Comments (sq.m) (sq.ft) Price sq.m) sq.ft) 10 Clayton Corner 3 Det 93 999 £269,999 £2,909 £270 3 Clayton Corner 3 Det 93 999 £269,999 £2,909 £270 9 Clayton Corner 3 Det 93 999 £274,999 £2,963 £275 1 Escrick 4 Det 0 £309,999 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 11 Hatfield 3 Det 90 969 £274,999 £3,055 £284
Ave £2,959 £275 APPENDIX 5 - NEW BUILD SALES AND ASKING PRICES
Hambleton Chase, Easingwold (Kier)
Availability at 14 Jan 2019
Size Size Asking Price (per Price (per Plot Ref No Beds Type Comments (sq.m) (sq.ft) Price sq.m) sq.ft) 147 Horsham 2 Semi 71 762 £249,995 £3,531 £328 Bungalow 148 Horsham 2 Semi 71 762 £249,995 £3,531 £328 Bungalow 13 Holmewood 3 Semi 84 906 £265,000 £3,148 £292 5 Mapleford 4 Det 128 1376 £385,000 £3,012 £280 8 Mapleford 4 Det 128 1376 £385,000 £3,012 £280 136 Oakford 4 Det 139 1498 £425,000 £3,054 £284 7 Woodford 4 Det 180 1933 £515,000 £2,868 £266
Ave £3,165 £294 APPENDIX 5 - NEW BUILD SALES AND ASKING PRICES
South Back Lane, Stillington (Daniel Gath Homes)
Price Price Apartment No Street Area Postcode Price Paid Date Sq.m Sq.ft Reference Description No Beds Comments (Per Sq.m) (Per Sq.ft) 5 SOUTH BACK LANE STILLINGTON YO61 1ND £589,950 13/01/2017 176 1892 £3,356 £312 Churchill (det) D 4
2 CHANTRY GARDENS STILLINGTON YO61 1NF £329,950 02/06/2017 109 1168 £3,041 £282 Bedale (det) D 4
3 CHANTRY GARDENS STILLINGTON YO61 1NF £339,950 30/01/2017 109 1168 £3,133 £291 Bedale (det) D 4
2 THOMPSON GARTH STILLINGTON YO61 1NN £430,000 21/07/2017 138 1489 £3,108 £289 Richmond (det) D 4
3 THOMPSON GARTH STILLINGTON YO61 1NN £539,950 06/09/2017 176 1892 £3,072 £285 Churchill (det) D 4
4 THOMPSON GARTH STILLINGTON YO61 1NN £524,950 07/08/2017 176 1892 £2,987 £277 Churchill (det) D 4
Ave £3,116 £289
Sales 6 APPENDIX 5- NEW BUILD SALES AND ASKING PRICES
Sparrow Way, South Back Lane, Stillington (Ambleside Homes)
Availability at 14 Jan 2019
Size Size Asking Price (per Price (per Plot Ref No Beds Type Comments (sq.m) (sq.ft) Price sq.m) sq.ft) 3 Wheelhouse Barn 4 Det 157 1690 £575,000 £3,663 £340 Sold stc
1 Plough Cottage 4 Det 130 1403 £449,000 £3,444 £320 Sold stc
2 Meadow Cottage 3 Det 136 1460 £465,000 £3,429 £319 Sold stc
4 Thresher Barn 3 Det 203 TBC
5 Copse Barn 3 Det 255 TBC
Ave £3,512 £326 APPENDIX 5 - NEW BUILD SALES AND ASKING PRICES
The Meadows, Huby (Northmead Developments)
Price Price Ref No Street Area Postcode Price Paid Date Sq.m Sq.ft Reference Description No Beds Comments (Per Sq.m) (Per Sq.ft) 2 ASHFIELD COTTAGES TOLLERTON ROAD HUBY YO61 1HX £325,000 30/10/2018 119 1278 £2,738 £254 S 3
Ave £2,738 £254
Availability at 14 Jan 2019
Size Size Asking Price (per Price (per Plot Ref No Beds Type Comments (sq.m) (sq.ft) Price sq.m) sq.ft) 1 Mulberry House 4 Det 188 2020 £599,995 £3,197 £297 Sold stc
2 1 Ashfield Cottages 3 Semi 119 1278 £329,995 £2,780 £258 Sold stc
4 3 Ashfield Cottages 3 Terr 112 1208 £324,995 £2,896 £269 Sold stc
5 4 Ashfield Cottages 3 Mid Ter 112 1208 £314,995 £2,807 £261 Sold stc
6 5 Ashfield Cottages 3 Terr 118 1273 £314,995 £2,663 £247 Sold stc
Ave £2,869 £266 APPENDIX 5 - NEW BUILD SALES AND ASKING PRICES
Manor Court, Sutton in the Forest
Price Price No Street Area Postcode Price Paid Date Sq.m Sq.ft Reference Description No Beds Comments (Per Sq.m) (Per Sq.ft) 2 MANOR COURT CARR LANE SUTTON ON THE FOREST YO61 1EB £229,000 19/03/2018 67 721 £3,418 £318 T Bungalow
3 MANOR COURT CARR LANE SUTTON ON THE FOREST YO61 1EB £557,500 19/05/2017 169 1819 £3,299 £306 T
4 MANOR COURT CARR LANE SUTTON ON THE FOREST YO61 1EB £635,000 22/03/2018 190 2045 £3,342 £310 T
Ave £3,353 £311 APPENDIX 5 - NEW BUILD SALES AND ASKING PRICES
The Wickets, Raskelf (Stephensons Properties)
Availability at 14 Jan 2019
Size Size Asking Price (per Price (per Plot Ref No Beds Type Comments (sq.m) (sq.ft) Price sq.m) sq.ft) 1 Boundary House 4 Det 156 1675 £459,950 £2,956 £275
2 The Ashes 4 Det 158 1698 £464,950 £2,947 £274
3 The Wickets 4 Det 155 1671 £469,950 £3,027 £281
Ave £2,977 £277 APPENDIX 5 - NEW BUILD SALES AND ASKING PRICES
Foxholm Croft, Flawith (Alcuin Homes)
Availability at 14 Jan 2019
Size Size Asking Price (per Price (per Plot Ref No Beds Type Comments (sq.m) (sq.ft) Price sq.m) sq.ft) 1 Spruce House *4/5 Det 160 1724 £499,995 £3,122 £290
2 Juniper House 4 Det 160 1719 £485,000 £3,037 £282
3 Yew Tree Lodge 2 Det 154 1654 £499,995 £3,254 £302
4 Fir Tree House 4 Det 167 1798 £524,950 £3,143 £292
Ave £3,138 £291
APPENDIX 6 COSTAR OFFICE MARKET REPORT
Office Submarket Report Hambleton York Market
PREPARED BY
Ged Massie Partner Hambleton Office
OFFICE SUBMARKET REPORT
Submarket Key Statistics 2 Leasing 3 Rent 5 Construction 6 Sales 8 Sales Past 12 Months 9 Supply & Demand Trends 11 Rent & Vacancy 13 Sale Trends 15
24/01/2019 Copyrighted report licensed to Keppie Massie - 668908. Overview Hambleton Office
12 Mo Deliveries in SF 12 Mo Net Absorption in SF Vacancy Rate 12 Mo Rent Growth 0 (1.5 K) 16.8% 0.5% KEY INDICATORS
Net Absorption Under Current Quarter NIA Vacancy Rate Asking Rent Availability Rate Deliveries SF SF Construction 4 & 5 Star 16,233 0% £14.43 0% 0 0 0 3 Star 439,142 9.0% £11.91 10.5% (1,490) 0 0 1 & 2 Star 225,665 33.2% £11.33 37.2% 0 0 0 Submarket 681,040 16.8% £11.78 19.1% (1,490) 0 0
Historical Forecast Annual Trends 12 Month Peak When Trough When Average Average Vacancy Change (YOY) 0.2% 20.8% 14.6% 33.8% 2012 Q4 8.1% 2009 Q1 Net Absorption SF (1.5 K) (3,001) 4,312 49,112 2015 Q3 (165,077) 2012 Q1 Deliveries SF 0 3,273 0 26,760 2009 Q4 0 2018 Q4 Rent Growth 0.5% 0.3% 1.6% 6.7% 2016 Q3 -8.1% 2013 Q4 Sales Volume £230 K £828.7K N/A £5.7M 2016 Q2 £0 2017 Q3
24/01/2019 Copyrighted report licensed to Keppie Massie - 668908. Page 2 Leasing Hambleton Office
NET ABSORPTION, NET DELIVERIES & VACANCY
VACANCY RATE
24/01/2019 Copyrighted report licensed to Keppie Massie - 668908. Page 3 Leasing Hambleton Office
AVAILABILITY RATE
3 STAR MOST ACTIVE BUILDINGS IN SUBMARKET - PAST 12 MONTHS
Property Name/Address Rating NIA Deals SF Vacancy (QTD) Net Absorption SF (QTD) Teleware House 25,868 1 3,330 12.9% 0 York Rd Hanover House 1,869 1 127 0% 0 Market Pl
24/01/2019 Copyrighted report licensed to Keppie Massie - 668908. Page 4 Rent Hambleton Office
MARKET RENT GROWTH (YOY)
MARKET RENT PER SQUARE FOOT
24/01/2019 Copyrighted report licensed to Keppie Massie - 668908. Page 5 Construction Hambleton Office
DELIVERIES & DEMOLITIONS
24/01/2019 Copyrighted report licensed to Keppie Massie - 668908. Page 6 Construction Hambleton Office
All-Time Annual Avg. SF Delivered SF Past 4 Qtrs Delivered SF Next 4 Qtrs Proposed SF Next 4 Qtrs 0 0 0 0
PAST 4 QUARTERS DELIVERIES, UNDER CONSTRUCTION, & PROPOSED
PAST & FUTURE DELIVERIES IN SQUARE FEET
24/01/2019 Copyrighted report licensed to Keppie Massie - 668908. Page 7 Sales Hambleton Office
SALES VOLUME & MARKET SALE PRICE PER SF
24/01/2019 Copyrighted report licensed to Keppie Massie - 668908. Page 8 Sales Past 12 Months Hambleton Office
Sale Comparables Avg. Yield Avg. Price/SF Avg. Vacancy At Sale 2 7.8% £48 0%
SALE COMPARABLE LOCATIONS
SALE COMPARABLES SUMMARY STATISTICS
Sales Attributes Low Average Median High Sale Price £230,000 £230,000 £230,000 £230,000
Price Per SF £48 £48 £48 £48
Net Initial Yield 7.8% 7.8% 7.8% 7.8%
Time Since Sale in Months 2.2 4.9 4.9 7.7
Property Attributes Low Average Median High Building SF 4,770 9,697 9,697 14,624
Floors 2 2 2 2
Typical Floor SF 2,385 4,849 4,849 7,312
Vacancy Rate At Sale 0% 0% 0% 0%
Year Built 1965 1968 1968 1970
Star Rating 3.0
24/01/2019 Copyrighted report licensed to Keppie Massie - 668908. Page 9 Sales Past 12 Months Hambleton Office
RECENT SIGNIFICANT SALES
Property Sale
Property Name - Address Rating Yr Built Bldg SF Vacancy Sale Date Price Price/SF NIY St James Lodge 1 - 1970 4,770 0% 04/06/2018 £230,000 £48 - Picks Ln Elder House 2 - 1965 14,624 0% 19/11/2018 - - 7.8% East Rd
24/01/2019 Copyrighted report licensed to Keppie Massie - 668908. Page 10 Supply & Demand Trends Hambleton Office
OVERALL SUPPLY & DEMAND
Inventory Net Absorption
Year SF SF Growth % Growth SF % of Inv Construction Ratio 2023 681,040 0 0% 5,283 0.8% 0 2022 681,040 0 0% 5,378 0.8% 0 2021 681,040 0 0% 5,374 0.8% 0 2020 681,040 0 0% 6,036 0.9% 0 2019 681,040 0 0% 4,583 0.7% 0 YTD 681,040 0 0% (1,490) -0.2% - 2018 681,040 0 0% 872 0.1% 0 2017 681,040 0 0% 14,503 2.1% 0 2016 681,040 0 0% 24,718 3.6% 0 2015 681,040 0 0% 26,439 3.9% 0 2014 681,040 0 0% 13,184 1.9% 0 2013 681,040 0 0% 37,753 5.5% 0 2012 681,040 1,816 0.3% (8,639) -1.3% - 2011 679,224 1,464 0.2% (162,301) -23.9% - 2010 677,760 18,424 2.8% 16,193 2.4% 1.1 2009 659,336 - - 9,088 1.4% -
4 & 5 STAR SUPPLY & DEMAND
Inventory Net Absorption
Year SF SF Growth % Growth SF % of Inv Construction Ratio 2023 16,233 0 0% (57) -0.4% - 2022 16,233 0 0% (55) -0.3% - 2021 16,233 0 0% (54) -0.3% - 2020 16,233 0 0% (39) -0.2% - 2019 16,233 0 0% (79) -0.5% - YTD 16,233 0 0% - - - 2018 16,233 0 0% - - - 2017 16,233 0 0% - - - 2016 16,233 0 0% - - - 2015 16,233 0 0% 5,960 36.7% 0 2014 16,233 0 0% - - - 2013 16,233 0 0% - - - 2012 16,233 0 0% - - - 2011 16,233 0 0% - - - 2010 16,233 0 0% (5,960) -36.7% - 2009 16,233 - - - - -
24/01/2019 Copyrighted report licensed to Keppie Massie - 668908. Page 11 Supply & Demand Trends Hambleton Office
3 STAR SUPPLY & DEMAND
Inventory Net Absorption
Year SF SF Growth % Growth SF % of Inv Construction Ratio 2023 439,142 0 0% 1,210 0.3% 0 2022 439,142 0 0% 1,277 0.3% 0 2021 439,142 0 0% 1,269 0.3% 0 2020 439,142 0 0% 1,698 0.4% 0 2019 439,142 0 0% (400) -0.1% - YTD 439,142 0 0% (1,490) -0.3% - 2018 439,142 0 0% 1,569 0.4% 0 2017 439,142 0 0% 12,413 2.8% 0 2016 439,142 0 0% 19,556 4.5% 0 2015 439,142 0 0% 16,399 3.7% 0 2014 439,142 0 0% 3,716 0.8% 0 2013 439,142 0 0% 32,768 7.5% 0 2012 439,142 1,816 0.4% (7,625) -1.7% - 2011 437,326 1,464 0.3% (80,107) -18.3% - 2010 435,862 12,008 2.8% 15,898 3.6% 0.8 2009 423,854 - - 8,688 2.0% -
1 & 2 STAR SUPPLY & DEMAND
Inventory Net Absorption
Year SF SF Growth % Growth SF % of Inv Construction Ratio 2023 225,665 0 0% 4,130 1.8% 0 2022 225,665 0 0% 4,156 1.8% 0 2021 225,665 0 0% 4,159 1.8% 0 2020 225,665 0 0% 4,377 1.9% 0 2019 225,665 0 0% 5,062 2.2% 0 YTD 225,665 0 0% - - - 2018 225,665 0 0% (697) -0.3% - 2017 225,665 0 0% 2,090 0.9% 0 2016 225,665 0 0% 5,162 2.3% 0 2015 225,665 0 0% 4,080 1.8% 0 2014 225,665 0 0% 9,468 4.2% 0 2013 225,665 0 0% 4,985 2.2% 0 2012 225,665 0 0% (1,014) -0.4% - 2011 225,665 0 0% (82,194) -36.4% - 2010 225,665 6,416 2.9% 6,255 2.8% 1.0 2009 219,249 - - 400 0.2% -
24/01/2019 Copyrighted report licensed to Keppie Massie - 668908. Page 12 Rent & Vacancy Hambleton Office
OVERALL RENT & VACANCY
Market Rent Vacancy
Year Per SF % Growth Vs Hist Peak SF Percent Ppts Chg 2023 £12.73 1.0% 8.0% 86,316 12.7% -0.8% 2022 £12.60 1.2% 6.9% 91,599 13.4% -0.8% 2021 £12.46 1.5% 5.6% 96,977 14.2% -0.8% 2020 £12.28 1.7% 4.1% 102,351 15.0% -0.9% 2019 £12.06 2.3% 2.3% 108,387 15.9% -0.7% YTD £11.78 -0.1% -0.1% 114,466 16.8% 0.2% 2018 £11.79 0.4% 0% 112,976 16.6% -0.1% 2017 £11.75 3.2% -0.4% 113,848 16.7% -2.1% 2016 £11.38 6.6% -3.5% 128,351 18.8% -3.6% 2015 £10.68 2.3% -9.5% 153,069 22.5% -3.9% 2014 £10.44 6.3% -11.5% 179,508 26.4% -1.9% 2013 £9.82 -8.1% -16.7% 192,692 28.3% -5.5% 2012 £10.68 -0.3% -9.4% 230,445 33.8% 1.4% 2011 £10.71 -1.8% -9.1% 219,990 32.4% 24.1% 2010 £10.91 -2.0% -7.4% 56,225 8.3% 0.1% 2009 £11.14 - -5.5% 53,994 8.2% -
4 & 5 STAR RENT & VACANCY
Market Rent Vacancy
Year Per SF % Growth Vs Hist Peak SF Percent Ppts Chg 2023 £16.23 1.0% 12.2% 284 1.7% 0.4% 2022 £16.07 1.3% 11.1% 227 1.4% 0.3% 2021 £15.86 1.9% 9.7% 172 1.1% 0.3% 2020 £15.57 2.8% 7.7% 118 0.7% 0.2% 2019 £15.15 4.7% 4.7% 79 0.5% 0.5% YTD £14.43 -0.2% -0.2% 0 0% 0% 2018 £14.46 4.2% 0% 0 0% 0% 2017 £13.87 7.8% -4.1% 0 0% 0% 2016 £12.87 21.6% -11.0% 0 0% 0% 2015 £10.58 34.3% -26.9% 0 0% -36.7% 2014 £7.88 9.1% -45.5% 5,960 36.7% 0% 2013 £7.22 -11.4% -50.1% 5,960 36.7% 0% 2012 £8.15 -20.0% -43.7% 5,960 36.7% 0% 2011 £10.18 3.5% -29.6% 5,960 36.7% 0% 2010 £9.84 10.8% -32.0% 5,960 36.7% 36.7% 2009 £8.88 - -38.6% 0 0% -
24/01/2019 Copyrighted report licensed to Keppie Massie - 668908. Page 13 Rent & Vacancy Hambleton Office
3 STAR RENT & VACANCY
Market Rent Vacancy
Year Per SF % Growth Vs Hist Peak SF Percent Ppts Chg 2023 £12.55 1.0% 2.3% 33,012 7.5% -0.3% 2022 £12.43 1.1% 1.3% 34,222 7.8% -0.3% 2021 £12.30 1.2% 0.3% 35,499 8.1% -0.3% 2020 £12.15 1.1% -1.0% 36,768 8.4% -0.4% 2019 £12.01 0.8% -2.1% 38,466 8.8% 0.1% YTD £11.91 0% -2.9% 39,561 9.0% 0.3% 2018 £11.91 -1.2% -2.9% 38,071 8.7% -0.4% 2017 £12.05 2.8% -1.7% 39,640 9.0% -2.8% 2016 £11.73 9.6% -4.4% 52,053 11.9% -4.5% 2015 £10.70 -2.0% -12.8% 71,609 16.3% -3.7% 2014 £10.92 4.4% -11.0% 88,008 20.0% -0.8% 2013 £10.46 -7.5% -14.8% 91,724 20.9% -7.5% 2012 £11.31 0.3% -7.8% 124,492 28.3% 2.0% 2011 £11.27 -4.5% -8.2% 115,051 26.3% 18.6% 2010 £11.80 -3.8% -3.8% 33,480 7.7% -1.1% 2009 £12.27 - 0% 37,370 8.8% -
1 & 2 STAR RENT & VACANCY
Market Rent Vacancy
Year Per SF % Growth Vs Hist Peak SF Percent Ppts Chg 2023 £12.83 1.1% 13.0% 53,020 23.5% -1.8% 2022 £12.69 1.4% 11.7% 57,150 25.3% -1.8% 2021 £12.52 1.9% 10.2% 61,306 27.2% -1.8% 2020 £12.28 2.8% 8.1% 65,465 29.0% -1.9% 2019 £11.95 5.1% 5.1% 69,842 30.9% -2.2% YTD £11.33 -0.3% -0.3% 74,905 33.2% 0% 2018 £11.36 3.4% 0% 74,905 33.2% 0.3% 2017 £10.99 3.8% -3.2% 74,208 32.9% -0.9% 2016 £10.59 -0.5% -6.8% 76,298 33.8% -2.3% 2015 £10.64 9.9% -6.3% 81,460 36.1% -1.8% 2014 £9.68 10.4% -14.8% 85,540 37.9% -4.2% 2013 £8.77 -9.1% -22.8% 95,008 42.1% -2.2% 2012 £9.65 -0.3% -15.1% 99,993 44.3% 0.4% 2011 £9.68 4.4% -14.8% 98,979 43.9% 36.4% 2010 £9.27 1.8% -18.4% 16,785 7.4% -0.1% 2009 £9.11 - -19.8% 16,624 7.6% -
24/01/2019 Copyrighted report licensed to Keppie Massie - 668908. Page 14 Sale Trends Hambleton Office
OVERALL SALES Completed Transactions (1) Market Pricing Trends (2)
Year Deals Volume Turnover Avg Price Avg Price/SF Avg Yield Price/SF Price Index Yield 2023 ------£141.95 137 8.6% 2022 ------£139.93 135 8.6% 2021 ------£138.08 133 8.6% 2020 ------£136.75 132 8.6% 2019 ------£138.12 133 8.3% YTD ------£137.54 133 8.1% 2018 4 £0.2 M 3.1% £230,000 £48.22 7.8% £137.51 133 8.1% 2017 3 £0.4 M 0.9% £430,000 £87.08 - £133.04 129 8.1% 2016 2 £0.1 M 1.9% - £62.10 - £120.58 117 8.5% 2015 8 £5.7 M 12.9% £2,865,000 £71.11 13.1% £112.64 109 8.5% 2014 1 £0.3 M 0.6% £315,000 £72.43 - £99.88 97 9.2% 2013 3 £0 M 1.4% - - - £87.94 85 10.1% 2012 2 £0.9 M 1.6% £473,500 £87.99 - £90.57 88 10.3% 2011 ------£94.68 91 10.0% 2010 1 £0.1 M 0.6% £86,000 £21.14 - £101.45 98 9.6% 2009 1 £0.1 M 0.3% £75,000 £41.30 - £103.49 100 9.7% (1) Completed transaction data is based on actual arms-length sales transactions and levels are dependent on the mix of what happened to sell in the period. (2) Market price trends data is based on the estimated price movement of all properties in the market, informed by actual transactions that have occurred.
3 STAR SALES Completed Transactions (1) Market Pricing Trends (2)
Year Deals Volume Turnover Avg Price Avg Price/SF Avg Yield Price/SF Price Index Yield 2023 ------£148.18 127 8.6% 2022 ------£146.14 125 8.5% 2021 ------£144.35 124 8.5% 2020 ------£143.26 123 8.5% 2019 ------£145.48 125 8.2% YTD ------£146.91 126 8.0% 2018 4 £0.2 M 4.8% £230,000 £48.22 7.8% £146.88 126 8.0% 2017 2 £0 M 0.3% - - - £143.34 123 7.9% 2016 2 £0.1 M 3.0% - £62.10 - £131.15 112 8.3% 2015 6 £5.7 M 19.0% £2,865,000 £71.11 13.1% £121.76 104 8.4% 2014 ------£111.24 95 8.8% 2013 1 £0 M 0.7% - - - £98.68 85 9.6% 2012 1 £0.8 M 1.5% £812,000 £125.74 - £101.35 87 9.9% 2011 ------£104.42 90 9.7% 2010 1 £0.1 M 0.9% £86,000 £21.14 - £113.37 97 9.3% 2009 1 £0.1 M 0.4% £75,000 £41.30 - £116.67 100 9.2% (1) Completed transaction data is based on actual arms-length sales transactions and levels are dependent on the mix of what happened to sell in the period. (2) Market price trends data is based on the estimated price movement of all properties in the market, informed by actual transactions that have occurred.
24/01/2019 Copyrighted report licensed to Keppie Massie - 668908. Page 15 Sale Trends Hambleton Office
1 & 2 STAR SALES Completed Transactions (1) Market Pricing Trends (2)
Year Deals Volume Turnover Avg Price Avg Price/SF Avg Yield Price/SF Price Index Yield 2023 ------£122.68 158 9.0% 2022 ------£120.81 155 8.9% 2021 ------£118.96 153 8.9% 2020 ------£117.28 151 8.9% 2019 ------£117.01 150 8.6% YTD ------£112.86 145 8.4% 2018 ------£112.82 145 8.4% 2017 1 £0.4 M 2.2% £430,000 £87.08 - £107.43 138 8.4% 2016 ------£95.89 123 9.0% 2015 2 £0 M 1.9% - - - £92.92 119 8.8% 2014 1 £0.3 M 1.9% £315,000 £72.43 - £78.14 100 9.8% 2013 2 £0 M 2.9% - - - £67.78 87 10.9% 2012 1 £0.1 M 1.9% £135,000 £31.36 - £70.03 90 11.1% 2011 ------£74.55 96 10.7% 2010 ------£77.36 99 10.4% 2009 ------£77.79 100 10.5% (1) Completed transaction data is based on actual arms-length sales transactions and levels are dependent on the mix of what happened to sell in the period. (2) Market price trends data is based on the estimated price movement of all properties in the market, informed by actual transactions that have occurred.
24/01/2019 Copyrighted report licensed to Keppie Massie - 668908. Page 16
APPENDIX 7 COSTAR INDUSTRIAL MARKET REPORT
Industrial Submarket Report Hambleton York Market
PREPARED BY
Ged Massie Partner Hambleton Industrial
INDUSTRIAL SUBMARKET REPORT
Submarket Key Statistics 2 Leasing 3 Rent 5 Construction 6 Sales 9 Sales Past 12 Months 10 Supply & Demand Trends 12 Rent & Vacancy 14 Sale Trends 16
24/01/2019 Copyrighted report licensed to Keppie Massie - 668908. Overview Hambleton Industrial
12 Mo Deliveries in SF 12 Mo Net Absorption in SF Vacancy Rate 12 Mo Rent Growth 19.3 K 18.9 K 2.3% 3.4% KEY INDICATORS
Net Absorption Under Current Quarter GIA Vacancy Rate Asking Rent Availability Rate Deliveries SF SF Construction Logistics 2,393,665 3.9% £4.08 7.1% 0 0 0 Specialised Industrial 1,533,192 0.3% £5.52 1.0% (2,597) 0 3,300 Light Industrial 359,267 0.4% £8.40 17.2% 0 0 0 Submarket 4,286,124 2.3% £4.96 5.7% (2,597) 0 3,300
Historical Forecast Annual Trends 12 Month Peak When Trough When Average Average Vacancy Change (YOY) 0% 8.1% 2.4% 20.8% 2011 Q3 2.0% 2017 Q4 Net Absorption SF 18.9 K 84,010 6,145 353,638 2015 Q2 (250,811) 2011 Q4 Deliveries SF 19.3 K 7,894 7,986 26,250 2018 Q4 0 2017 Q4 Rent Growth 3.4% 2.8% 2.1% 7.5% 2016 Q4 -1.6% 2012 Q1 Sales Volume £135 K £1.2M N/A £5.4M 2017 Q1 £0 2018 Q1
24/01/2019 Copyrighted report licensed to Keppie Massie - 668908. Page 2 Leasing Hambleton Industrial
NET ABSORPTION, NET DELIVERIES & VACANCY
VACANCY RATE
24/01/2019 Copyrighted report licensed to Keppie Massie - 668908. Page 3 Leasing Hambleton Industrial
AVAILABILITY RATE
3 STAR MOST ACTIVE BUILDINGS IN SUBMARKET - PAST 12 MONTHS
Property Name/Address Rating GIA Deals SF Vacancy (QTD) Net Absorption SF (QTD) Units 15-18 7,268 2 3,268 0% 0 Shires Bridge Business Park Former Cemex Unit 10,000 1 10,000 0% 0 Thirsk Industrial Park Units 19-22 7,267 1 1,600 0% 0 Shires Bridge Business Park
24/01/2019 Copyrighted report licensed to Keppie Massie - 668908. Page 4 Rent Hambleton Industrial
MARKET RENT GROWTH (YOY)
MARKET RENT PER SQUARE FOOT
24/01/2019 Copyrighted report licensed to Keppie Massie - 668908. Page 5 Construction Hambleton Industrial
DELIVERIES & DEMOLITIONS
24/01/2019 Copyrighted report licensed to Keppie Massie - 668908. Page 6 Construction Hambleton Industrial
All-Time Annual Avg. SF Delivered SF Past 4 Qtrs Delivered SF Next 4 Qtrs Proposed SF Next 4 Qtrs 3,180 0 3,300 0
PAST 4 QUARTERS DELIVERIES, UNDER CONSTRUCTION, & PROPOSED
PAST & FUTURE DELIVERIES IN SQUARE FEET
24/01/2019 Copyrighted report licensed to Keppie Massie - 668908. Page 7 Construction Hambleton Industrial
RECENT DELIVERIES
Property Name/Address Rating Bldg SF Floors Start Complete Developer/Owner Conygarth Way - 1 26,250 1 Aug-2017 Mar-2018 Suffolk Life Group Ltd
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Property Name/Address Rating Bldg SF Floors Start Complete Developer/Owner York Rd - 1 3,300 1 Nov-2018 Jul-2019 -
24/01/2019 Copyrighted report licensed to Keppie Massie - 668908. Page 8 Sales Hambleton Industrial
SALES VOLUME & MARKET SALE PRICE PER SF
24/01/2019 Copyrighted report licensed to Keppie Massie - 668908. Page 9 Sales Past 12 Months Hambleton Industrial
Sale Comparables Avg. Yield Avg. Price/SF Avg. Vacancy At Sale 2 - £92 0%
SALE COMPARABLE LOCATIONS
SALE COMPARABLES SUMMARY STATISTICS
Sales Attributes Low Average Median High Sale Price - - - -
Price Per SF £92 £92 £92 £92
Net Initial Yield - - - -
Time Since Sale in Months 1.6 5.0 5.0 8.3
Property Attributes Low Average Median High Building SF 900 900 900 900
Eaves Height
Docks - - - -
Vacancy Rate At Sale 0% 0% 0% 0%
Year Built - - - -
Star Rating 1.0
24/01/2019 Copyrighted report licensed to Keppie Massie - 668908. Page 10 Sales Past 12 Months Hambleton Industrial
RECENT SIGNIFICANT SALES
Property Sale
Property Name - Address Rating Yr Built Bldg SF Vacancy Sale Date Price Price/SF NIY Easingwold Business Park 1 - 1981 1,464 0% 16/05/2018 £135,000 £92 - Birch Way Aiskew 2 - - 900 0% 05/12/2018 - - -
24/01/2019 Copyrighted report licensed to Keppie Massie - 668908. Page 11 Supply & Demand Trends Hambleton Industrial
OVERALL SUPPLY & DEMAND
Inventory Net Absorption
Year SF SF Growth % Growth SF % of Inv Construction Ratio 2023 4,320,288 7,034 0.2% 2,416 0.1% 2.9 2022 4,313,254 7,821 0.2% 3,643 0.1% 2.1 2021 4,305,433 8,615 0.2% 4,737 0.1% 1.8 2020 4,296,818 7,545 0.2% 6,048 0.1% 1.2 2019 4,289,273 3,149 0.1% (309) 0% - YTD 4,286,124 0 0% (2,597) -0.1% - 2018 4,286,124 26,250 0.6% 16,637 0.4% 1.6 2017 4,259,874 0 0% 15,792 0.4% 0 2016 4,259,874 0 0% (7,244) -0.2% - 2015 4,259,874 14,819 0.3% 78,841 1.9% 0.2 2014 4,245,055 0 0% 335,215 7.9% 0 2013 4,245,055 0 0% 306,669 7.2% 0 2012 4,245,055 14,505 0.3% 42,310 1.0% 0.3 2011 4,230,550 - - (250,811) -5.9% -
SPECIALISED INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY & DEMAND
Inventory Net Absorption
Year SF SF Growth % Growth SF % of Inv Construction Ratio 2023 1,539,471 679 0% (2,178) -0.1% - 2022 1,538,792 744 0% (2,034) -0.1% - 2021 1,538,048 828 0.1% (1,804) -0.1% - 2020 1,537,220 726 0% (1,427) -0.1% - 2019 1,536,494 3,302 0.2% (7,811) -0.5% - YTD 1,533,192 0 0% (2,597) -0.2% - 2018 1,533,192 0 0% 19,153 1.2% 0 2017 1,533,192 0 0% 22,916 1.5% 0 2016 1,533,192 0 0% (14,230) -0.9% - 2015 1,533,192 14,819 1.0% 37,422 2.4% 0.4 2014 1,518,373 0 0% 188,666 12.4% 0 2013 1,518,373 0 0% 17,452 1.1% 0 2012 1,518,373 0 0% 37,555 2.5% 0 2011 1,518,373 - - (34,059) -2.2% -
24/01/2019 Copyrighted report licensed to Keppie Massie - 668908. Page 12 Supply & Demand Trends Hambleton Industrial
LOGISTICS SUPPLY & DEMAND
Inventory Net Absorption
Year SF SF Growth % Growth SF % of Inv Construction Ratio 2023 2,418,895 5,746 0.2% 4,980 0.2% 1.2 2022 2,413,149 6,406 0.3% 6,055 0.3% 1.1 2021 2,406,743 7,040 0.3% 6,967 0.3% 1.0 2020 2,399,703 6,179 0.3% 8,095 0.3% 0.8 2019 2,393,524 (141) 0% 9,063 0.4% - YTD 2,393,665 0 0% - - - 2018 2,393,665 26,250 1.1% (3,770) -0.2% - 2017 2,367,415 0 0% (8,024) -0.3% - 2016 2,367,415 0 0% 4,887 0.2% 0 2015 2,367,415 0 0% 41,419 1.7% 0 2014 2,367,415 0 0% 115,709 4.9% 0 2013 2,367,415 0 0% 152,672 6.4% 0 2012 2,367,415 14,505 0.6% 11,714 0.5% 1.2 2011 2,352,910 - - (72,313) -3.1% -
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY & DEMAND
Inventory Net Absorption
Year SF SF Growth % Growth SF % of Inv Construction Ratio 2023 361,922 609 0.2% (386) -0.1% - 2022 361,313 671 0.2% (378) -0.1% - 2021 360,642 747 0.2% (426) -0.1% - 2020 359,895 640 0.2% (620) -0.2% - 2019 359,255 (12) 0% (1,561) -0.4% - YTD 359,267 0 0% - - - 2018 359,267 0 0% 1,254 0.3% 0 2017 359,267 0 0% 900 0.3% 0 2016 359,267 0 0% 2,099 0.6% 0 2015 359,267 0 0% - - - 2014 359,267 0 0% 30,840 8.6% 0 2013 359,267 0 0% 136,545 38.0% 0 2012 359,267 0 0% (6,959) -1.9% - 2011 359,267 - - (144,439) -40.2% -
24/01/2019 Copyrighted report licensed to Keppie Massie - 668908. Page 13 Rent & Vacancy Hambleton Industrial
OVERALL RENT & VACANCY
Market Rent Vacancy
Year Per SF % Growth Vs Hist Peak SF Percent Ppts Chg 2023 £5.47 0.7% 10.1% 115,216 2.7% 0.1% 2022 £5.43 1.1% 9.3% 110,489 2.6% 0.1% 2021 £5.37 1.9% 8.1% 106,166 2.5% 0.1% 2020 £5.27 2.7% 6.1% 102,116 2.4% 0% 2019 £5.13 3.4% 3.4% 100,429 2.3% 0.1% YTD £4.96 -0.1% -0.1% 99,489 2.3% 0.1% 2018 £4.97 4.0% 0% 96,892 2.3% 0.2% 2017 £4.77 3.9% -3.9% 87,279 2.0% -0.4% 2016 £4.59 7.5% -7.5% 103,071 2.4% 0.2% 2015 £4.27 1.7% -14.0% 95,827 2.2% -1.5% 2014 £4.20 3.1% -15.5% 159,849 3.8% -7.9% 2013 £4.07 1.2% -18.0% 495,064 11.7% -7.2% 2012 £4.02 0.1% -19.0% 801,733 18.9% -0.7% 2011 £4.02 - -19.1% 829,538 19.6% -
SPECIALISED INDUSTRIAL RENT & VACANCY
Market Rent Vacancy
Year Per SF % Growth Vs Hist Peak SF Percent Ppts Chg 2023 £6.28 0.8% 13.5% 23,175 1.5% 0.2% 2022 £6.22 1.4% 12.6% 20,270 1.3% 0.2% 2021 £6.14 2.2% 11.1% 17,426 1.1% 0.2% 2020 £6.01 3.4% 8.6% 14,710 1.0% 0.1% 2019 £5.81 5.1% 5.1% 12,456 0.8% 0.7% YTD £5.52 -0.2% -0.2% 3,942 0.3% 0.2% 2018 £5.53 5.9% 0% 1,345 0.1% -1.2% 2017 £5.22 6.3% -5.5% 20,498 1.3% -1.5% 2016 £4.92 6.4% -11.1% 43,414 2.8% 0.9% 2015 £4.62 1.0% -16.4% 29,184 1.9% -1.5% 2014 £4.57 4.6% -17.3% 51,787 3.4% -12.4% 2013 £4.37 1.1% -20.9% 240,453 15.8% -1.1% 2012 £4.32 -0.4% -21.8% 257,905 17.0% -2.5% 2011 £4.34 - -21.5% 295,460 19.5% -
24/01/2019 Copyrighted report licensed to Keppie Massie - 668908. Page 14 Rent & Vacancy Hambleton Industrial
LOGISTICS RENT & VACANCY
Market Rent Vacancy
Year Per SF % Growth Vs Hist Peak SF Percent Ppts Chg 2023 £4.42 0.6% 8.2% 84,615 3.5% 0% 2022 £4.40 1.0% 7.6% 83,763 3.5% 0% 2021 £4.35 1.7% 6.5% 83,312 3.5% 0% 2020 £4.28 2.3% 4.7% 83,125 3.5% -0.1% 2019 £4.19 2.4% 2.4% 84,944 3.5% -0.4% YTD £4.08 -0.1% -0.1% 94,079 3.9% 0% 2018 £4.09 3.3% 0% 94,079 3.9% 1.2% 2017 £3.96 2.7% -3.2% 64,059 2.7% 0.3% 2016 £3.85 8.8% -5.8% 56,035 2.4% -0.2% 2015 £3.54 1.7% -13.4% 60,922 2.6% -1.7% 2014 £3.48 2.5% -14.9% 102,341 4.3% -4.9% 2013 £3.39 1.2% -17.0% 218,050 9.2% -6.4% 2012 £3.35 -0.2% -18.0% 370,722 15.7% 0% 2011 £3.36 - -17.8% 367,931 15.6% -
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL RENT & VACANCY
Market Rent Vacancy
Year Per SF % Growth Vs Hist Peak SF Percent Ppts Chg 2023 £8.97 0.5% 6.6% 7,426 2.1% 0.3% 2022 £8.92 0.9% 6.1% 6,456 1.8% 0.3% 2021 £8.84 1.5% 5.1% 5,428 1.5% 0.3% 2020 £8.71 1.9% 3.5% 4,281 1.2% 0.3% 2019 £8.54 1.6% 1.6% 3,029 0.8% 0.4% YTD £8.40 -0.1% -0.1% 1,468 0.4% 0% 2018 £8.41 1.2% 0% 1,468 0.4% -0.3% 2017 £8.31 1.7% -1.2% 2,722 0.8% -0.3% 2016 £8.17 6.6% -2.8% 3,622 1.0% -0.6% 2015 £7.66 3.8% -8.9% 5,721 1.6% 0% 2014 £7.38 1.1% -12.2% 5,721 1.6% -8.6% 2013 £7.30 1.5% -13.2% 36,561 10.2% -38.0% 2012 £7.19 2.6% -14.5% 173,106 48.2% 1.9% 2011 £7.01 - -16.7% 166,147 46.2% -
24/01/2019 Copyrighted report licensed to Keppie Massie - 668908. Page 15 Sale Trends Hambleton Industrial
OVERALL SALES Completed Transactions (1) Market Pricing Trends (2)
Year Deals Volume Turnover Avg Price Avg Price/SF Avg Yield Price/SF Price Index Yield 2023 ------£73.97 199 7.5% 2022 ------£72.51 195 7.4% 2021 ------£71.35 192 7.4% 2020 ------£70.18 189 7.4% 2019 ------£69.86 188 7.2% YTD ------£68.73 185 7.0% 2018 2 £0.1 M 0.1% - £92.21 - £68.74 185 7.0% 2017 1 £0.6 M 0.5% £600,000 £29.24 - £64.84 174 6.8% 2016 6 £4.8 M 3.4% £1,200,625 £35.03 9.3% £57.99 156 7.1% 2015 7 £2.0 M 1.4% £398,600 £34.91 - £53.48 144 7.2% 2014 1 £0.1 M 0.1% £145,500 £49.26 - £48.87 131 7.5% 2013 3 £1.1 M 1.0% £537,500 £35.44 11.6% £45.21 121 7.8% 2012 1 £0.4 M 0.3% £357,500 £28.96 - £37.30 100 9.3% 2011 5 £0.8 M 0.8% £253,333 £38.86 - £37.21 100 9.3% (1) Completed transaction data is based on actual arms-length sales transactions and levels are dependent on the mix of what happened to sell in the period. (2) Market price trends data is based on the estimated price movement of all properties in the market, informed by actual transactions that have occurred.
SPECIALISED INDUSTRIAL SALES Completed Transactions (1) Market Pricing Trends (2)
Year Deals Volume Turnover Avg Price Avg Price/SF Avg Yield Price/SF Price Index Yield 2023 ------£76.04 201 7.4% 2022 ------£74.41 197 7.4% 2021 ------£73.07 193 7.4% 2020 ------£71.60 189 7.3% 2019 ------£70.77 187 7.1% YTD ------£68.41 181 6.9% 2018 1 £0.1 M 0.1% - £92.21 - £68.40 181 6.9% 2017 ------£65.82 174 6.6% 2016 4 £1.3 M 1.7% £651,250 £67.48 7.5% £57.81 153 7.0% 2015 5 £0.8 M 0.8% £257,667 £73.91 - £53.49 141 7.0% 2014 1 £0.1 M 0.2% £145,500 £49.26 - £48.96 129 7.4% 2013 1 £0.3 M 0.5% £320,000 £38.66 - £45.66 121 7.6% 2012 ------£37.83 100 9.0% 2011 5 £0.8 M 2.1% £253,333 £38.86 - £37.81 100 9.1% (1) Completed transaction data is based on actual arms-length sales transactions and levels are dependent on the mix of what happened to sell in the period. (2) Market price trends data is based on the estimated price movement of all properties in the market, informed by actual transactions that have occurred.
24/01/2019 Copyrighted report licensed to Keppie Massie - 668908. Page 16 Sale Trends Hambleton Industrial
LOGISTICS SALES Completed Transactions (1) Market Pricing Trends (2)
Year Deals Volume Turnover Avg Price Avg Price/SF Avg Yield Price/SF Price Index Yield 2023 ------£70.54 197 7.6% 2022 ------£69.22 194 7.5% 2021 ------£68.18 191 7.5% 2020 ------£67.17 188 7.5% 2019 ------£67.11 188 7.3% YTD ------£66.60 186 7.0% 2018 1 £0 M 0% - - - £66.60 186 7.0% 2017 1 £0.6 M 0.9% £600,000 £29.24 - £61.79 173 6.9% 2016 2 £3.5 M 5.0% £1,750,000 £29.72 11.0% £55.99 157 7.2% 2015 2 £1.2 M 2.0% £610,000 £26.16 - £51.64 145 7.3% 2014 ------£47.21 132 7.6% 2013 2 £0.8 M 1.5% £755,000 £34.23 11.6% £43.38 121 7.9% 2012 1 £0.4 M 0.5% £357,500 £28.96 - £35.84 100 9.5% 2011 ------£35.73 100 9.5% (1) Completed transaction data is based on actual arms-length sales transactions and levels are dependent on the mix of what happened to sell in the period. (2) Market price trends data is based on the estimated price movement of all properties in the market, informed by actual transactions that have occurred.
24/01/2019 Copyrighted report licensed to Keppie Massie - 668908. Page 17
APPENDIX 8 ALLOCATIONS TESTING ASSUMPTIONS
Appendix 8 - Assumptions and Results Allocations
Market Towns Policy Impact (per sq.m mkt hse) 30% AH & ADD M4 Net Net Benchmark Market Total Market 30% AH ADD S106 Total Total Floorspace Sales Size No Gross/Ra Land Value Garages Benchmark CIL Surplus (2)/(3a) M4 Garages Ref Address Area Density Developable Developable Lane Value Housing Housing Surplus (sq.m (sq.m mkt CIL S106 Floorspace Ex Floorspace (sq.ft) per Rate (ha) Dwellings tio Type Zone (sq.m) Land Value (sq.m mkt (sq.m mkt (2)/(3a) CIL (ha) (acres) (per hec) (sq.m) (sq.m) mkt hse) hse) garages (sq.m) (sq.ft) acre hse) hse) 3 AIB 1 North East of Ashgrove, Aiskew Bedale 3.27 85 35 2.5 6.1 75% GF 3 £617,500 5,791 462 6,253 £1,514,419 £244 £195 £177 £165 -£49 -£17 -£13 7,781 83,754 13,826 £25,410
3 AIB 2 South of Lyngarth Farm Bedale 2.21 60 35 1.7 4.2 78% GF 3 £617,500 4,076 322 4,398 £1,062,100 £239 £190 £172 £159 -£50 -£18 -£13 5,516 59,374 13,976 £17,710 Northeast of Easingwold Community Primary School, 3 EAS 1 Easingwold 6.31 125 26 4.7 11.7 75% GF 5 £617,500 8,498 672 9,170 £2,920,775 £356 £307 £290 £278 -£49 -£17 -£12 11,448 123,225 10,547 £36,960 Easingwold
6 NOR 1 Winton Road, Northallerton Northallerton 31.41 840 36 23.6 58.2 75% GF 3 £617,500 56,838 4466 61,304 £14,548,300 £318 £262 £247 £227 -£56 -£15 -£20 76,958 828,369 14,235 £245,630
3 STK 1 North of the Stripe, Stokesley Stokesley 7.83 205 35 5.9 14.5 75% GF 3 £617,500 13,884 1092 14,976 £3,626,269 £266 £217 £201 £181 -£49 -£16 -£21 18,754 201,866 13,917 £60,060
3 TIS 1 Station Road, Thirsk Thirsk 4.16 110 35 3.1 7.8 76% GF 3 £617,500 7,450 588 8,038 £1,940,714 £238 £189 £172 £160 -£49 -£17 -£13 10,080 108,500 13,977 £32,340
3 TIS 2 Back Lane, Sowerby Thirsk 1.75 50 32 1.6 3.9 90% GF 3 £617,500 3,374 266 3,640 £975,650 £190 £140 £122 £109 -£50 -£18 -£13 4,564 49,126 12,588 £14,630
3 TIS 3 Green Lane West, Sowerby Thirsk 1.48 45 34 1.3 3.3 90% GF 3 £617,500 3,121 252 3,373 £821,275 £151 £101 £83 £70 -£50 -£18 -£13 4,151 44,681 13,601 £13,860
Policy Impact (per sq.m mkt Service Villages hse) 30% AH & ADD M4 Net Net Benchmark Market Total Market 30% AH ADD S106 Total Total Floorspace Sales Size No Gross/Ra Land Value Garages Benchmark CIL Surplus (2)/(3a) M4 Garages Ref Address Area Density Developable Developable Lane Value Housing Housing Surplus (sq.m (sq.m mkt CIL S106 Floorspace Ex Floorspace (sq.ft) per Rate (ha) Dwellings tio Type Zone (sq.m) Land Value (sq.m mkt (sq.m mkt (2)/(3a) CIL (ha) (acres) (per hec) (sq.m) (sq.m) mkt hse) hse) garages (sq.m) (sq.ft) acre hse) hse)
3 LEB 1 HarknessDrive, Leeming Bar Bedale 3.3 85 34 2.5 6.1 75% GF 1 £370,500 5,791 462 6,253 £916,988 £52 £3 -£15 -£27 -£49 -£17 -£13 7,781 83,754 13,700 £25,410
3 LEB 2 Foundry Way, Leeming Bar Bedale 2.98 80 36 2.2 5.5 75% GF 1 £370,500 5,386 420 5,806 £823,333 £64 £15 -£3 -£16 -£49 -£18 -£13 7,306 78,641 14,327 £23,100
Policy Impact (per sq.m mkt Secondary Villages hse) 30% AH & ADD M4 Net Net Benchmark Market Total Market 30% AH ADD S106 Total Total Floorspace Sales Size No Gross/Ra Land Value Garages Benchmark CIL Surplus (2)/(3a) M4 Garages Ref Address Area Density Developable Developable Lane Value Housing Housing Surplus (sq.m (sq.m mkt CIL S106 Floorspace Ex Floorspace (sq.ft) per Rate (ha) Dwellings tio Type Zone (sq.m) Land Value (sq.m mkt (sq.m mkt (2)/(3a) CIL (ha) (acres) (per hec) (sq.m) (sq.m) mkt hse) hse) garages (sq.m) (sq.ft) acre hse) hse) 3 CAM 1 Ripon Way, Carlton Miniott Thirsk 1.97 55 31 1.8 4.4 90% GF 3 £617,500 3,741 294 4,035 £1,094,828 £223 £173 £155 £142 -£50 -£18 -£13 5,021 54,046 12,341 £16,170
1.5 GTA 1 Skottowe Crescent, Great Ayton Stokesley 1.33 30 25 1.2 3.0 90% GF 3 £494,000 2,026 168 2,194 £592,800 £31 -£19 -£36 -£49 -£50 -£18 -£13 2,736 29,450 9,936 £9,240
1.5 SOT1 Beechfield, South Otterington Thirsk 1.53 40 29 1.4 3.4 90% GF 3 £494,000 2,693 210 2,903 £680,238 £60 £10 -£7 -£20 -£50 -£18 -£13 3,653 39,321 11,561 £11,550
APPENDIX 9 QUANTITY SURVEYOR REPORT
REPORT OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS
WHOLE PLAN & COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY VIABILITY ASSESSMENT ______
Prepared on Behalf of Hambleton District Council APRIL |2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS
______
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2.0 RESIDENTIAL TYPOLOGIES – GENERIC AND ALLOCATIONS ...... 2 3.0 COMMERCIAL TYPOLOGIES – GENERIC ...... 10
Appendices
Appendix A M4(2) & M4(3) Cost Assessments Appendix B Generic Residential Construction Costs Appendix C Apartment Schemes Construction Costs Appendix D Construction Cost Sheets for the Specific Allocations Tested Appendix E Cost Assessments for the Commercial Typologies
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 This report contains details of the data sources, methodology and construction cost assessments that have been utilised in preparing the Hambleton Whole Plan & CIL Viability Assessment.
Planning Practice Guidance
1.2 The Planning Practice Guidance (July 2018) (PPG) suggests that average costs and values can be used in making assumptions about viability. It stresses that comparing data from existing case study sites will help to ensure that assumptions of costs are realistic and broadly accurate. Furthermore the PPG states that any viability assessment should be supported by appropriate available evidence informed by engagement with developers, landowners, infrastructure and affordable housing providers. Over time it stresses that improving the transparency of data associated with viability assessments will improve the data available for future assessment as well as providing more accountability regarding how viability informs decision making.
1.3 In the context of assessing costs for the purpose of viability assessment, the PPG states that these should be based on evidence which is reflective of local market conditions. In the context of assessing construction costs for the purpose of the Hambleton Local Plan/CIL Viability Assessment, this report considers, in the context of ‘local market conditions’ the following elements identified within the PPG:
Build Costs Site Specific Infrastructure Costs Abnormal Costs Professional Fees Contingencies Policy costs such as M4(2) and M4(3a).
Keppie Massie
1.4 Keppie Massie has acted as Economic Viability Consultant for over 20 Councils in recent years, and therefore has detailed knowledge and practical experience of the costs associated with developments in the North of England. We also regularly prepare viability assessments on behalf of a number of housebuilders – national, regional and also smaller developers together with specialist developers such as PJ Livesey. In undertaking this role we have prepared viability assessments for a significant number of sites ranging from small infill sites located in the urban area to large former industrial sites, listed building conversion and also a number of greenfield development sites including former playing fields and agricultural land. 1
1.5 As a result of preparing these viability assessments we have an extensive database of local construction costs derived from information provided to us by the housebuilders actively undertaking development in the North of England and in Hambleton. This provides extensive appropriate data in relation to construction costs based on market conditions and in line with the PPG has been used to inform the construction cost assessments.
2.0 RESIDENTIAL TYPOLOGIES – GENERIC AND ALLOCATIONS
Data Sources
2.1 The PPG notes that build costs should be based on appropriate data sources and gives as just one example of an appropriate data source information from the Building Cost Information Service (BCIS).
2.2 If BCIS data is used in an assessment of viability then care is needed in the use of the data. Our experience over many years is that the majority of BCIS data is received from development contracts generally administered on behalf of providers of affordable housing, registered providers or the like. BCIS have informed us that they do receive some cost data from private open market developers however this is when they are in partnership with registered providers. They receive little data from private developers, particularly local, regional and national housebuilders in respect of market developments such as those that need to be assessed in a Local Plan EVA.
2.3 The nature and basis of the BCIS costs means that they would not necessarily reflect the same specification as the dwellings that open market developers are likely to build. We have evidence from many Developers and Quantity Surveyors that they would in fact add to their costs for affordable dwellings to meet the higher standards required from for example Homes England.
2.4 BCIS costs are historic and thus will include for works such as those needed for Registered Providers to comply with for example Code for Sustainable Homes and before that Ecohomes. Such works are not now required for open market developments but their costs would nonetheless, be included within the costs if BCIS data were to be used.
2
2.5 We have also noted in our consideration of BCIS costs that they will include additional costs for abnormal works within substructures or superstructures, such as costly foundations or the results of specific planning requirements. These are included within costs reported by Consulting Quantity Surveyors when reporting costs to BCIS. Hence the BCIS headline rates invariably include an element of abnormal development costs which in the context of a Local Plan EVA may lead to double counting of abnormals particularly in assessment of construction costs for brownfield development typologies. The published data is not however sufficiently transparent to enable this element of abnormal costs to be identified and so avoid any double counting.
2.6 BCIS costs include for profit and overheads for a Building Contractor. The majority of house builders act as Main Contractor on their own behalf and manage the construction directly. In a viability assessment profit from the development is taken from revenue and hence by using unadjusted BCIS headline costs there is a likelihood in many instances that the construction element of profit will be double counted.
2.7 BCIS also publish a sample of the schemes from which they derive costs data. We consider that this sample reasonably reflects the range of schemes used by BCIS to calculate the average price data. In January 2017 in conjunction with WYG Quantity Surveyors we prepared an analysis of these scheme data published since 2011. There were about 160 suitable analyses for houses (excluding flats). The assessment of these 160 schemes showed that the average number of dwellings per scheme was only 18.
2.8 Since this time only a limited number (about 25) of further schemes of houses have been published. The average number of dwellings within these is only 14. This suggests that firstly, BCIS are using fewer schemes as a basis for their cost data and, secondly, the schemes that they are using are reducing in size. The specific allocations that are considered for Hambleton have between 30 and 840 dwellings, with the majority exceeding 80 dwellings and hence are not comparable with the size and type of scheme that form the basis for the BCIS headline costs. Hence in this context BCIS data are not considered ‘appropriate data’ on which to base a construction cost assessment in this case.
2.9 The PPG cites BCIS as one example of an appropriate data source. Given its limitations our construction cost database is considered to provide a more reliable and transparent source of local build cost data for Hambleton particularly as it contains data submitted to us by house builders relating to actual housing developments being undertaken. In addition it has been used to inform the Local Plan Viability Assessments undertaken by us for many Local Planning Authorities which have been found sound based on this data.
3
Methodology
2.10 Our database includes analysis from approximately 235 schemes in the North of England. The details of these schemes have been collated into a database by reference to relevant parameters including date, location, dwelling numbers, floor and site area and all cost details. The data is then adjusted as required to make it applicable by reference to date and location, by the use of BCIS Tender Price Index and Location Factors.
2.11 The database is based upon information that we consider to be confidential and hence it cannot be published for the purpose of the EVA in its full form. It is possible however to anonymise the data and publish this if required; however its value for analytical purposes would be reduced as a result.
2.12 With reference to the appropriate cost data then in assessing the costs of any individual scheme, we allocate a cost/m2 to the substructures and superstructures of the house, dependent on its size (floor area). We assess the level of preliminaries based on the development size and anticipated construction period, reflecting the sales rate.
2.13 The cost of external works are then assessed, based on the density of the scheme and further details are provided later in this report.
2.14 The costs of drains, including surface water attenuation, and incoming services are assessed based on typical costs per dwelling, again as detailed later in this report.
2.15 In relation to the cost assessments prepared for the allocations then where we have been provided with information that supports the inclusion, we have made allowances for abnormal works. These are detailed on the individual sheets of costs for each specific allocation.
2.16 Fees and contingencies at 5% are then added as a percentage of the total costs. Further details are again given later in this report.
2.17 The totals are then added together to give a total development cost. We then compare the costs with those from the database to ensure that there is reasonable comparability with the costs provided to us by developers.
2.18 This comparison is made exclusive of abnormal development costs as these are specific to each site and hence are not strictly comparable.
2.19 Further information about our approach to the main cost headings is provided in the following sections.
4
External Works
2.20 The costs of external works are assessed based on the density of the development being tested, which varies in Hambleton from 30 to 35 dwellings per hectare. As density varies then the plot size also varies. For example, the area per plot for a density of 30dph would be 333m2 while that for a density of 35dph would be 286m2. These areas will include the plots themselves as well as areas for roads, footpaths etc, beyond plot curtilages. The areas will not include for Public Open Space, the costs of which are assessed separately.
2.21 The methodology in relation to assessing the cost of external works is as follows:
a) The plot size is calculated based on the density. b) An aspect ratio, that is the ratio of width to depth is adopted and applied to the plot area to give notional plot dimensions. The aspect ratio used is 1.3. It is assumed that the smaller dimension will be plot width and the larger dimension the depth. c) From the plot dimensions a length of road for a plot is calculated and to this we add 20% for inefficiency ie the additional area necessarily required for bends, curves etc. d) From this length an area of road and an area for footpaths is calculated, based on a road width of 5.5m and a footpath width of 2m. It is assumed that all roads will be double banked, that is with houses on both sides. It is also assumed that there is a footpath to each side of the road. Single banking, that is houses to one side only, occurs rarely and has not been taken into account beyond the allowance for inefficiency. e) The roads are then costed using typical rates for the works to be undertaken, including the surfacing, kerbs, road lighting, drainage and marking, excluding any abnormal costs for capping layers or the like due to poor ground.
2.22 The costs of works to the plot itself are assessed as follows:
a) Car Parking: The area of 2 car parking spaces is included for all dwellings except 1 bed houses; this is costed assuming tarmacadam surfacing. b) Paving: an allowance based on the size of the dwelling; this varies from 13m2 per dwelling for 1 bed houses to 33m2 for 5 bed houses. c) Grassed area: The area is assessed as the residual area of the plot taking into account all the above and excluding the footprint area of the house itself. This is costed based on 100mm of new topsoil and seeding. d) Boundaries: Fencing is costed based on the perimeter of the average plot, assessed from the plot dimensions as detailed above. Allowance is made for the fact that the large proportion of plots will share both side and rear boundaries and that front gardens are open plan. The fencing is then costed using typical rates for timber panel fences on timber posts and are assumed unpainted.
5
e) We also include the costs of garages on the following basis:
3B detached dwellings 1 no single integrated garage; 14m2 4B detached dwellings 1 no single detached garage; 14 m2 5B detached dwellings 1 no double detached garage; 28m2
2.23 The garages are assumed to be of normal construction. For the purposes of this cost assessment the garages are considered as external works even though they may be integrated into the dwelling.
Open Space
2.24 The costs of Open Space on each site are costed separately from other external works. The area assumed for open space is based on the requirements of Hambleton Council. In relation to each of the allocated sites tested it is shown on the respective cost sheets for the specific site.
2.25 Public open space is also included in the costs for generic sites that have been tested using the same approach. The calculation of the amount of open space is based on the formula contained in table 3.6 of the main Viability Assessment Report. This means that an area based on the overall site area is assessed based on the following additions to NDA:
Site Area POS Requirement Note 0 – 4,000m2 0% addition 4,000m2 - 20,000m2 11.1% addition To give 10% of gross area >20,000 m2 33.3% addition To give 25% of gross area
2.26 This area of open space is costed assuming new top soil and seeding, some shrub and tree planting, an area of rolled stone paths (approx 5%) and an allowance for capitalised basic maintenance (principally grass cutting).
2.27 We have included for play costs based on providing LAPs (Local Area for Play), LEAPs (Local equipped area for play), NEAPs (Neighbourhood local equipped area for play) based on size and in accordance with the requirements of Hambleton Council. In relation to the allocations tested, these costs are identified on the specific site cost sheets.
6
Drainage
2.28 Drainage costs have included based on typical cost per dwelling. This cost has been based on typical costs from live experience of projects being constructed on site. Although there is data within our database it is unusual that drainage costs are identified separately. However a comparison of the costs used with those from our database are similar and lie within about 5%.
2.29 It has become normal for a development to comply with requirements for SuDs (Sustainable Drainage System). We have included costs for this on the basis that POS will provide some resource for swales and similar surface areas for retainment as well as allowance for subsurface attenuation. This has been assessed on a cost per dwelling basis and the costs included within the stated drainage costs.
Incoming Services
2.30 As with drainage costs, incoming services costs have been included based on a typical cost per dwelling, regardless of size, and include the costs of service connections for water, gas, electricity and associated trenching/ducting. A typical cost has been applied based on typical costs from live experience of projects being constructed on site in the past. As with drainage there are data within our database but it is unusual that incoming service costs are identified separately. A comparison of the incoming services costs that we have used with those in our database suggests that developer costs are in fact generally lower (with schemes being about 50% lower on average) than our experience would suggest. Hence we consider that the incoming services costs that we have adopted are robust for the purposes of the EVA.
Abnormal Development Costs and Opening up Costs
2.31 Abnormal development costs have been included in both the generic cost assessments and those for the allocations. In relation to the later this is based on known information at the present time. Further details about the allowances that have been made are contained in the specific allocations cost sheets.
2.32 Abnormal development works are those works that are regarded as additional to an ideal undeveloped ‘greenfield site’ that has good ground conditions and no other causes for additional costs.
7
2.33 In the case of the cost assessments that have been prepared for the brownfield generic site typologies an allowance is made for additional site clearance costs and for some degree of abnormal foundations. There is no site specific data as these are hypothetical sites however these costs are based on what is considered to be a realistic allowance based on our experience in the Local Area. It is probable that some brownfield sites will require greater works than this and some less.
2.35 In relation to the testing of the generic greenfield sites, it is recognised that there may still be some off-site abnormal development works and we have assessed opening up costs to account for the possibility of this. These are included within the overall viability costs and are in addition to the basic costs per m2 that we have assessed.
2.36 These opening-up costs are as follows:
Opening Up Cost No of Dwellings (per dwelling) 0-14 £0 15-49 £3,000 50-99 £4,500 100-199 £5,500 200+ £8,300
2.37 They are intended to include for amongst other matters:
Section 278 works; improvements to local road networks; Extended service supplies; Increased foul drainage capacity; Provision of substations; Any associated additional fee and contingency costs.
2.38 In the case of the specific sites, we have allowed for abnormal development works costs, based on what is evident from site visits and information, including information and requirements provided by Hambleton Council. Details of the allowances made are shown on the individual cost sheets to which reference should be made. The allowances made are exclusive of fees and contingencies which are added in the cost summaries separately.
8
Professional Fees
2.39 We have included an appropriate allowance for professional fees to both the generic and the site specific cost assessments. As is usual industry practice the level of fees is calculated on a sliding scale which is follows:
Small sites (0 - 25 units) 7.5% Medium sites (26 - 99 units) 6% Large sites (100 – 200 units) 5% Very large site (>200 units) 5%
2.40 Analysis in our database indicates an average fee level of 5.27% based on an average scheme size of approximately 80 dwellings. This supports the professional fee allowances that we have adopted which in fact are slightly high in the context of the information that we hold regarding typical fee levels.
Contingencies
2.41 We have included an allowance for contingencies in all of the cost assessments at 5% of total construction costs including professional fees. A 5% allowance is regarded by many as the ‘industry standard’ and we have adopted this but we have applied it to all costs not just the dwelling construction costs which is often the normal approach.
2.42 The analysis of our database indicates an average contingency level of either 2.81% or 3.89% (depending on how it is assessed) across developments of all sizes. This is lower than we have used and supports our inclusion of a 5% allowance as being robust.
Optional Accessibility Standards
2.43 The Local Plan contains a requirement for 100% of dwellings to achieve Part M4(2) of the Building Regulations and 9% of market homes and 30% of affordable dwellings to achieve the standards contained in M4(3a) of the Building Regulations.
2.44 We have prepared costs for the application of these polices for access, based on the optional requirements of Part M4(2) and M4(3a) of the Building Regulations. These costs have been assessed on a cost per dwelling basis by considering each requirement as stated in the Approved Document and costing that requirement if it will incur a cost.
2.45 Details of our costs assessments prepared on this basis are contained in Appendix A.
9
Other Local Plan Policy Requirements
Electric Vehicle Charging Points
2.46 We have assessed a cost of £220 per dwelling for electric vehicle charging points based on a 15 amp (3.7kw) supply using heavy duty cables from the distribution board and located within the walls of the house. This would be switched with a dual pole ‘garage unit’ in a suitable location. The costs exclude any charging equipment which is assumed to be supplied with the electric vehicle.
2.47 No allowance is made for any infrastructure costs that may in the future be needed if the chargers are used on a large scale.
Cost Assessment Summaries
2.48 We have provided at Appendix B the summary sheets containing details of the construction cost rates including professional fees and contingency that we have assessed for the purpose of the generic viability testing. The rates are based on densities of 30 and 35 dwellings per hectare and reflect both greenfield and brownfield site typologies and also the differing housing mixes based on 10%, 20% and 30% affordable housing provision.
2.49 At Appendix C we have provided the construction cost assessments for the apartment schemes that have been tested.
2.50 Appendix D contains the construction cost sheets for the specific allocations that have been tested.
3.0 COMMERCIAL TYPOLOGIES – GENERIC
3.1 The costs assessments for the commercial typologies that have been tested have been calculated in the following manner.
3.2 Normal substructures and superstructures are based on costs per sq.m from BCIS for buildings of the same type and comparable size. BCIS data have been adjusted for location and brought up to date.
3.3 The costs for the external works etc. are based on the Council’s parking requirements with allowances for circulation and landscaped areas, footpaths etc. Appropriate allowances are also included for drainage and incoming service supplies.
10
3.4 Preliminaries are costed within the costs per sq.m derived from BCIS published cost data for the buildings. Professional fees for design, planning etc are based on a percentage of the total construction costs. We have also included a contingency allowance at 5% of total costs.
3.5 Abnormal works are included for brownfield sites on the basis of cost/m2 of the building or cost/m2 of the site. This would include allowances for poor ground conditions or similar.
3.6 Full details of the cost assessments for the commercial typologies are contained at Appendix E.
11
Appendix A M4(2) & M4(3) Cost Assessments
HAMBLETON LOCAL PLAN VIABILITY ASSESSMENT OPTIONAL ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS – COST ASSESSMENT
M4(2) Requirements
M4(2) M4(2) Description Qty Rate Cost/ ref Page dwg EXTERNAL 1.7 4 Slope restrictions – general building regulation; not £0 needed additionally for Part 2a
1.8 5 Step free - No cost if ramp is gentle – general building £0 regulation; not needed additionally for Part 2a
3.45 50 Rear paving Minimum width 1050 - Cost over 900 basic 2 m2 £45 £80 2.20c 16 Lighting; automatic PIR/DtD (might be provided 1 Nr £100 £100 anyway - would be for Secured by Design)
2.9f 12 Gates to be 850 clear; no additional cost £0 3.22a 30 Landings (1500 Square) for ramps - assumed no cost if 1 m2 £45 £45 1200 wide path; 1m2 if 900 wide path 3.22b 30 Canopy to front door; assumed additional 1 Nr £400 £400 1.14 7 Accessible thresholds to Front and rear (cost is not for 2 Nr £35 £50 level access which is needed any way but for threshold max 15mm projection) 2.12 13 Parking bay to be such as to permit widening to 3.3m £0 in future, not 2.4; needs only be clear - no extra cost but might mean some dwellings cannot comply
INTERNAL 2.24c Living Room window cill height assumed no cost; low £0 cill lines to Living Rooms are normal
2.26 19 Grab rail supports; bathroom; applicable only to stud 4 m2 £30 £120 partitions; 12mm plywood behind plasterboard; will not apply to all locations
2.27c 19 Level access shower to GF; future provision; floor gully 1 Nr £175 £175 only costed
£970
Design 7% £68
Contingencies 5% £52
£1,090
SAY £1,100
M4(3A) Requirements M4(3A) Description Qty Rate Cost Ref EXTERNAL 1.7 Slope restrictions – unlikely to be a problem with Hambleton 1.8 Stop free
1.7b Front Minimum width 900mm 3.45 Rear Minimum width 1050 - COST over 900 basic 2 m2 £40 £80 3.45 Turning circles 2 m2 £40 £80 2.20c Lighting COST (might be provided anyway - would be for 1 Nr £100 £100 Secured by Design
2.9f Gates to be 850 clear 3.22a Landings (1500 Square) for ramps -assumed no cost if 1 m2 £40 £40 1200 wide path
3.22b Canopy to front door 1 Nr £400 £400 1.34 Accessible thresholds to Front and rear 2 Nr £25 £50
2.20h Steps design criteria – no extra - good practice Should not £0 be needed, Hambleton generally assumed to be flat
2.11f Handrail assumed not needed if no steps £0 3.12 Parking bay to be 1200 wide (3.6 not 2.4) 6 m2 £50 £300
INTERNAL
Doors no extra cost over normal. power opening not costed £0 as basic door should be <30N
3.22 Lobby may need to be bigger than normal – no extra cost £0 unless extra GFA increases
3.22k Door control heights - no cost £0
3.22g Clear openings 850 width - normal practice (except £0 cupboards)
3.25 Wheel chair storage - 2m2 (inc in costs below) £0 £0 3.25c Power socket (dedicated) 1 Nr £75 £75 3.28 Through floor lifting provision (preformed access hatch) 1 Nr £200 £200 3.28 Knock out bathroom panel 1 Nr £200 £200 3.29 Stair lift power socket 1 Nr £75 £75 Diag 3.8 Kitchen worktops (table 3.3) - 1800 extra clear below 1 Nr £125 £125
2.24c Living Room window cill height assumed no cost 3.35c Hoist capable trusses 1 Nr £100 £100 2.26 Grab rail supports; bathroom 3 m2 £25 £75 2.27c Level access shower to GF 1 Nr £750 £750
Costs of other items; Low Surface Temperature radiators, £2,250 lever taps and hot water temperature control, 35 degree staircases and 2m2 extra floor area to allow for the area of the shallower stair. Sub-total £4,900
Design fees 7% £343 Contingencies 5% £262
TOTAL £5,505 SAY £5,500
Appendix B Generic Residential Construction Costs
! ,- $ %% & ' ( )! * % ,- . "-/0
* ! 78 9 , !"""6 ! ! 6 ! 6 !. + !' ""! ""! ! 6"!6 (" ! "6! . ! 6 ! + .' !6. (6!( ! !6. ! 6!" ( + "' ( ." . . ! 6 ! 6"" ! 6 ! 6 ! "" + ' """! ( ( . !(6 6( ! .6"" ! 6 . " + ' ( ! " ! 6( 6.( ! (6 ! 6 ( + ' ! ! 6." 6( . ! 6( . ! 6 " ! + ! ' ( !!!(
'! +)% # $ %&'& () * + %%,&'& ! ) - %& $$& ! ) # $ %&'& !.) / $ % $ %& $$& . ) 0 1, $ %&'&2 . ) 3 $ 1, %&'& . ) $ $ ,% 4 %&'&2 ) % $ %&'&2 " )
! ,- $ %% & ' ( )! $ % ,- . "-/0
* ! 78 9 , !! 6 !. ! 6 " ! 6 " + !' ""! ""! ! 6 6 ! 6 ! 6 . ! + .' ! 6 .6. . ! 6 ." ! 6 ( + "' ( ." . . ! 6. 6 ! (6 " ! 6( "" + ' """! ( ( . !(6!"(6!( ! "6. ! ! 6! " + ' ( ! " ! 6 (6(( ! 6 (. ! 6 ( + ' ! !!6"( 6 ! 6! ( ! 6 ! + ! ' ( !!!(
'! +)% # $ %&'& () * + %%,&'& ! ) - %& $$& ! ) # $ %&'& !.) / $ % $ %& $$& . ) 0 1, $ %&'&2 . ) 3 $ 1, %&'& . ) $ $ ,% 4 %&'&2 ) % $ %&'&2 " )
! ,# $ %% & ' ( )! * % ,- . "-/0
! * 78 9 , !"" 6 (( ! 6 !( ! 6 "! + !' . . ! 6 6( ! ! 6 ( ! 6 ! ! + .' ( ! ( ! !6. .6 ! ! "6!"! ! 6" ( + "' ! !. !. ! ! 6 6 ! 6( ! 6 . "" + ' (" (! (! !(6 "6 ! (6 ( ! 6 ( " + ' . ! ( ! ! " ! 6". 6 ( ! "6. ! 6 "" + ' ( ! . ( . ! ! 6" 6. ! 6" . ! 6 ! + ! ' ! . ( . . (
'! +)% # $ %&'& () * + %%,&'& ! ) - %& $$& ! ) # $ %&'& !.) / $ % $ %& $$& . ) 0 1, $ %&'&2 . ) 3 $ 1, %&'& . ) $ $ ,% 4 %&'&2 ) % $ %&'&2 " )
! ,# $ %% & ' ( )! $ % ,- . "-/0
! * 78 9 , !".!6( ! .6 "! ! 6 + !' . . ! 6 (6 ( ! 6( ! 6 ! + .' ( ! ( ! ! 6 .6(.! ! 6! " ! 6 ( ( + "' ! !. !. ! ! 6( 6". ! !6 ! 6"! "" + ' (" (! (! !(6" 6! ( ! 6" ! 6 " " + ' . ! ( ! ! " ! 6 ! 6.( ! 6! . ! 6 + ' ( ! . ( . ! !!6. 6!! ! 6 "! ! 6 ! + ! ' ! . ( . . (
'! +)% # $ %&'& () * + %%,&'& ! ) - %& $$& ! ) # $ %&'& !.) / $ % $ %& $$& . ) 0 1, $ %&'&2 . ) 3 $ 1, %&'& . ) $ $ ,% 4 %&'&2 ) % $ %&'&2 " ) !!" #$%&" 2 ( %#)$ * + ,& (# % /0 " /1
%& $ 2 ( +* ' 5 6+ 7 ' !9 # & " !9 & ," !9 # & " # , ,, !9, # & " # #, !9 & " # !9 & " !9# , # & " # #
$$ !*&%#$ ., $%#$ !"! #$ % & '' ( !"! $ ) * !+ ! $ !"! ,$ - !+ ! ,$ .+/0 ( !"!1 ,$ 2 3 ' 0 ( !"! ,$ 2 ( 4 ' !"!1 $ !"!1 $ !!" #$%&" 2' ( %#)$ * + ,& (# % /0 " /1
%& $ 2 ( +* ' 5 6+ 7 ' !9 # & " , , !9, & ," # # !9 # & " , , !9 # & " # # # !9 & " , # !9# & " # , #, !9 , # & " , #, ,#
$$ !*&%#$ ., $%#$ !"! #$ % & '' ( !"! $ ) * !+ ! $ !"! ,$ - !+ ! ,$ .+/0 ( !"!1 ,$ 2 3 ' 0 ( !"! ,$ 2 ( 4 ' !"!1 $ !"!1 $ !!" #$%&" 2 ) %#*$ + , -& )# % 0 " '1
%& $ 2 ( +* ' 7 8+ 9 ' !6 # & " !6# & ," !6 , & " # , ,, !6 , & " # #, !6 , # & " # !6 ## & " !6 # & " # #
$$ !+&%#$ /- $%#$ !"! #$ % & '' ( !"! $ ) * !+ ! $ !"! ,$ - !+ ! ,$ .+/0 ( !"!1 ,$ 2 3 ' 0 ( !"! ,$ 2 ( 4 ' !"!1 $ !"!1 $ !!" #$%&" 2( ) %#*$ + , -& )# % 0 " '1
%& $ 2 ( +* ' 7 8+ 9 ' !6 # & " , , !6 & ," # # !6 , & " , , !6 , & " # # # !6 # & " , # !6 ## & " # , #, !6# # & " , #, ,#
$$ !+&%#$ /- $%#$ !"! #$ % & '' ( !"! $ ) * !+ ! $ !"! ,$ - !+ ! ,$ .+/0 ( !"!1 ,$ 2 3 ' 0 ( !"! ,$ 2 ( 4 ' !"!1 $ !"!1 $ ! ,/ $ %% & ' ( )! * % ,- . "/-0
! *) % 7 8* 9 1 & %
!6'+ $ ' 44' 44' !6 ' $ + !6 ! "$ ! !6 ! "$ ! +4 ++
'! +)% !" # $ %% & '" ( ) * '" '+" , * +" -*./ & 0 +" 1 2 % / & +" 1 & 3 % 0 " 0 4" ! ,# $ %% & ' ( )! * % ,- . "/-0
! *) % 7 8* 9 1 & % !64' $ ' + + !6' ' $ + !' !' !6 ! "$ ! !4 '4 '4 !6!' ! "$ ' '+ '+'
'! +)% !" # $ %% & '" ( ) * '" '+" , * +" -*./ & 0 +" 1 2 % / & +" 1 & 3 % 0 " 0 4"
Appendix C Apartment Schemes Construction Costs
HAMBLETON COUNCIL LOCAL PLAN ECONOMIC VIABILITY APPRAISAL
TYPICAL COSTS FOR RESIDENTIAL - FLATS 29 April 2019
Scheme of 15 units on two floors; infill site off existing roads off; no lift
1b flat 5 Nr 54.00 m2 270.00 m2 2b flat 10 Nr 61.00 m2 610.00 m2 Average GFA/ unit = 58.67 m2 Addition for common areas 11.00 m2 Total GFA 69.67 m2
Costs for single flat Substructures 69.67 m2 £ 87.00 /m2 £6,061 Superstructures 69.67 m2 £ 787.52 /m2 £54,864 Total £ 874.52 /m2 £60,925 External works Entrance roads 0 m2 Footpath to entrance road 0 m2 Road crossing 1 Nr £3,307 £3,307 Car parking; tarmacadam; 1 space / flat + 60% circulation 21 m2 £ 66.14 /m2 £1,376 Kerbs, lighting and drainage to above 21 m2 £ 25.13 /m2 £523 Paving, paths etc; assumed at 12 m2 / flat 12 m2 £ 42.33 /m2 £508 Grassed area 10 m2 £ 10.58 /m2 £106 Bin stores 1 Nr £331 £331 Allowance for fences, railings and gates 1 Nr £661 £661 Site clearance 83 m2 £ 4.63 /m2 £386 Drainage including attenuation 1 Nr £3,175 £3,175 Incoming services 1 Nr £4,961 £4,961 Preliminaries (cost per unit per week) 30 weeks £496 £14,882
Total Costs of single flat £91,141 Fees 7.50% £6,836 Contingencies 5.00% £4,899 TOTAL FOR SINGLE FLAT £102,876 Less Contractor's profit and overheads included -7.00% -£7,201
TOTAL COSTS FOR SINGLE FLAT £95,674
SCHEME COST FOR 15 No FLATS £1,435,114 Cost/m2 £1,373.32
Site area 1429 m2 Average site area per flat 143 m2 HAMBLETON COUNCIL LOCAL PLAN ECONOMIC VIABILITY APPRAISAL
TYPICAL COSTS FOR RESIDENTIAL - FLATS 25 April 2019 Scheme of 50 units on three floors including lift; off existing road (no access road included)
1B 20 Nr 2B 30 Nr TOTALS GFA/ unit = 54.00 m2 61.00 m2 Addition for common areas (inc lift) 10.00 m2 12.00 m2 Total GFA for each type 64.00 m2 73.00 m2 3470 m2
Costsfor single flat Substructures 64.00 m2 £ 64.09 /m2 £4,102 73.00 m2 £ 64.09 /m2 £4,679 £222,395 Superstructures 64.00 m2 £ 769.11 /m2 £49,223 73.00 m2 £ 769.11 /m2 £56,145 £2,668,806 Lift 64.00 m2 £ 11.91 /m2 £762 73.00 m2 £ 11.91 /m2 £869 £41,313 Total £ 845.10 /m2 £54,087 £ 845.10 /m2 £61,693 £2,932,514 External works Entrance road 15 m2 £ 72.76 /m2 £1,091 15 m2 £ 72.76 /m2 £1,091 £54,568 Footpath to entrance road 12 m2 £ 46.30 /m2 £556 12 m2 £ 46.30 /m2 £556 £27,780 Road crossing £3,307.17 £0 £3,307.17 £0 £0 Car parking; tarmacadam; 1 space / flat + 60% circulation 21 m2 £ 66.14 /m2 £1,376 21 m2 £ 66.14 /m2 £1,376 £68,789 Kerbs, lighting and drainage to above 21 m2 £ 25.13 /m2 £523 21 m2 £ 25.13 /m2 £523 £26,140 Paving, paths etc; assumed at 12 m2 / flat 12 m2 £ 42.33 /m2 £508 12 m2 £ 42.33 /m2 £508 £25,399 Grassed area 10 m2 £ 10.58 /m2 £106 10 m2 £ 10.58 /m2 £106 £5,291 Bin stores 1 Nr £330.72 £331 1 Nr £330.72 £331 £16,536 Allowance for fences, railings and gates 1 Nr £661.43 £661 1 Nr £661.43 £661 £33,072 Site clearance 118 m2 £ 4.63 /m2 £545 118 m2 £ 4.63 /m2 £545 £27,249 Drainage including attenuation 1 Nr £3,174.88 £3,175 1 Nr £3,174.88 £3,175 £158,744 Incoming services 1 Nr £4,960.75 £4,961 1 Nr £4,960.75 £4,961 £248,038 Preliminaries (cost per unit per week) 60 weeks £198.43 £11,906 60 weeks £198.43 £11,906 £595,290 Total Costs of single flat £79,825 £87,431 £4,219,411 Fees 7.00% £5,588 7.00% £6,120 £295,359 Contingencies 5.00% £4,271 5.00% £4,678 £225,739 TOTAL FOR SINGLE FLAT £89,683 £98,228 £4,740,509 Less Contractor's profit and overheads included -7.00% -£6,278 -7.00% -£6,876 -£331,836 TOTAL COSTS FOR SINGLE FLAT £83,405 £91,352 SCHEME COST FOR 50 No FLATS £1,668,104 £2,740,569 £4,408,673
Cost/m2 £ 1,303 /m2 £ 1,251 /m2 £ 1,271 /m2 Site area 5762 m2 Average site area per flat 115 m2
Appendix D Construction Cost Sheets for the Specific Allocations Tested
6 ' 9 8 :, 6"
!% % !""!# !"!$! %$! .5 ! $!& &$ ' ( " %& )
2,34 *+, -*
# !" '&!" $ % " & ( " #' " & ' " ( " & & ! ' (" " '" & ! ( " ! " ' ) ( ('" !' " '" ! # ('" !" & ) # " " * ) ! ! #'" &" ' " . ! %%$!
%%+%% ! - &- !# - ' ! ! '& &&." /01 2)% !& '-&& !&- &# && ! ! ." 3 +) 24 % !&#(-& ! - ' ( !# '&." 5 !( - &# ! - ( '# ! & #!." ! ! -! !& -!( !&- ! ! #&." 6 ! !&- & !'(-# ! !'- # '' !& !." %++ ! " 77777 !''- #' !- # & ! ." 8 +49 :/ ! - !# -# ! ' !! &&." " '#" ) '#") !(- ' !#& -! ! -# ( !!' #." ;*$$: ! "% !#! !%! $! " !' - !- !! & ! ' ." < ! !-(# ! -(! ! !# &." 8 !&&(- ! ! - !( ! !." - !#""!!% !% !! %$!
1 $-
" #!& ! - % 6" !# - < 2 + ! - ) 4 2 +" ! - " !' -
- 1 $- ! 6! + 8 *$6- 6!1
! ! % !""!# %!!$! "$! .5 % $!& &$ ' ( " & )
2,34 *+, -*
& !" ' " $ % " & # " & " & ( " #' " & & ! ( (" " '" & ! ( ( " ! " ' ) # ('" !" '" ! ('" &# " & ) # " ! " * ) ! ! #'" ! " ' ! . # $!
%%+%% !&- & - !# -& ! ! '' &." /01 2)% ! !'-! !&- ' & ! & ." 3 +) 24 % !'' -& ! - # ( ! ( ( ." 5 !'&- ! - & ( ! & '!." # ! -! ! !'- !&- ! & ." 6 # !&- & ! - !'- ! #! !& !!." %++ &!! " 77777 ! (-'( !-' ' ! !& '(." 8 +49 :/ ! #- !# -# !- (' #! ! ( ." " !" ) !") ! -# !& - & ! - ' !! ." ;*$$: !## ! !# !! ! # "#$! " ! - !'-&# # !' #." < !'##- ( !#- & ' !## & ." 8 !' '- ( ! -'( ! ! # ." - ! %#" ! ! !! %$!
1 $- < 2 + ! - + ! - ) 4 2 +" ! - % 6" !# - " ! - 2 +% ! - "+ 0" # !- !( -
- 1 $- !! 2 ;,& - 2,, !
#% # !""!# %% $! #%$! .5 % $!& &$ ' ( & )
2,34 *+, -*
& !" ' " $ % " & # " & " & ! " # " & & ! ! (" #' " '" & ! ! ( " " ' ) # ('" !" '" ! & ('" ' " & ) # " ! " * ) ! ! & #'" # " ' ! . !$!
%%+%% !'-#!(-((! !# - ( ! ! '& (." /01 2)% ! !- ! -! # ! # ." 3 +) 24 % !' - ! ! -!' !' !#' ( ." 5 ! -#(& ! - ' ! ! & &&." ! -! ! (-!!# !&- ! #." 6 !&- & ! #- ! !'- ! #! !& ." %++ ( " 77777 !' - ! ! !# '!." 8 +49 :/ ! #- !# -# !-(' !' ." " #" ) #") ! -# !&!-! ! -# !!' &." ;*$$: ! #" !# !% %$! " !# - !-! ! ! ( ." < !' -! & ! -(# ! !# (." 8 ! !(- # ! - #& & ! # ." - ! %% !# !! %$!
1 $- < 2 + ! - % "% !- ! -
- 1 $- ! 9 ' 9,8 - $$+, .,$ -9,8 - 9"
% !""!# "% !$! %%$! .5 ! $!& &$ !' (! "& )
2,34 *+, -*
( !" " $ % " & ' " ( " & ( " '' " & & ! ! (" & " '" & ! ! ( " # " ' ) ' ('" (" '" ! ('" (' " & ) # " ! " * ) ! ! #'" #' " ' # . ""$!
%%+%% !!- ' -# !# -!# ! ! ( '." /01 2)% ! -##! ! -#' '& !# (." 3 +) 24 % ! &-#' !#-( ( !# # ." 5 ! &-#' ! -( ! ' ((." ! -! ! !- # !&-# ( ! ! ." 6 !&- & !&# -' !'-#! ! !& ." %++ " ! ! ." ! -& & ! - ( ! ( ." 8 +49 : :/ ! #- !! - & ! ! #&." " " ) ") ! -# !( - ! -'# # !! & ." ;*$$: !!!! !#! !%! $! " ! ('-! !&- && ! ! ." < ! !-!# ! -## &( !# !#." 8 !# (- ! -&'' ! ( ''." - !"! !" !!" #"$!
1 $- ) 4 2 +" ! - < +) @%)3 " ! ." ! '-! % 6" !# - "" !( ! - < 2 + ! -
" ! - ) +4A%" /0% "+ 0" ! - !' - " !& -
- 1 $- !#
!" # $ !$ .5 # "$ % %$ & ' ( % ) $
2,34 *+, -*
!" #" $ % " & ' " " & " ' " & & ! & (" '#" '" & ! & ( " '# " ' ) & ('" ' " '" ! ('" !#" & ) # & " " * ) ! ! #'" ' #" ' " . ' ! $
%%+%% ! - &!- ( !#!- !# ! &! #." /01 2)% !! - !#- ( !## !." 3 +) 24 % !((-' !#-#' ! !." 5 ! -'' ! -'' # ! #'." ' ! -! !&&-#&( !&-! #& ! ! ." 6 ' !&- & ! - # !'-!' '( !& ." %++ '' " 77777 ! -( ! '( !( !! ." 8 +49 : :/ ! #- !(-& !'- '! !'' '." " !" ) !") ! -'! !'(!-!! !'- (# ' !& (." ;*$$: ! ! "# !# 00000000 " !' - !&- !&( '&." < ! '!- & ! -( ! !! !." 8 !! -' !#- # #( !## #'." - ! ! ! ! 00000000
1 $-
"+ " 42 ! - < 2 + ! - " 0 ! - ) 4 2 +" ! - "+ 0" ' !'- !( -
- 1 $- !
+23 ! " # $% & '
/01 !(") * !("
!"# $%"# & ' # % ( # $ # % ! $ # ( # % % " $ (# # $# ! % " ( # " # $ ) ! ( ($# "$ # $# ! " ($# !!"# % ) !# ! # * ! ) " " $# %# $ + "!
''+'' !!- %- ! - $ "! ! $% %%.# /01 2)' !% !-( !%- ! !! .# 3 +) 24 ' !% - !!-!%" % ! .# 5 !( - % ! - !( $ ! % ".# "! !!-"! !% -"( !%- " !! %.# 6 "! !%- % !$(- " !$- $$ !% ".# '++ " ! # 77777 !$%- "% !-! ( " ! .# 8 +49 !!- ! ! ! .# # $ # ) $ #) !(- $ ! % -"! ! - ( !"$ .# :*&&; ! ! !' # !$(%- !%- $! ( !! %.# < !! -($ ! - " $( ! (!.# 8 !% -% !!-%$ % !!( %.# * ! '' !' ! '
"-
6#+ # =' >2 "% !! - ' 6# ! !- < 2 + ! - ) 4 2 +# !!- # #'? ) '@ "! !- !"!- # ! !- #+ 0# $ !-! !!%-
* .- ! () %454 -
+23 ! " # $ % &
/01 !(") * !("
!"# $%"# & ' # % " # ! # % ! # "% # % % " (# (%"# $# ! % " ( # " # $ ) ! " ($# %%# $# ! " ($# !!"# % ) !# ! # * ! ) " " $# ( "# $ + " '
''+'' !!-$ !-% $ ! - !% ! $% $".# /01 2)' !$ -%! !%- %$ % !! "%.# 3 +) 24 ' !%$%-($ !!-%$ % !!( !$.# 5 ! - $ ! - ( ! % (.# " !!-"! !$ "-" !%- " !! .# 6 " !%- % !$ -" !$- $$ !% ".# '++ %! # 77777 ! - $ !-!! " ! .# 8 +49 ;/ ! - ! !- ! !" !" ((.# # $!# ) $!#) !(- $ ! (-"! ! -" $ !" .# :*&&; ! ! !' # ! "(- !$- ! !$( ! .# < !%" -(( ! - (( ( ! (.# 8 !%$- % !!-$"" $ !!( .# * ! ! !
"- ' 6# ! !- < 2 + ! - ))4 ?# ' '@ !! - # #'? ) '@ " !- !" - ) 4 2 +# !!- # ! !- #+ 0# $ !-! !!%-
* .- ! '; , ; ' --
" % ! %$! %!$! .5 # %$!& &$ "' ( %& )
2,34 *+, -*
# !" '&! " % " & !& " !! " & ! " !(# " & & ! & (" ( (#" '" & ! & ( " # " ' ) !& ('" ! " '" ! #! ('" #' &" & ) # " # " ) ! ! # #'" ( " # . !& % #$!
%%+%% ! &- &-'& !#&-&#( &# /01 2)% !'- - !&-&#& ( 3 +) 24 % !&-'!#- ! - 5 !- (&-# ! -'# &( !& ! -! !'-! -#& !&- ' '& 6 !& !&- & !'- !-& # !'-# %++ ! " 777777 !- -&' !-& ! ! 8 +49 :/ / ! #- !(&-(& ! ' ! " &!" ) &!") ! -'!! ! -!(#- # !'-&&! ' ;*$$: !%! ! % !# # " !-'# - !-# # < !#- !- ' ! - ( ! 8 !&-'#-& & !&-( & ' - ! "# ! "
1 $- "+ " "? 0 4 ' !" ! ." ! &- ' !" !& ." ! '- < " ?% &#& ! - ! - % !# - !' - < 2 + !' - ) 4 2 +" ! - ) %) . /0% " ! -
- 1 $- ! !! < ' ,& - "!!
% % !""!# %!$! #%$! .5 ! !$!& &$ !' ( " #& )
2,34 *+, -*
!" ! " $ % " & " & " & ' " " & & ! ' (" ' " '" & ! ' ( " " ' ) ('" ( '" '" ! # ('" &!!" & ) # " ' " * ) ! ! # #'" # !" ' #%. %"$!
%%+%% !'- '-&' !#&-& # (! ! & '." /01 2)% !( !-'# !&- ! ! !&( ." 3 +) 24 % !- !-!## ! - & ! #(." 5 !&'!- (! ! -'! & ! ' ' ." ! -! !( (- ( !&- ' '& !&( &." 6 !&- & ! '(- ! !'-# !'( &." %++ ( " 7777777 !' -&! !-&( !# (." 8 +49 :/ ! #- !# -(& !' & !' '#." " #" ) #") ! -'!! !-&! -&' ! - # ! ( '." ;*$$: !#% # !# "! !!! $! " ! & - ! -#'& ! ! (." < !- !&-'! ! - !( ## ! ! ." 8 !- & - ! - ' ! &#." - !!""! ! # ! " %$!
1 $-
"+ " "? 0 4 ! - % !# - !# - % 6" !# - < 2 + ! - 4 ! -
- 1 $- !" 5 6 ,- + 5 ,8
# !""!# %%$! ! # $! .5 $!& &$ "' (!# & )
2,34 *+, -*
' !" &" $ % " & & " ! " & # " & " & & ! # (" & &" '" & ! # ( " & " ' ) & ('" ' " '" ! ' ('" (" & ) # " # " * ) ! ! ' #'" &!(" ' #. & $!
%%+%% ! - '!- !#!-& ' ! &( '." /01 2)% ! !-# & ! -&# ( ! ( !&." 3 +) 24 % ! &#-'# !#- ( !# &&." 5 !( -( ! - & ! & #(." & ! -! !( -(( !&-! & ! !'." 6 & !&- & ! '- !'-!' ! !& ." %++ '('" 77777 ! -! ! ! -&# (# ! # '#." 8 +49 :/ ! #- !# - ' !-# ! !! '&." " ' " ) ' ") ! -'! !&(!-( ' ! -& ' !'# !." ;*$$: !"""! !!% !!% $! " !&'- !'- ! !'( !." < !'!-!&( ! -( !! !." 8 ! &'-#( !#- ( ( !## ." - !%!! !!%# !" #$!
1 $-
"+ " "? 0 4 " !! ." !!- " !& ." !& - < 2 + ! - " 6" ! -
- 1 $- !" ' 4 ! '. +5
+) + + *0 .
! " #$$
1'23 #$%& ' (#$%
! $ #$ "" & ' " ! !! ! ! " # ! ! (! " " $! ( " % # " $! (! ""! % ) # ! !! (% !% % # $ !! ( (% $% " ) !! % # # * # ) $ $ !! ( % " % * ! -
''+' ' ! -%!- "" !-## ! . /01 2) ' !#!- $ !"-" ($ !#! . 3 +) 24 ' !#(-$( !#-"( (! !#( #. 5 !"%-"( !-% !" . ! !#-$# !#"-"! !"- $ #" !# !. 6 ! !"-" !"!(-% !%- # !"! . ' ++ !"!! ! $#. ! -#%" !-#% !" ! . 8 +4 9 :/ !-!!! !"-( % !#(! ! "#. "# ) "#) !!-! !$% -%#% ! - %! !$% ! . ;*& &: ! )) !) ! -+ !""#-!!! !"-!"# "# !"" #. < !-!# !#-### ! !! . 8 !#$-!#" !#-% !#$ ". ( ! ! -- !
% (. + = 0 4 # !!!. !#-!!! # !"!!. !%!-!!! < 2 + !!-!!! 6 ! #-!!! 1 2 + ! !# !!. !! + = 0 4 !!!-!!! ) 4 2 + !#-!!! !#-!!! ! #-!!! ( / (. !++
*0+ .
! "
1'23 #$%& ' (#$%
! " #$ % & ' " ! !! # ! %#! " # ! $ ! #! " " $! ( ##% % # " $! (! %! % ) # ! !! # (% "# % # $ !! " (% % " ) !! # #! * # ) $ $ !! " % # % )* #! +)+
''+' ' !%-"$- $ !$-% # " ! "( !$. /01 2) ' !#- !#-%# # !# . 3 +) 24 ' !("-" % !#-$$( " !" #. 5 !%- # !- # % !" (%. #! !#-$# !"-% !"-$" # !# $. 6 #! !"-" !(-$(% !%-$% $ !" !". ' ++ #! 77777 !(-! !#$ "" ! % . 8 +4 9 :/ !-!!! ! -!!% !-%"! ! !" $. # ) #) ! - # !"-!! !$-" !! !(! !. ;*& &: ! + ! +-+ ! - !#-!!! !-#!! !! ! %(. < !%!$-(# !- ( !" ! (. 8 ! -(!$ !#-"#$ # !#( $!. ( ! ) !+ ) !
% (.
+ = 0 4 !%#-!!! ) 4 2 + !#-!!! < 2 + !!-!!! + 0 #! !-#!! ! #-!!!
( / (. ! 1 ##
" # !""!# !$! "$! .5 #$!& &$ "' ( & )
2,34 *+, -*
' !" &" $ % " & & " ! " & " &( " & & ! (" '" '" & ! # ( " & " ' ) ('" &# " '" ! & ('" ' " & ) # " # " * ) ! ! & #'" # " ' !. & "$!
%%+%% !'- -&# !#!-( '' ! & #." /01 2)% ! -!( !&-( ( ' ! ' &&." 3 +) 24 % ! #-( ! - ( '# !# !(." 5 ! -! ! -' & ! &(." & ! -! ! -& !&-! & ! ' ." 6 & !&- & ! - & !'-!' ! !& #." %++ &! " 77777 ! &- !# ! &# ' ! ( ." 8 +49 :/ ! #- !# - ' !-&!! (# !# &." " '" ) '") ! -'! !' -!#' ! - ! !# ! ! (!." ;*$$: !""#!% !### !! #"$! " !' - !#-!'' '' ! & !." < !''#-( ! -& !! ((." 8 ! #-(&( ! - ( (! !# ( ." - ! ## !## !!## #$!
1 $- < 2 + ! - "+ " "? 0 4 ! - ) 4 2 +" ! - " ! - "+ 0" & !- !# -
- 1 $- ! %
Appendix E Cost Assessments for the Commercial Typologies
HAMBLETON COUNCIL - SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS Issue 22.2.19
Floor Total for No Floor area Site areas Extra cost for Type TOTAL COST area Base cost Brownfield Const period Fee % flrs (ft2) (m2) Brownfield site (m2) site
Offices £893,175 2 Nr 5,000 ft2 464 m2 569 m2 £ 1,875 /m2 £ 49 /m2 £ 1,924 /m2 8 months 14% Offices £3,403,906 2 Nr 20,000 ft2 1,857 m2 2,313 m2 £ 1,784 /m2 £ 49 /m2 £ 1,833 /m2 14 months 14% Industrial B2/B8 £590,492 1 Nr 5,000 ft2 464 m2 995 m2 £ 1,218 /m2 £ 54 /m2 £ 1,272 /m2 6 months 10% Industrial B2/B8 £1,680,198 1 Nr 20,000 ft2 1,857 m2 4,015 m2 £ 851 /m2 £ 54 /m2 £ 905 /m2 10 months 8% Industrial B2/B8 £3,981,341 1 Nr 50,000 ft2 4,645 m2 10,200 m2 £ 803 /m2 £ 54 /m2 £ 857 /m2 12 months 8% Industrial B8 £7,258,598 1 Nr 100,000 ft2 9,290 m2 19,250 m2 £ 728 /m2 £ 54 /m2 £ 781 /m2 15 months 9% Retail (Foodstore - Convenience) £371,220 1 Nr 3,000 ft2 279 m2 708 m2 £ 1,279 /m2 £ 53 /m2 £ 1,332 /m2 7 months 9% Retail (Foodstore - Convenience) £1,176,719 1 Nr 10,000 ft2 929 m2 2,583 m2 £ 1,214 /m2 £ 53 /m2 £ 1,267 /m2 10 months 8% Retail (Foodstore - Convenience) £2,955,839 1 Nr 30,000 ft2 2,786 m2 7,699 m2 £ 1,007 /m2 £ 53 /m2 £ 1,061 /m2 12 months 7% Non food retail (comparison) £371,011 1 Nr 3,000 ft2 279 m2 708 m2 £ 1,279 /m2 £ 53 /m2 £ 1,332 /m2 7 months 14% Non food retail (comparison) £1,175,913 1 Nr 10,000 ft2 929 m2 2,583 m2 £ 1,214 /m2 £ 53 /m2 £ 1,266 /m2 10 months 8% Non food retail (comparison) £2,953,256 1 Nr 30,000 ft2 2,786 m2 7,699 m2 £ 1,007 /m2 £ 53 /m2 £ 1,060 /m2 12 months 7% Hotel 75 bedrooms £6,154,123 2 Nr 32,292 ft2 3,000 m2 3,849 m2 £ 2,001 /m2 £ 51 /m2 £ 2,051 /m2 15 months 12%
Page 1
APPENDIX 10 S106 ANALYSIS
Appendix 10 - S106 Analysis
Affordable Total Ex Total Ex Affordable No Dwellings Bond Housing Other Total Affordable Housing (per Contribution Housing dwelling)
14/01228/FUL Land south of 28 Bedale Road, Aiskew 41 £0 £0 £0
14/02435/FUL Land at Green Gate Lane, Little Crakehall 16 £13,813 £39,000 £2,770 £55,583 £16,583 £1,036
15/00741/FUL Land Adjacent To Danville, Morton on Swale 48 £25,544 £25,544 £25,544 £532
15/00904/FUL Allotments rear of Manfield Terrace, Carlton Miniott 3 £109,968 £109,968 £0 £0