Download - Derbyshire Dales District Council Local Plan & Community ... Plan... · letting markets. At ... This report represents an update to the version that was produced in ... Cushman &

www.cushmanwakefield.com

Derbyshire Dales District Council Local Plan & Community Infrastructure Levy

Viability Study

14 December 2016

Derbyshire Dales District Council

Contents

1. Introduction 2

2. Local Plan Context 4

3. Community Infrastructure Levy Context 12

4. Viability Testing Methodology 16

5. Viability Assumptions 21

6. Viability Results 41

7. Implications of Viability Results for Local Plan and CIL 50

8. Strategic Site Sampling 55

9. Conclusions and Recommendations 61

Appendix 1: Open space cost impact assumptions

Appendix 2: Market evidence

Appendix 3: Summary of stakeholder responses to questionnaire survey

Appendix 4: List of stakeholders invited to participate in viability consultation June 2015

Appendix 5: Residential development appraisal results

Appendix 6: Strategic site sampling appraisals


Report Disclaimer

This report should not be relied upon as a basis for entering into transactions without seeking

specific, qualified, professional advice. Whilst facts have been rigorously checked, Cushman

& Wakefield can take no responsibility for any damage or loss suffered as a result of any

inadvertent inaccuracy within this report. Information contained herein should not, in whole or

part, be published, reproduced or referred to without prior approval. Any such reproduction

should be credited to Cushman & Wakefield.

Version Prepared by Approved by Date

Viability Study

Stephanie Hiscott

MRICS

Stephen Miles

MRICS, RTPI

14 December 2016

In light of the recent Referendum concerning the UK’s membership of the EU, we are now in

a period of uncertainty in relation to many factors that impact the property investment and

letting markets. At this time organisations involved in the industry are reflecting on the

potential implications of the UK leaving the EU. Since the Referendum date it has not been

possible to gauge the effect of the impact on rental and capital values, along with other

elements affecting property appraisal. Cushman & Wakefield continues to closely monitor

market developments and trends in order that we can provide clients with the most up to date

advice. The views contained in this document are provided in the context of this market

uncertainty and as such our estimates and opinions are susceptible to change. Development

appraisal results are particularly sensitive to changes in key variables such as cost and

values. Accordingly we advise that clients have regard to this risk and may need to

commission further advice before acting on the opinions expressed


2

1. Introduction

1.1 Purpose

Cushman & Wakefield has been commissioned by Derbyshire Dales District Council to produce

viability evidence to inform the Council’s emerging Local Plan and Community Infrastructure

Levy (CIL). The study assesses sites included within the Council’s Strategic Housing Land

Availability Assessment (SHLAA), draft policies of the emerging Local Plan and identifies the

viability headroom available for a Community Infrastructure Levy.

In parallel with this work Fore Consulting is assessing the critical infrastructure required to deliver

the growth across the District and to prepare a draft Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

This report represents an update to the version that was produced in September 2015, providing

revised market data, additional site sampling and taking account of the latest policies and

proposals of the Draft Local Plan.

1.2 Method of approach

The approach to the study has involved the following tasks:

A. A market assessment, to profile the types of development likely to come forward and the

economics of development within the District (i.e. costs, rents/capital values and other

relevant development appraisal assumptions)

B. Analysis of sites in the SHLAA, to identify the sites and scheme typologies to be tested

through the viability assessment. Preferred sites from the SHLAA have been assimilated

into a series of hypothetical schemes that have been tested in different locations across the

District

C. Review of draft and policies, to ‘screen’ those policies that are likely to have a direct impact

on development costs/viability that require testing

D. Consultation with developers, to test and refine the appraisal assumptions base

E. Viability modelling, assessment of the selected schemes, scenarios and sensitivities

F. Further testing of a number of the strategic development sites within the SHLAA. This

includes residential development sites and mixed use development sites.

G. Interpretation/development of policy implications for the Local Plan and CIL.

This document makes recommendations on the standards that could viably be applied to

development in Derbyshire Dales, in respect of Local Plan policies, Strategic Housing Land

Availability and CIL.


3

A separate report has been produced by Fore which provides an Infrastructure Delivery Plan

which the Council will be able to use as a working document to inform the production of a

Regulation 123 list.

1.3 Structure of report

This report is structured in nine sections. Section 2 sets the Local Plan Policy context and

analysis of the Strategic Housing Land Availability. Section 3 sets out the background to CIL,

the regulations governing CIL and recent changes to the regulations. The methodology is

explained in Section 4 followed by the assumptions in Section 5 and results in Section 6. Section

7 provides a commentary on the implications for the Local Plan and CIL. Section 8 then models

the viability of a finer grain sampling of strategic sites included in the Local Plan to retest the

conclusions of the area wide work. The final conclusions and recommendations are summarised

in Section 9.


4

2. Local Plan Context

2.1. Local Plan viability context

The need for viability testing of Local Plans has arisen as a result of the requirements of the

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) published in March 2012. The NPPF has

strengthened the importance of viability in the planning process and particularly in respect of

development plan preparation. In order to ensure viability and deliverability of Local Plans, the

NPPF states:

“Plans should be deliverable. Therefore, the sites and the scale of development identified in the

plan should not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be

developed viably is threatened. To ensure viability, the costs of any requirements likely to be

applied to development, such as requirements for affordable housing, standards, infrastructure

contributions or other requirements should, when taking account of the normal cost of

development and mitigation, provide competitive returns to a willing land owner and willing

developer to enable the development to be deliverable.” Para 173.

The NPPF has reinforced the requirements for the provision of a deliverable supply of housing

land, stipulating the need for a rolling five year supply of deliverable sites with a buffer of 20% for

authorities where there has been ‘persistent under delivery’. It also requires local authorities to

identify sites for years 6-10 and 11-15 which should be realistically deliverable over the

development plan period. In respect of the five year supply, it clarifies the definition of ‘deliverable’

stating:

“To be considered deliverable, sites should be available now, offer a suitable location for

development now, and be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on

the site within five years and in particular that development of the site is viable. Sites with planning

permission should be considered deliverable until permission expires, unless there is clear

evidence that schemes will not be implemented within five years, for example they will not be

viable, there is no longer a demand for the type of units or sites have long term phasing plans.”

Footnote 11.

The online National Planning Policy Guidance provides the following guidance regarding the

production of viability assessments in support of plan making:

Local authorities should ensure that the Local Plan vision and policies are realistic and

provide high level assurance that plan policies are viable.

Development of plan policies should be iterative – with draft policies tested against evidence

of the likely ability of the market to deliver the plan’s policies, and revised as part of a dynamic

process.


5

Assessing the viability of plans does not require individual testing of every site or assurance

that individual sites are viable; site typologies may be used to determine viability at policy

level.

The cumulative cost of planning standards and obligations should be tested to ensure

viability

Plan makers should not plan to the margin of viability but should allow for a buffer to respond

to changing markets and to avoid the need for frequent plan updating.

Policies should be deliverable and should not be based on an expectation of future rises in

values at least for the first five years of the plan period.

Local Plan policies should reflect the desirability of re-using brownfield land, and the fact that

brownfield land is often more expensive to develop.

The publication of Viability Testing Local Plans by the Local Housing Delivery Group, May 2012,

offers guidance for local authorities in assessing local plan viability in accordance with the NPPF.

It suggests the need for a distinct Local Plan Viability Assessment to demonstrate that the policies

put forward in a Local Plan are viable and accord with the requirements of the NPPF, and

therefore the plan meets the tests of soundness.

The guidance underlines the importance of assessing the cumulative impact of policies on

development viability and suggests a structured and transparent means of assessing viability. It

recommends an economic viability testing model that can be applied area-wide and over the short

(0 to 5 years), medium (6-10 years) and long (11-15 years) term. It also suggests close

collaboration with the development industry throughout the process.

2.2. Derbyshire Dales Local Plan

Following the withdrawal of the Derbyshire Dales Local Plan in October 2014, the District Council

has been undertaking a refresh of its evidence base to support the preparation of a new Local

Plan that will set out the policies and proposals for the period up to 2033.

Cushman & Wakefield has carried out an assessment of the Draft Local Plan policies to determine

those that have the potential to impinge on development viability and therefore necessitate testing

through this study.

Table 2.1 lists the policies by reference number, together with the categorisation of whether or

not they could affect development viability, a description of the impact and details of the

assessment required to determine their viability. Where policies explicitly state a requirement for

a specific standard it is judged to have the potential to affect development viability.


6

Table 2.1 Derbyshire Dales Local Plan, Pre Submission Draft Plan - August 2016

Impact on

development

viability?

Strategic Policies

S1 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable

Development

Potential

S2 Sustainable Development Principles Potential

S3 Settlement Hierarchy No

S4 Development Within Defined Settlement

Boundaries

Potential

S5 Development in the Countryside No

S6 Strategic Housing Development No

S7 Strategic Employment Development No

S8 Matlock/Wirksworth/Darley Dale Development

Area Strategy

No

S9 Ashbourne Development Strategy No

S10 Rural Parishes Development Strategy No

S11 Local Infrastructure Provision and Developer

Contributions

Potential

The District Council will support high

quaity sustainable development which

protects, conserves and enhances the

built and natural environment of the Plan

Area. All developments should seek to

ensure that they make a positive

contribution towards the acheivement of

sustainable development.

The District Council will accommodate at

least 6015 new dwellings over the period

2013-2033.

The release of land for development will

be informed by capacity in the existing

local infrastructure to meet the additonal

requirements arising from new

development. Suitable arrangements will

be put in place to improve infrastructure,

services and community facilities, where

necessary. To be tested through the site

specific analysis.

Comments

The Council will take a positive approach

that reflects the presumption in favour of

sustanable development contaned within

the NPPF.

Proposals for new development will be

directed towards the most sustainable

locations in accordance with the

District's settlement hierarchy.

This will need to be assessed on a case

by case basis. It is not possible to

prescribe specific costs. The viability

test includes provision for abnormal site

costs which might typically be expected

to account for such factors. In addition,

the viability assessments include a

sensitivity around build costs.

Policy


7

Impact on

development

viability?

Protecting

Derbyshire Dales

CharacterPD1 Design & Place Making Potential

PD2 Protecting the Historic Environment Potential

PD3 Biodiversity & the Natural Environment Potential

PD4 Green Infrastructure Potential

PD5 Landscape Character Potential

The Council will require the layout and

design of new development to create well

designed, socially integrated, high quality

sustainable places, where people enjoy

living and working. All developments

should respond positively to both the

environment and the challenge of climate

change, whilst also contributing to local

distinctiveness and sense of place. It is

not possible to prescribe specific costs.

This will need to be assessed on a case

by case basis. It is not possible to

prescribe specific costs. The viability





sensitivity around build costs. Site

Specific Appraisals include indicative

provision for meeting Secured By Design

Standards.

CommentsPolicy

The District Council will seek to conserve

manage and where feasible enhamce

the historic environment of the Plan Area.

It is not possible to prescribe specific

costs. This will need to be assessed on

a case by case basis. It is not possible

to prescribe specific costs. The viability





sensitivity around build costs.

The District Council will seek to protect

manage and where possible enhance the

biodiversity and geological resources of

the Plan Area and its surroundings by

ensuring that development proposals will

not result in harm to biodiversity or

geodiversity interests and by taking full

account the hierarchy of protected sites.

It is not possible to prescribe specific

costs. The viability test includes

allowance for abnormal costs as well as

£1,000 per unit s106 contribution.

Will depend on a case by case basis and

not possible to prescribe specific costs -

viability test to include a 10% uplift in

build costs as sensitivity.

Will depend on a case by case basis and

not possible to prescribe specific costs -

viability test to include a 10% uplift in

build costs as sensitivity.


8

Impact on

development

viability?

Protecting

Derbyshire Dales

CharacterPD6 Trees, Hedgerows and Woodlands Potential

PD7 Climate Change Potential

PD8 Flood Risk Management & Water Quality Potential

PD9 Pollution Control and Unstable Land Potential

PD10 Matlock to Darley Dale A6 Corridor No

CommentsPolicy

Development should seek, where

approporiate, to enhamce and expand

the District's tree and woodland

resource. The viability test includes a

10% uplift in build costs as sensitivity as

well as £1,000 per unit s106 contribution.

Viability test to include a sensitivity for 5%

uplift in build costs to account for

achieving Zero Carbon Homes. /

BREEAM cost uplift on commercial

developments

Site specific viability test include

indicative costs for SUDS or on site

attenuation tanks.

The District Council will ensure that sites

are suitable for their proposed use taking

account of ground conditions and land

instability, including from natural hazards

such as radon gas, former activities

such as mining, or pollution arising from

previouls uses. Planning permission will

only be granted for development on land

potentially affected by land contamination

provided effective and sustainable

measures are taken to assess , treat,

contain or control the contamination. The

viability test includes allowance for

abnormal costs as well as £1,000 per

unit s106 contribution.

Impact on

development

viability?

Healthy & Sustainable

Communities

HC 1 Location of Housing Development No

HC 2 Housing Land Allocations Potential

HC 3 Self-Build Housing No

HC 4 Affordable Housing Yes

CommentsPolicy

Sites have been allocated in accordance

with SHLAA which considered

deliverability. The viability report does not

assess individual site allocation viability.

Viability test to include provision for 30%

AH provision on sites of more than 10

dwellings to accord with NPPG.


9

Impact on

development

viability?

HC 5 Meeting Local Housing Need (Exception Sites) Yes

HC 6 Gypsy and Traveller Provision No

HC 7 Replacement Dwellings No

HC 8 Conversion and Re-Use of Buildings for

Residential Accommodation.

No

HC 9 Residential Sub-Division of Dwellings No

HC 10 Extensions to Dwellings No

HC 11 Housing Mix and Type Yes

HC 12 Elderly Needs Accommodation No

HC 13 Agricultural and Rural Workers Dwellings No

HC 14 Open Space, Sports and Recreation Facilities Yes

HC 15 Community Facilities and Services Potential

HC 16 Notified Sites No

HC 17 Promoting Sport, Leisure and Recreation Potential

HC 18 Provision of Public Transport Facilities No

HC 19 Accessibility and Transport Potential

HC 20 Managing Travel Demand Yes

HC 21 Car Parking Standards No

Indicative sum towards the provision of

enhanced pedestrian crossing facilities

and cycleways are included within the

Site Specific Viability Appraisals,

Provision for public transport, cycle and

pedestiran routes to town centres

included in s106 costs where applicable.

Viability test to include a sum of £1,000

per unit to include all site specific S106

requirements



requirements

Cost impacts of meeting standards to be

applied.



requirements

No viability impact

CommentsPolicy

Viability test to include provision for 30%

AH provision on sites of more than 10

dwellings to accord with NPPG.

Viability test to include specified housing

mix. Costs allowed for in build and

contingencies for designing 10% of

homes for wheel chair accessibility


10

This ‘screening exercise’ has identified there are a number of policies which impose specific

standards that require viability testing. These standards have been tested in the area wide

viability model and site specific viability appraisals as outlined in the following sections of this

report.

The remaining policies are those which indicate that standards will be required in certain

circumstances but not universally; and it is not possible to pinpoint specific cost impacts in an

area wide analysis of this type. The cost impact of these policies, which are referenced in the

table above as having the ‘potential’ to affect viability, is considered to be allowed for within the

general appraisal assumptions used in the viability assessments detailed later in this report.

Impact on

development

viability?

Strengthening the

Economy

EC1 New Employment Development No

EC2 Employment Land Allocations No

EC3 Existing Employment Land and Premises No

EC4 Retention of Key Employment Sites No

EC5 Regenerating an Industrial Legacy No

EC6 Town and Local Centres No

EC7 Primary Shopping Frontages No

EC8 Promoting Peak District Tourism and Culture No

EC9 Holiday Chalets, Caravan and Campsite

Developments

No

EC10 Farm Enterprises and Diversification No

EC11 Protecting and Extending the Cycle Network Potential Viability test to include a sum of £1,000


requirements

CommentsPolicy

Impact on

development

viability?

Strategic Allocations

DS1 Land at Ashbourne Airfield (Phase 1), Ashbourne Yes

DS2 Land to the Rear of Former RBS premises,

Darley Dale

Yes

DS3 Land at Stancliffe Quarry, Darley Dale Yes

DS4 Land off Gritstone Road/Pinewood Road, Matlock Yes

DS5 Land at Halldale Quarry/Matlock Spa Road,

Matlock

Yes

DS6 Land off Middleton Road/Cromford Road,

Wirksworth

Yes

DS7 Land at Middle Peak Quarry, Wirksworth Yes

DS8 Land at Ashbourne Airfield (Phase 2), Ashbourne Yes

DS9 Land at Cawdor Quarry, Matlock Yes

Site specific testing of policies




Limited information is available in terms

of site costs as such Site Spefic Viability

Appraisal has not been undertaken at this

stage.





CommentsPolicy


11

2.3. Derbyshire Dales Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment

Details of the sites identified through the SHLAA process were provided by the Council and used

as the basis for selecting hypothetical development sites for the viability assessment. This

enabled us to effectively determine the viability for the emerging local plan policies on residential

development and the level of CIL that could be supported. It also enabled the results to be used

to reinforce the tests of viability and delivery in accordance with the NPPF


12

3. Community Infrastructure Levy Context

3.1 Background

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is a discretionary tariff introduced by the 2008 Planning Act

which local authorities in England and Wales can charge on each net additional sq. m of new floor

space (above a minimum scheme of 100 sq. m gross internal area). CIL is the mechanism for

securing funding for local infrastructure projects. It is discretionary for local authorities however

from April 2015 it will replace that part of the existing S106 agreements that are used for pooled

developer contributions.

CIL was brought into effect by the 2010 CIL regulations which have been subsequently updated

in 2011, 2012, 2013 and finally in 2014. The updates have been the response to criticism that

the levy is too inflexible and have generally sought to make it more practical to implement. The

following paragraphs summarise the key elements of CIL.

3.2 Liability for CIL

Landowners are ultimately liable to pay the Levy although anyone can take responsibility for

paying the levy such as a developer or planning applicant. ‘Charging authorities’ are district and

metropolitan district councils who are responsible for determining the charging levels and

collecting the levy.

Liability for payment is generally triggered by the grant of planning permission (although some

forms of development not requiring planning permission such as Permitted Development or Local

Development Orders are also required to pay the levy).

Payment is due at the point of commencement of development although charging authorities are

able to establish policies for payment by instalments and also where planning applications are

phased each phase can be treated as a separate chargeable development.

3.3 Rate setting

The proposed CIL charging rates must be set out in a Charging Schedule and expressed as

pounds per sq. m, applied to the gross internal floor space of the net additional development liable

for the levy.

Charging Authorities have autonomy to set their own charging rates however they are required to

do so with regard to viability. The regulations state that they should set rates at a level which do

not threaten the ability to develop viably the sites and scale of development identified in their

Local Plan and should strike an appropriate ‘balance’ between the desirability of funding

infrastructure from the levy and the potential impact on viability.

CIL should be set based on a ‘Relevant Plan’ and with regard to the infrastructure requirements

of the growth proposed within that Plan. Further, Charging Authorities are required to


13

demonstrate that there is a funding gap (between the total anticipated costs of infrastructure and

funding sources available) that necessitates CIL.

Differential rates may be set in relation to:

Geographical zones within the charging authority’s boundaries

Types of development; and / or

Scales of development.

However, any such differentials must be justified according to viability evidence (and not, for

instance, based on assisting planning policy objectives).

3.4 The process for rate setting

The process for adopting a CIL Charging Schedule is as follows:

the charging authority prepares its evidence base in order to determine its draft levy rates

and collaborates with neighbouring/overlapping authorities (and other stakeholders)

the charging authority prepares a preliminary draft charging schedule and publishes this for

consultation

consultation process takes place

the charging authority prepares and publishes a draft charging schedule

period of further representations based on the published draft

an independent person (the “examiner”) examines the charging schedule in public

the examiner’s recommendations are published

the charging authority considers the examiner’s recommendations

the charging authority approves the charging schedule

3.5 Collecting the levy

The charging authority calculates the CIL payment that is due and is responsible for ensuring that

payment is made. The process is as follows:


14

Planning applicants are required to complete ‘Additional CIL Information Form’ with their

application documents

Where development is permitted other than through grant of planning permission, the

Charging Authority issues a ‘Notice of Chargeable Development’

Applicant submits ‘Assumption of Liability Form’ confirming identify of land or developer

assuming liability for payment

Collecting Authority submits a ‘Liability Notice’ to the applicant which sets out the charge

due and payment procedure

Applicant submits a ‘Commencement Notice’ confirming when it is expected development

will commence

Collecting Authority then issues a ‘Demand Notice’ setting out the payment due dates

Collecting Authority must issue receipt to acknowledge payments

The CIL charges will become due for payment from the point at which the chargeable

development commences.

A Charging Authority may allow payment instalments but to do so must produce and publish a

payment instalments policy. Where planning permissions are phased, each phase can be treated

as a separate chargeable development and therefore payment timescales be reflected by the

commencement of each phase (as well as instalments within each phase).

3.6 Spending the levy

CIL can be used to fund a wide range of infrastructure including transport, schools, flood

defences, health facilities, play areas, parks, recreation and other community facilities. It should

be used on new infrastructure and not to remedy pre-existing deficiencies unless those

deficiencies will be made more severe by the development.

Charging Authorities are required to allocate at least 15% of the levy to spend on priorities agreed

with the local community in areas where the development is taking place. This percentage

increases to 25% in instances where communities have produced a Neighbourhood Plan.

Charging Authorities may also pass money to bodies outside their area to deliver infrastructure

that will benefit the development of the area. For Derbyshire Dales, this could enable an

arrangement with Sheffield City Region authorities and potentially D2N2 authorities (Derby,

Derbyshire, Nottingham and Nottinghamshire) to pool a portion of levy receipts to pay for strategic

cross border infrastructure.


15

3.7 CIL and other planning obligations

CIL replaces that part of S106 agreements that have historically been used for pooling

contributions from several developments (e.g. school places). However S106 remains in place

for non-pooled contributions that are considered necessary to make development acceptable in

planning terms. In addition, Section 278 agreements will remain in place and will allow local

authorities to continue to pool contributions for highway projects.

Charging Authorities must avoid ‘double dipping’ where multiple contributions are secured from a

single development for the same infrastructure item through both CIL and S106/278. They are

required to publish a Regulation 123 list to accompany the Charging Schedule making clear what

items will be funded by CIL to ensure that no such duplication takes place.

3.8 Relief

As stated above social housing is exempt from paying the levy including charitable developments.

In addition, the Government Regulations allow for exceptional circumstances under which a

development that is liable to pay CIL could be exempt from paying the charge. The exceptional

circumstances are:

A section 106 agreement must exist on the planning permission permitting the chargeable

development and

The charging authority must consider that paying the full levy would have an unacceptable

impact on the development’s economic viability and

The relief must not constitute a notifiable state aid

The third requirement is the most restricting of the three and in practice is likely to significantly

limit the quantity of cases in which exceptional circumstances can be deployed. The local

authority is also required to publicise the fact that it is proposing to offer exceptional circumstances

relief.

http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/community-infrastructure-levy/relief/state-aid/


16

4. Viability Testing Methodology

4.1. Guidance on Viability Testing of CIL

4.1.1 National Planning Policy Framework

The NPPF makes it clear that viability considerations should be at the heart of plan making:

“To ensure viability, the costs of any requirements likely to be applied to development, such as

requirements for affordable housing, standards, infrastructure contributions or other

requirements should, when taking account of the normal cost of development and mitigation,

provide competitive returns to a willing land owner and willing developer to enable the

development to be deliverable.” (Para 173 NPPF)

In relation to CIL it states:

“Community Infrastructure Levy charges should be worked up and tested alongside the Local

Plan. The Community Infrastructure Levy should support and incentivise new development,

particularly by placing control over a meaningful proportion of the funds raised with the

neighbourhoods where development takes place.” (Para 175 NPPF).

4.1.2 National Planning Practice Guidance requirements for CIL viability evidence

To underpin the charging levels and demonstrate that the right ‘balance’ has been struck, NPPG

recommends the following principles for viability evidence in support of CIL:

Area based approach involving a broad test of viability across their area

Must use ‘appropriate available evidence’

No specific requirement to use any particular valuation model or methodology

Draw on existing evidence where available including values of land and property prices

Directly sample an appropriate range of sites across its area, focusing on strategic sites on

which the Local Plan relies

The rates proposed should be consistent with the viability evidence but need not exactly

mirror the evidence

Rates should not be set to the limit of viability and allow a viability buffer

Full account of development costs should be included in the viability evidence


17

National Guidance is clear that assessing the viability of local plans does not require the

individual testing of every development site. Site typologies may be used to determine area wide

viability at a policy level. Viability assessments should therefore reflect the range of different

development typologies (both residential and commercial) which are likely to come forward.

At the heart of assessing viability is land or site value. There are various approaches to

determining land value which will be outlined in more detail below; however NPPF guidance

states that in all cases, land value should reflect emerging policy requirements and planning

obligations, provide a competitive return to willing developers and landowners, be informed by

comparable, market based evidence.

Paragraph 015 reference ID 10-015-220140306 of the NPPF states that viability should consider

“competitive returns to a willing landowner and willing developer to enable development to be

deliverable”. A competitive return is defined as “the price at which a reasonable landowner would

be willing to sell their land for development.” Those options may include the current use value

of the land or its value for a realistic alternative use that is in line with the local planning policy.

4.1.3 RICS Financial Viability in Planning 2012

The RICS Practice guidance, Financial Viability in Planning (2012), is the viability methodology

for chartered surveyors practicing in this area. This document provides the following definition:

“An objective financial viability test is the ability of a development project to meet its costs

including the costs of planning obligations, while ensuring an appropriate site value for the land

owner and market risk adjusted return to the developer in delivering the project” (para 2.1)

This is illustrated in Figure 4.1 which compares two developments. Development 1 demonstrates

a viable development whereby the land value, development costs, planning obligations and

developers return are equal to the value of development. Development 2 has increased

development costs which put downward pressure on the land value capable of being achieved

and renders the development unviable as the developer’s return and planning obligations remain

constant. That all development costs (including land, profit and planning gain) must not exceed

the value of development is the guiding principle of all viability assessments and has been

applied to our analysis of CIL viability in Derbyshire Dales.


18

Figure 4.1: Comparative development viability

Source: RICS Financial Viability in Planning Guidance Note (1st Edition, 2012)

4.2. Cushman & Wakefield viability testing methodology

Cushman & Wakefield has developed a viability model which involves the analysis of a selection

of hypothetical development schemes which reflect the wide range of circumstances in which

development is anticipated to come forward across the Derbyshire Dales district.

The assessment involves a residual appraisal methodology in accordance with the above

guidance. Cushman & Wakefield has developed an Excel spreadsheet based economic viability

model that allows a number of development sites to be assessed and sensitivity testing of key

variables.

This approach involves the following key steps:

Determination of residential value areas, development schemes and viability assumptions.

A residual appraisal is then carried out subtracting all anticipated development costs from

the scheme’s Gross/Net Development Value to arrive at a residual site value for each

development scheme. The appraisal includes provision for affordable housing, planning

standards and S106 obligations as inputs.

The residual site value for each development scheme is then benchmarked against a site

value threshold to determine the ‘headroom’ available for CIL/other planning requirements.


19

Figure 4.2: Viability testing methodology

4.3. Site specific viability testing

Within this report we have supplemented the area wide viability modelling of hypothetical

schemes with the testing of strategic real world sites. The sites have been sampled from the

Draft Local Plan allocations. In accordance with the National Planning Policy Guidance, the sites

that have been selected are large / strategic sites. The viability of these sites has been tested

using Argus Developer software which is an industry standard software model for appraisal and

valuation of single sites. Rather than indicate the headroom for CIL, these appraisals have

incorporated the level of CIL indicated by the area wide assessments alongside the affordable

housing and other standards required by the Local Plan.

4.4. Ensuring a suitable balance – the viability buffer

As highlighted above, Government guidance underlines the importance of pragmatism and that

CIL rates should be reasonable. At Paragraph 019 Reference ID: 25-019-20140612 of NPPG it

specifies that “It would be appropriate to ensure that a ‘buffer’ or margin is included, so that the

levy rate is able to support development when economic circumstances adjust”.

Case Law indicates that a 25-30% discount from the CIL headroom is a suitable viability buffer.

However, each local area may justify its own approach based on the evidence.

Gross Development Value

Less all development costs including profit

and planning requirements

Equals residual site value (RSV)

Benchmark site value

Value areas

Schemes

Appraisal assumptions

Inputs Valuation Viability test

= Viability headroom

Less


20

Therefore, we have applied an appropriate viability buffer to reflect these recommendations

which puts in place safeguards to ensure that Derbyshire Dales’ CIL strategy is “viability proofed”

and not realistically likely to put development delivery at risk.

4.5. Developer consultation

Cushman & Wakefield consulted on the assumptions used to inform the area wide viability testing

in June 2015 through a survey of developers, house-builders, registered housing providers, retail

operators and property and planning agents. The consultation was used to test and refine the

approach and assumptions behind the viability modelling.

Those who engaged in the consultation are listed below and a summary of their responses to

our questionnaire survey is available at Appendix 2.

Emery Planning

William Davies

The Guinness Partnership

NCHA

Acclaim Housing Group Limited

Fisher German LLP

Radleigh Group Limited

Westleigh Partnerships Limited

A full list of those invited to participate in the consultation is provided at Appendix 3.


21

5. Viability Assumptions

This section outlines the assumptions that have been used in the viability analysis. The

assumptions take into consideration the views of landowners and developers who engaged in

the stakeholder consultation in May 2015.

5.1. Residential development

5.1.1 Value areas

Three value areas have been selected as geographical zones for viability testing housing

development as shown in Figure 5.1:

Value Area 1 £300,000 to £407,000 average house price



These zones are based on the average achieved house prices for all postcode sectors in

Derbyshire Dales as recorded by HM Land Registry over the 12 month period to December 2015.


22

Figure 5.1 Derbyshire Dales achieved residential land values. Source: HM Land Registry


23

5.1.2 Residential development scheme selection

Eight residential schemes have been tested on the range of site sizes, mix and densities set out

in Table 5.1. The schemes are based on an analysis of site sizes and typologies which are most

likely to come forward for development and SHLAA data. The housing mix is based on that

prescribed by Local Plan Policy HC11, which puts the emphasis on small units of 2 and 3 bed

houses. The percentages are illustrated in the table below although it is noted that the actual

appraisals involve some minor differences to the percentages as a result of rounding of units up

or down according to the mix requirements.

Two densities have been selected, the first at 30 DPH. This dwelling density is typically the level

that has been observed in Derbyshire Dales. However, because the dwelling mix prescribed by

Policy HC11 focuses units at the smaller end of the spectrum, this results in a low site cover of

approximately 10,000 sq ft per acre. Based on our experience, house builders generally seek

to deliver a minimum of 14,000 sq ft per acre. Therefore, reflecting the small size of the units, a

larger number of units could be accommodated on any given development parcel. An alternative

higher dwelling density has therefore also been tested which gives a site cover of approximately

14,000 sq ft per acre, more line with market requirements.

Each of the eight residential schemes have been tested across the three value areas illustrated

above (thus, effectively 24 notional residential schemes have been assessed).

Table 5.1a Residential development site selection (30 DPH)

Net developable

area (Ha)

Development density (DPH)

No of

units

Housing mix %

1 bed house

2 bed house

3 bed house

4 bed house

5 bed house

Scheme 1 0.25 30 8 5% 40% 50% 2.5% 2.5%

Scheme 2 0.50 30 15 5% 40% 50% 2.5% 2.5%

Scheme 3 0.70 30 21 5% 40% 50% 2.5% 2.5%

Scheme 4 1.00 30 30 5% 40% 50% 2.5% 2.5%

Scheme 5 1.50 30 45 5% 40% 50% 2.5% 2.5%

Scheme 6 3.00 30 90 5% 40% 50% 2.5% 2.5%

Scheme 7 5.00 30 150 5% 40% 50% 2.5% 2.5%

Scheme 8 10.00 30 300 5% 40% 50% 2.5% 2.5%


24

Table 5.1b Residential development site selection (40 DPH)

Net developable

area (Ha)

Development density (DPH)

No of

units

Housing mix %

1 bed house

2 bed house

3 bed house

4 bed house

5 bed house

Scheme 1 0.25 40 10 5% 40% 50% 2.5% 2.5%

Scheme 2 0.50 40 20 5% 40% 50% 2.5% 2.5%

Scheme 3 0.70 40 28 5% 40% 50% 2.5% 2.5%

Scheme 4 1.00 40 40 5% 40% 50% 2.5% 2.5%

Scheme 5 1.50 40 60 5% 40% 50% 2.5% 2.5%

Scheme 6 3.00 40 120 5% 40% 50% 2.5% 2.5%

Scheme 7 5.00 40 200 5% 40% 50% 2.5% 2.5%

Scheme 8 10.00 40 400 5% 40% 50% 2.5% 2.5%

NB affordable units are subject to a different mix in accordance with Policy HC11 as follows:

40% 1 bed

35% 2 bed

20% 3 bed

5% 4 and 5 bed.

5.1.3 Unit sizes

The residential unit sizes listed in Table 5.2 are based on Cushman & Wakefield’s research of local

schemes appended with this evidence. The areas quoted are net sales areas which have been

grossed up for cost purposes.

Table 5.2 Residential unit sizes (net sales areas)

House type Size (sq m) Size (Sq ft)

1 bed house 56 600

2 bed house 65 704

3 bed house 95 1021

4 bed house 131 1413

5 bed house 174 1878

5.1.4 Sales values

Capital revenues are used in the viability model on the basis of £ per sq m. The sales revenue

assumptions are based on market evidence gathered from Cushman & Wakefield’s research of

new build developments in Derbyshire Dales.

The market evidence set out in Appendix 1, indicates a tone of new build evidence in the range

of £2,368 per sq m to £2,692 per sq m (£220 to £260 per sq ft). The new build evidence is

largely for the low and mid value areas with limited recent transactional evidence available for


25

the high value areas, therefore we have had to make something of a judgement in respect of the

likely levels achievable based on a combination of average house prices derived from the Land

Registry (as detailed above under paragraph 5.1.1) and consultation with local developers and

agents. There are some limited examples of sales values below this level however these are

generally more dated and are outweighed by the more up to date evidence.

The net capital sales value assumptions are therefore as follows:

Table 5.3 Residential sales values

Current net sales values

assumptions

£ per sq m £ per sq ft

High Value (Value Area 1) 2,798 260

Mid Value (Value Area 2) 2,583 240

Lower Value (Value Area 3) 2,368 220

Sensitivity testing of both a 10% reduction and 10% increase has been undertaken to explore the effect of

variation to this key assumption.

5.1.5 Build costs

The development appraisals include the build costs for flats and houses as shown in Table 5.4.

BCIS build costs have been used (rebased for Derbyshire) with an uplift of 10% for external

works. The cost rate which this generates is above that which Cushman & Wakefield has observed

as typical for volume house builders at regional level however it caters for all developers including

those smaller builders who typically experience higher costs than national house builders.

Table 5.4 Residential build costs

Build cost (£) Plus 10% uplift for external works (£)

£ per sq m £ per sq ft £ per sq m £ per sq ft

Houses 1,020 95 1,122 104

Flats 1,203 112 1,323 123

It should be noted that in relation to the strategic sites a separate lower build cost of £1,022 per

sq m (£95 per sq ft) has been applied (inclusive of external works) on advice from Cushman &

Wakefield’s in house quantity surveyor as a ‘volume house builder build cost’ which would apply

to such larger sites.


26

5.1.6 Other costs / appraisal assumptions

Table 5.5 identifies the other development assumptions that have been applied in the appraisal

model. Blended rates of developer profit have been applied reflecting a level of 20% on GDV

for market units and 6% for affordable. The lower rate on the affordable housing reflects the

different risk profile for affordable units which are transferred on a pre-sale basis and therefore

effectively justifying a contractor’s profit level as opposed to a developer’s profit. The blended

rate therefore varies according to the affordable housing scenario that is applied.

Table 5.5 Residential development costs

Other development costs

Sensitivity for abnormals n/a – site abnormals allowed for in site value benchmark

Professional fees (inc planning) 8% on construction costs

Contingencies 3% on construction costs

Marketing, sales agent and legal fees 3.5% of sales revenue

Purchaser's costs 6.8% on purchase price*

Finance 6.75% on negative balance

Developer's profit

Blended rate (20% of GDV on market units & 6% of GDV on affordable units) 30% affordable housing – 17.37%

* Stamp duty changes brought into effect by the March 2014 budget have affected both the level

and approach to assessing stamp duty. Prior to the budget, the maximum duty on land was 4%

which has now increased to 5%. In the revised viability appraisals, purchaser’s costs have been

increased to 6.8% to allow for the highest rate of stamp duty at 5% (with an additional 1.8% to

allow for legal and agents fees).

5.1.7 Timing assumptions

The following delivery rate assumptions have been assumed. These are based on Cushman &

Wakefield’s research of the market and consultation with agents and developers. Site sizes

yielding 200 units or more are assumed to have at least two delivery outlets and therefore a

higher rate of sale than those of a smaller size which are assumed to have just a single outlet.


27

Table 5.6 Residential delivery assumptions

Delivery assumptions

Lead in 3 months

Construction / sales Sales staggered six months after construction start

Sales rates 30 units per annum per outlet. All sites assume a single house builder except sites of 10 ha where two house builders are assumed delivering on two outlets at a combined rate of 60 units per annum. On the larger strategic sites tested, separate delivery rates are assumed as detailed in Appendix 5.

Payments for land are assumed at the outset of the development programme. Whilst some of

the larger sites tested (e.g. those over 5 ha and more) could in practice result in a series of

payment instalments which would create finance savings and enhance viability, the model

assumes a single payment for land at the outset. This provides a further area of conservatism

in the analysis.

5.1.8 Policy standards

Table 5.7 details the assumptions have been applied relating to the proposed draft policy

standards in development of the Derbyshire Dales Local Plan as summarised in the screening

exercise in Section 2:

Table 5.7 Policy standards

Policy reference Standards Application in appraisals

HC4 Affordable

Housing

30% of all dwellings in

schemes of more than

10 units with 80% of

which social rent and

20% shared

ownership

Policy applied to all schemes except scheme 1

which falls below the required threshold. Transfer

values 70% for shared ownership and 50% for

Social Rent.

HC11 Housing Mix

and Housing Type

Housing mix

prescription with

emphasis on smaller

sized units.

10% of schemes to be

accessible by wheel

chair access

Housing mix based on policy position as set out in

Tables 5.1a and 5.1b.

Typically the costs for enhancing accessibility of

housing are 0.5% of build cost

(http://www.lifetimehomes.org.uk/pages/costs.html )

The area wide model is based on BCIS build cost

which is above typical house builder costs in the

order of 5 to 10%. It is considered any such costs

could also be absorbed by the abnormal allowance.

http://www.lifetimehomes.org.uk/pages/costs.html


28

HC13 Open Space,

Sports and

Recreational Facilities

Standards for

contribution to a range

of facilities

Cost assessment identifies circa £100 per unit with

potential for higher cost of £500 per unit on large

scale sites (i.e. over 500 units) (See Appendix 0).

These costs are provided for through the S106

allowance in the appraisals.

PD7 Climate change BREEAM

requirements for new

employment

development

10% cost uplift sensitivity

The allowance of £1,000 per unit for Section 106 contributions for each residential development

scheme is based on Cushman & Wakefield’s analysis of Section 106 contributions across

Derbyshire Dales since 2010 and taking into account the draft policies listed above. Where site

specific S106 requirements exceed such an allowance it is reasonable to expect that they would

result in a reduction in the site values thus allowed for within the appraisals.

5.1.9 Residential land values

Guidance on Site Value Benchmarks

The Local Housing Delivery Group: Viability Testing Local Plans advice for planning practitioners

(July 2012), states that viability studies should incorporate a threshold land value based on ‘a

premium over current use values and credible alternative use values’. It also highlights the

limitations of using market values for policy-making viability evidence recognising that historic

market values do not take into account the impact of future policy on land prices.

The RICS guidance note Financial Viability in Planning 2012 defines site value as follows:

“Site Value should equate to the market value subject to the following assumption: that the value

has regard to development plan policies and all other material planning considerations and

disregards that which is contrary to the development plan.”

It also states that when undertaking Local Plan or CIL (area-wide) viability testing, a second

assumption needs to be applied to the above:

“Site Value (as defined above) may need to be further adjusted to reflect the emerging policy /

CIL charging level. The level of the adjustment assumes that site delivery would not be

prejudiced. Where an adjustment is made, the practitioner should set out their professional

opinion underlying the assumptions adopted. These include, as a minimum, comments on the

state of the market and delivery targets as at the date of assessment.”

Whilst there appears to be an inconsistency in the recommendations of the two guidance

documents, both effectively recommend that site value thresholds for area wide viability studies


29

should be set somewhere between existing use/credible alternative use and market values

assuming planning permission without planning obligations.

Derbyshire Dales Land Value Evidence

Recent transactional evidence is limited in Derbyshire Dales and as a result the evidence is

somewhat anecdotal. A review of Estates Gazette Interactive (EGi) reveals significant

transactional activity in respect of existing/former farms however the actual prices at which such

sites have transacted is not readily available.

The evidence gathered from consultation with local landowners and developers was limited, but

suggested that minimum land values are typically in the order of £200,000 to £250,000 per acre,

but that higher land values are evident up to £500,000 per acre. Evidence produced by the

Valuation Office Agency for Derbyshire Dales District Council in February 2014 indicated a range

of land values from £100,000 to £500,000 per acre.

National research

The Department for Communities and Local Government published a paper on Land value estimates for policy appraisal in February 2015. The paper includes residential land value estimates using a “truncated residual valuation model” for local authority areas in England. The purpose of the paper is to appraise land projects from a social perspective and as such nil affordable housing provision is assumed. A number of assumptions are outlined in the paper including:

100% private housing

No CIL liability is included

Full planning permission is secured

No grants in place and no major allowances are needed for s106/s278

Assumes sites are 1 ha in size, of regular shape and fully serviced, no contamination or abnormals

Net developable area of 80%

Outside London – A density of 35 dwellings per hectare is assumed. Two storey, 2, 3, and 4 bed dwellings with a total floor area of 3,150 sq m

The residential land value identified for the Derbyshire Dales District is £2,100,000 per hectare (£849,823 per acre). Proposed benchmarks

As demonstrated by the above, evidence relating to market values of specific land transactions is limited and to provide a complete picture of relevant up to date site values across the District would necessitate the use of anecdotal evidence that we consider does not provide a reliable guide.


30

Consultation with developers and land owners indicated that a range of 494,200 - £617,750 per hectare (£200,000 - £250,000 per acre) is commonly accepted as a typical minimum net land price within Derbyshire Dales. However, this figure is a net land price and because the area wide assessments within this study do not incorporate abnormal site development costs, we consider it appropriate to inflate this level to represent the price of a serviced site free from abnormal development costs. To do this, we have utilised the data from the DCLG data on gross land values for the District and applied a formula based on an equitable sharing of the land value between land owner and community benefit. This approach is based on the well-publicised precedent established in ‘The Shinfield’ case (University of Reading versus Wokingham Council 2012). The formula sets the site value threshold at half of the gross land value indicated by the DCLG study (excluding all planning obligations and site abnormals) plus existing use value:

Benchmark site value = (Gross Land Value / 2) + Existing Use Value Where:

Gross Land Value is the land value without any planning obligations or site abnormals. This is based on the DCLG Land Values for Policy Appraisal (February 2015) which indicated a typical gross land value of £2.1m per ha (£849,823 per acre) for Derbyshire Dales

Existing use value is based on agricultural land values reflecting the predominantly greenfield character of development land across the District. The DCLG paper identifies a national average of £21,000 per ha (£8,500 per acre) for agricultural land which is considered to be a reasonable benchmark for Derbyshire Dales

Applying this formula to the data provided in the DCLG study produces a site value threshold of £1,071,000 per ha (£433,000 per acre). This level has been used in the area wide assessments and it should be noted that it represents the price for a serviced site free from abnormals. Therefore, where sites are expected to encounter significant abnormal development costs, these costs would be reflected in a lower land price that any rational developer would be willing to pay for the land. Comparing this figure against the minimum net site values of £494,200 per ha (£200,000 per acre) identified through consultation with developers indicates that the £1,071,000 per ha benchmark effectively provides an allowance for abnormal site works in the order of £577,000 per ha / £233,000 per acre (the difference between the two figures). In order to reflect the small variations in values in the three value zones the land value benchmark has been referenced to the mid value zone with a 10% increase applied for the high value zone and a 10% decrease for the low value zone. Therefore, the benchmarks used in the area wide viability analysis are as follows:

Value Area 1 – High £1,178,100 per ha (£477,000 per acre)

Value Area 2 – Mid £1,070,000 per ha (£433,000 per acre)

Value Area 3 – Low £963,900 per ha (£390,000 per acre)

In relation to the testing of strategic sites in Section 8 of this report, individual site abnormal costs have been assessed and included within the appraisals. This effectively means that a developer


31

is meeting these costs and as the land is being sold prior to servicing, a lower land price benchmark is applicable. In this case the base net land value indicated in our consultation with land owners and developers of £494,200 - £617,750 per hectare (£200,000 - £250,000 per acre) has been referenced.

5.2. Retail Development Assumptions

5.3.1 Retail scheme selection

Five hypothetical schemes have been selected for retail viability testing. Table 5.8 presents the

details of the schemes, floor area and site coverage.

These schemes have been tested in the following locations:

Town Centre

Local Centres

Villages

Out of Centre

Variations to the appraisal assumptions have been applied based on market research of each

location.

In considering the floor area, the following definitions are applied: Gross Floorspace is defined as “The area of a building measured to the internal face of the perimeter walls at each floor level1”. Net Floorspace is defined as “The internal floor area of the shop unit used for selling and displaying goods and services. It comprises the floor area to which customers have access, counter space, checkout space, window and other display space, fitting rooms and space immediately behind counters. Lobbies, staircases, cloakrooms and other amenity rooms are excluded. It is measured from the internal faces of walls and partition2.

1 Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, Code of Measuring Practice.

2 The Unit for Retail Planning Information Ltd Information Brief 85/7. Note, this is different from net sales floorspace


32

Table 5.8 Retail development schemes

Retail archetypes Gross Internal Areas Net Internal

Areas Site area

Sq m Sq ft Sq m Sq ft Ha Acres

1. Town centre

Scheme 1 Shopping Centre 5,000

53,820

3,500

37,674 1.25 3.09

Scheme 2 Retail warehousing 3,000

32,292 n/a n/a 0.75 1.85

Scheme 3 Superstore 3,995

43,000 n/a n/a 1.60 3.95

Scheme 4 Supermarket (Medium) 1,500

16,146 n/a n/a 0.60 1.48

Scheme 5 Convenience store 400 4,306 n/a n/a 0.16 0.40

2. Local centre


3. Village shops


4. Out of centre

Scheme 2 Retail warehousing 3,000

32,292 n/a n/a 0.75 1.85

Scheme 3 Superstore 3,995

43,000 n/a n/a 1.60 3.95

Scheme 4 Supermarket (Medium) 1,500

16,146 n/a n/a 0.60 1.48



33

5.3.2 Retail sales values

The following table details the base values which have been used in the development appraisals

based on market research of comparable schemes locally and regionally and consultation with

retail agents:

Table 5.9 Retail rental values

Retail archetypes Rental value (£)

Sq m Sq ft Yield Rent free (months)

1. Town centre

Scheme 1 Shopping Centre 130 12.00 8.0 18

Scheme 2 Retail warehousing 135 12.50 7.5 18

Scheme 3 Superstore 161 15.00 5.5 6

Scheme 4 Supermarket (Medium) 140 13.00 5.5 6

Scheme 5 Convenience store 175 12.50 5.5 6

2. Local centre


3. Village shops


4. Out of centre

Scheme 2 Retail warehousing (bulky goods) 135 12.50 7.5 18

Scheme 3 Superstore 161 15.00 5.5 6

Scheme 4 Supermarket (Medium) 145 13.50 5.5 6


5.3.3 Retail build costs

Table 5.10 outlines the build costs which have been used which are sourced from BCIS rebased

for Derbyshire. An uplift of 15% has been allowed for external works.

Table 5.10 Retail build costs

Build cost (£) Build cost inc. 15% uplift

for external works

Sq m Sq ft Sq m Sq ft

Scheme 1 Shopping centre 1,089 101 1252 116

Scheme 2 Retail warehousing 592 55 681 63

Scheme 3 Superstore 966 90 1111 103

Scheme 4 Supermarket (Medium) 1,539 143 1770 164

Scheme 5 Convenience store 1,203 112 1383 129


34

5.3.4 Development cost and phasing assumptions

The following development cost and phasing assumptions have been used in our appraisals:

Table 5.11 Retail development costs


Sensitivity for abnormals (% uplift in build costs) 10%

Site specific S106 costs £50 per sq m

Professional fees as % of construction costs 10%

Contingencies on construction costs 5%

Letting costs (% of rental value) 10%

Letting legal costs (% of rental value) 5%

Investment sale (% of Net Development Value) 1%

Investment sale legal costs (% of NDV) 0.25%

Purchaser's costs (% on purchase price) 6.8%*

Finance on negative balance 6.75%

Developer profit (% on cost) 20%

*This represents the maximum stamp duty brought into effect by the March 2016 budget. As a fixed percentage in the appraisal it represents the maximum possible stamp duty that would apply, hence providing an in built viability buffer. The 6.8% includes agent and legal fees. Table 5.12 Retail phasing assumptions

Phasing assumptions

Lead in 6 months

Construction period 12 months

Construction period (shopping centre) 18 months

Sale On practical completion

5.3.5 Retail land values

Land values for retail developments have been changing as a result of the retrenchment of the

‘big four’ acquisition programme.

In recent years land values for large food stores ranged from £1million to £3million per acre,

although prices were driven according to the level of operator appetite and the level of

competition between operators.

Although there is still demand for new stores, there are a lower volume of requirements which

means there is less competition bidding up prices and they have generally been at the smaller

end of the spectrum.


35

A land value benchmark of £1,235,500 per ha / £500,000 per acre is adopted for retail

development schemes.

5.3. Office development assumptions

5.4.1 Scheme selection

Two hypothetical schemes have been selected for viability testing of CIL. Table 5.13 details the

schemes, floor area and site coverage used in the appraisals.

Table 5.13 Office development schemes

Floor area (GIA)

Floor area (NIA) Site area


Scheme 1 Town centre, over two floors 3,000 32,292 2,550 27,448 0.38 0.93

Scheme 2 Out of town, over two floors 3,000 32,292 2,550 27,448 0.38 0.93

5.4.2 Office rental values

Table 5.14 details the rental values, development yield and incentives which have been used in

our development appraisals:

Table 5.14 Office rental values

Rental value (£) Yield Rent free

Sq m Sq ft % (months)

Scheme 1 Town centre, over two floors 106.79 10.00 8.5% 30

Scheme 2 Out of town, over two floors 106.79 10.00 8.5% 30

5.4.3 Office build costs

We have used the following build costs which are based on BCIS rebased for Derbyshire. We

have included a 15% uplift for external works.

Table 5.15 Office build costs

Build cost (£) Build cost including 15% uplift for external works


Scheme 1 Town centre, over two floors 1,531 142 1,761 164

Scheme 2 Out of town, over two floors 1,430 133 1,645 153


36

5.4.4 Development cost and phasing assumptions The following development cost and phasing assumptions have been used which typically reflect

local market conditions:

Table 5.16 Office development costs


Sensitivity for abnormals (% uplift on build costs) 10%

Site specific S106 costs £0










*This represents the maximum stamp duty brought into effect by the March 2016 budget. As a fixed percentage in the appraisal it represents the maximum possible stamp duty that would apply, hence providing an in built viability buffer. The 6.8% includes agent and legal fees.

Table 5.17 Office phasing assumptions

Phasing assumptions

Lead in 6 months



5.4.5 Office land values

A land value benchmark of £494,200 per ha / £200,000 per acre is adopted for office



37

5.4. Industrial development assumptions

5.5.1 Industrial scheme selection

Three hypothetical schemes have been selected for viability testing. Illustrated in Table 5.18

are the schemes, unit sizes and site coverage.

Table 5.18 Industrial development typologies

5.5.2 Industrial rental values Table 5.19 details the rental values and incentives which have been used in the development

appraisals:

Table 5.19 Industrial rental values

Rental value (£)

Yield Rent free

Sq m Sq ft % (months)

Small industrial / warehouse 51.00 4.75 6.75% 6

Medium industrial / warehouse 48.00 4.50 6.75% 6

5.5.3 Industrial build costs

The following build costs have been applied which are based on BCIS rebased for Derbyshire

Dales. A 15% uplift for external works has also been added to the build cost consistent with the

approach to all commercial schemes.

Table 5.20 Industrial build costs

Build cost (£) Build cost including 15% uplift for external works


Small industrial /warehouse 973.00 90.00 1,119 104.00

Medium industrial / warehouse 574.00 53.00 660 61.00

5.5.4 Industrial development cost and phasing assumptions

The following development cost and phasing assumptions have been applied:

Floor area (GIA) Floor area (NIA) Site area


Small industrial /warehouse 2,500 26,910 2,500 26,910 0.71 1.77

Medium industrial / warehouse 5,000 53,820 5,000 53,820 1.43 3.53


38

Table 5.21 Industrial development costs














Table 5.22 Industrial phasing assumptions

Phasing assumptions

Lead in 6 months



5.5.5 Industrial land values

A land value benchmark of £494,200 per ha / £200,000 per acre is adopted for industrial


5.5. Other commercial development schemes

We have also tested a number of additional commercial sectors to determine whether they are

able to support any level of CIL. Table 5.23 details the commercial schemes, floor areas and

site coverage.

Table 5.23 Other commercial development typologies

Floor area (GIA) Floor area (NIA) Site area


Scheme 1 Hotel 60 bed budget 1,800 19,375 1,350 14,531 0.45 1.11

Scheme 2 Restaurant Restaurant 400 4,306 400 4,306 0.16 0.40

Scheme 3 Care home 60 bed care home 2,586 27,835 840 9,042 0.65 1.60


39

5.6.1 Commercial rental values

Table 5.24 provides details of the rental values, development yields and incentives assumed in

our development appraisals:

Table 5.24 Other commercial development rental values

Rental values (£) Yield Incentives

Sq m Sq ft % Months

Scheme 1 Hotel £161.46 £15.00 6.5 6

Scheme 2 Restaurant £161.46 £15.00 6.5 12

Scheme 3 Care home (60 bed) £429.05 £39.86 6.5 6

5.6.2 Commercial build costs

The following build costs have been applied based on BCIS rebased for Derbyshire. A 15%

uplift for external works has been allowed for.

Table 5.25 Other commercial development build costs

Build cost (£) Build cost inc. 15% uplift for external works


Scheme 1 Hotel 1,373 128 1579 147

Scheme 2 Restaurant 1,661 154 1910 177

Scheme 3 Care home (60 bed) 1,022 95 1175 109

The following development cost and phasing assumptions have been applied:

Table 5.26 Commercial development costs














40


Table 5.27 Commercial development phasing

Phasing assumptions

Scheme 1 Hotel 6 months lead in, 12 months build, sell on practical completion

Scheme 2 Restaurant 6 months lead in, 12 months build, sell on practical completion

Scheme 3 Care home (60 bed) 6 months lead in, 18 months build, sell on practical completion

5.6.3 Land values

The following land value benchmarks are adopted for care home development schemes which

are in line with the residential development benchmarks for each value area:

Care home development land value benchmarks are based on the residential land values

Value Area 1 – High £1,178,100 per ha (£477,000 per acre)

Value Area 2 – Mid £1,070,000 per ha (£433,000 per acre)

Value Area 3 – Low £963,900 per ha (£390,000 per acre)

Hotel and restaurant development scheme land value benchmarks are based on retail site value

benchmarks of £1,235,500 per ha / £500,000 per acre.


41

6. Viability Results

This section sets out the results of the area wide viability testing. A summary of the ‘headroom’

that is available for CIL is provided for each of the hypothetical schemes that have been tested,

and in the case of the residential sector, the level of affordable housing. Where appropriate, cost

and value sensitivities have also been modelled to demonstrate the effect of adjustment to key

variables.

6.1. Residential viability results

In the earlier version of our viability evidence report produced in September 2015 we assessed

a range of affordable housing scenarios to inform the development and refinement of policies.

We produced graphs to illustrate the trade-off between affordable housing and CIL. As a result

of this work, it was deemed that affordable housing policies should seek no more than 30% of

units to be affordable, given the additional competing pressures on development costs:

Figure 6.1: CIL headroom and affordable housing scenarios

As illustrated, there is an inverse relationship between the level of CIL headroom and affordable

housing that is viable; that is to say, the higher the affordable housing scenario, the lower the

rate of CIL that is viable. The results vary across the three value areas with the higher value

areas capable of absorbing higher levels of affordable housing and CIL. There is also variation

across the different site typologies; in the main, the smaller sites are capable of carrying slightly

more planning gain per sq m than the larger sites which is due to cashflow with prolonged delivery

timescales stretching finance costs.

-£200

-£100

£0

£100

£200

£300

£400

45% 33% 30% 20% 15% 0%

Value area 1 Value area 2 Value area 3


42

6.1.2 Revised appraisals with increased stamp duty costs

Since the original work we have remodelled the analysis, incorporating the amended Local Plan

policies and taking into account the update to Stamp Duty as brought into being by the March

2016 budge changes. All other assumptions have been retained as was modelled in the previous

report. The results are summarised by Tables 6.1A and 6.1B for the different densities tested:

Table 6.1A: Maximum available for CIL at 30 DPH

Scheme

Residual

Land Value

(£)

Maximum

Available

for CIL (£) Average

Residual

Land Value

(£)

Maximum

Available

for CIL (£)

Residual

Land Value

(£)

Maximum

Available

for CIL (£)

Residual

Land Value

(£)

Maximum

Available

for CIL (£)

Residual

Land Value

(£)

Maximum

Available

for CIL (£)

1 £599,600 £391 £741,257 £572 £457,943 £209 £559,103 £339 £518,605 £287

2 £747,255 £162 £955,158 £375 £539,351 -£51 £681,368 £95 £615,481 £27

3 £1,004,458 £136 £1,285,696 £348 £720,210 -£79 £913,129 £67 £822,460 -£2

4 £1,463,866 £148 £1,884,794 £366 £1,048,724 -£67 £1,329,726 £78 £1,199,392 £11

5 £2,179,566 £144 £2,786,908 £356 £1,571,857 -£68 £1,993,275 £79 £1,796,352 £10

6 £4,233,270 £121 £5,416,277 £325 £3,047,177 -£84 £3,857,130 £56 £3,483,402 -£9

7 £6,802,146 £94 £8,684,222 £289 £4,900,013 -£103 £6,187,207 £31 £5,591,234 -£31

8 £13,633,865 £96 £17,405,847 £291 £9,817,844 -£102 £12,398,507 £32 £11,203,020 -£30

1 £490,750 £286 £621,522 £453 £359,978 £118 £450,253 £234 £409,755 £182

2 £587,500 £54 £779,428 £250 £395,571 -£143 £521,613 -£14 £455,726 -£81

3 £785,683 £28 £1,048,927 £226 £524,871 -£169 £695,450 -£40 £606,258 -£108

4 £1,146,369 £40 £1,528,462 £237 £760,775 -£160 £1,011,052 -£31 £875,185 -£101

5 £1,713,321 £38 £2,273,566 £234 £1,156,804 -£157 £1,519,893 -£30 £1,327,269 -£97

6 £3,322,274 £19 £4,416,408 £208 £2,226,536 -£170 £2,944,496 -£46 £2,566,985 -£111

7 £5,337,603 -£1 £7,111,204 £182 £3,600,805 -£181 £4,738,493 -£63 £4,137,790 -£126

8 £10,695,266 £0 £14,207,680 £182 £7,213,046 -£181 £9,493,572 -£63 £8,288,587 -£125

1 £381,900 £180 £501,787 £334 £262,013 £27 £341,403 £129 £300,905 £77

2 £427,745 -£56 £603,698 £125 £251,792 -£236 £361,858 -£123 £295,971 -£191

3 £569,155 -£80 £807,709 £100 £329,130 -£261 £478,183 -£148 £387,939 -£216

4 £822,176 -£73 £1,179,329 £112 £469,404 -£256 £689,995 -£142 £555,804 -£211

5 £1,245,829 -£70 £1,761,528 £110 £736,662 -£248 £1,056,434 -£136 £860,809 -£204

6 £2,410,217 -£83 £3,417,267 £91 £1,404,314 -£257 £2,042,542 -£147 £1,653,995 -£214

7 £3,883,959 -£97 £5,484,260 £69 £2,269,515 -£264 £3,276,693 -£160 £2,671,667 -£222

8 £7,780,450 -£96 £10,989,416 £70 £4,543,137 -£264 £6,562,754 -£159 £5,348,673 -£222

Minus 10% Revenue Plus 5% Build Cost Plus 10% Build CostBase

£161

Sen

sit

ivit

ies

Plus 10% Revenue

£58

-£47


43

Table 6.1b: Maximum available for CIL at 40 DPH including sensitivities

The results demonstrate that there is a significant different between the two density scenarios.

At 30 DPH, affordable housing and other costs are largely viable although in the lower of the

three value areas viability becomes marginal as indicated by the negative headroom calculation

figures. At 40 DPH the various planning standards are indicated to be viable with the capacity

to support a Community Infrastructure Levy range of £63 per sq m in the low value area to £293

per sq m in the high value area. At the mix of units applied in this assessment, we consider that

40 DPH generates the more relevant indicator which aligns with typical levels of site cover that

house builders will seek to achieve.

The sensitivities modelled illustrate the impact of small variations in cost and value on viability.

6.2. Commercial viability results

6.2.1 Retail development

As illustrated in Table 6.6, the analysis identifies that in current market conditions there is only

headroom to charge CIL in town centres for superstores and convenience stores. The

development of convenience stores in local centres and villages has no headroom for CIL. In

out of centre locations only supermarkets have capacity for CIL up to a maximum of £165 per sq

m.

Value

Area Scheme

Residual

Land Value

(£)

Maximum

Available

for CIL (£) Average

Residual

Land Value

(£)

Maximum

Available

for CIL (£)

Residual

Land Value

(£)

Maximum

Available

for CIL (£)

Residual

Land Value

(£)

Maximum

Available

for CIL (£)

Residual

Land Value

(£)

Maximum

Available

for CIL (£)

1 £701,227 £451 £867,163 £635 £535,292 £267 £653,789 £398 £606,351 £346

2 £923,530 £275 £1,186,842 £492 £658,985 £58 £838,862 £205 £753,144 £135

3 £1,389,115 £310 £1,784,088 £527 £998,269 £95 £1,263,419 £241 £1,140,917 £174

4 £1,994,999 £309 £2,549,808 £518 £1,432,994 £96 £1,814,838 £241 £1,635,844 £173

5 £2,903,021 £294 £3,721,568 £506 £2,093,066 £84 £2,645,988 £228 £2,388,922 £161

6 £5,509,699 £256 £7,079,395 £459 £3,961,414 £55 £5,016,507 £192 £4,523,058 £128

7 £8,774,117 £224 £11,199,661 £412 £6,335,364 £35 £8,014,070 £165 £7,250,853 £106

8 £17,627,910 £227 £22,495,744 £415 £12,734,096 £37 £16,104,029 £168 £14,573,765 £108

1 £573,722 £339 £726,906 £509 £419,431 £168 £526,283 £287 £478,845 £234

2 £720,107 £152 £964,850 £353 £476,484 -£48 £637,497 £84 £550,851 £13

3 £1,089,959 £187 £1,449,913 £385 £727,143 -£12 £963,478 £118 £838,862 £49

4 £1,562,291 £186 £2,082,925 £383 £1,049,027 -£8 £1,384,568 £119 £1,212,323 £54

5 £2,280,678 £175 £3,028,339 £369 £1,532,425 -£19 £2,031,082 £110 £1,768,252 £42

6 £4,320,226 £144 £5,748,548 £329 £2,884,579 -£42 £3,826,417 £80 £3,328,891 £15

7 £6,931,807 £123 £9,145,562 £295 £4,665,219 -£53 £6,134,206 £61 £5,372,264 £2

8 £13,936,871 £125 £18,373,224 £297 £9,383,096 -£51 £12,331,579 £63 £10,803,853 £4

1 £446,216 £228 £586,650 £383 £305,782 £72 £398,778 £175 £351,339 £122

2 £517,616 £29 £740,666 £213 £293,937 -£155 £432,423 -£41 £347,540 -£111

3 £785,171 £61 £1,120,902 £245 £452,957 -£122 £661,382 -£7 £535,611 -£76

4 £1,137,128 £65 £1,605,788 £243 £664,054 -£113 £956,374 -£3 £782,837 -£68

5 £1,657,765 £55 £2,343,791 £233 £974,059 -£122 £1,400,715 -£12 £1,148,682 -£77

6 £3,124,964 £30 £4,440,905 £201 £1,811,580 -£140 £2,629,197 -£34 £2,131,456 -£98

7 £5,041,292 £17 £7,106,314 £178 £2,967,185 -£144 £4,272,203 -£42 £3,503,349 -£102

8 £10,137,704 £19 £14,281,698 £180 £5,975,913 -£142 £8,595,642 -£40 £7,056,431 -£100

Minus 10% Revenue Plus 5% Build Cost Plus 10% Build CostBase

£293

Sen

sit

ivit

ies

High

Medium

Low

Plus 10% Revenue

£179

£63


44

Table 6.6 Commercial viability results – current values

6.2.2 Office development

The viability analysis indicates that there is no headroom for CIL on office development, reflecting

the weak strength of the office sector in Derbyshire Dales at the current time.

Scheme

Site Size

(hectares)

GIA Floor

coverage

(Sq m)

Benchmark Land

Value per

hectare (£)

Actual

Benchmark

Land Value

(scaled to site

area - £)

Residual Land

Value

(£)

Residual

Land Value

minus

actual

benchmark

Land Value

(£)

Maximum

Available for

CIL

(£)

Retail

Town Centre

Shopping Centre 1.25 5000 £1,235,500 £1,544,375 -£3,575,631 -£5,120,006 -£1,024

Retail Warehousing 0.75 3000 £1,235,500 £926,625 £856,596 -£70,029 -£23

Superstore 1.60 3995 £1,235,500 £1,976,800 £2,636,145 £659,345 £165

Supermarket 0.60 1500 £1,235,500 £741,300 -£383,489 -£1,124,789 -£750

Convenience Store 0.16 400 £1,235,500 £197,680 £217,177 £19,497 £49

Local Centre

Convenience Store 0.16 400 £1,235,500 £197,680 -£43,655 -£241,335 -£603

Village Shops


Out of Centre


Superstore 1.60 3995 £1,235,500 £1,976,800 £2,636,145 £659,345 £165

Supermarket 0.60 1500 £1,235,500 £741,300 -£296,198 -£1,037,498 -£692

Convenience Store 0.16 400 £1,235,500 £197,680 £34,420 -£163,260 -£408

Office

Town centre 0.38 3,000 £494,200 £187,796 -£3,951,462 -£4,139,258 -£1,380

Out of town 0.38 3,000 £494,200 £187,796 -£3,577,429 -£3,765,225 -£1,255

Industrial

Small industrial / warehouse 0.71 2,500 £494,200 £350,882 -£1,755,837 -£2,106,719 -£843

Medium industrial / warehouse1.43 5,000 £494,200 £706,706 -£1,206,229 -£1,912,935 -£383

Other commercial

Hotel 0.45 1,800 £1,235,500 £555,975 -£838,680 -£1,394,655 -£775

Restaurant 0.16 400 £1,235,500 £197,680 -£97,394 -£295,074 -£738

Carehome High Value Area 0.65 2,586 £1,178,100 £765,765 £156,913 -£608,852 -£235

Carehome Mid Value Area 0.65 2,586 £1,070,000 £695,500 £156,913 -£538,587 -£208

Carehome Lower Value Area 0.65 2,586 £963,900 £626,535 £156,913 -£469,622 -£182

Commercial Viability Analysis - Baseline


45

6.2.3 Industrial development

The viability analysis demonstrates that there is no headroom for CIL on industrial development.

Rental values are not strong enough to support speculative development on a general basis at

the current time. However, as market conditions improve and land opportunities are brought

forward, we would expect to see some improvement in rents which could enhance viability.

6.2.4 Other commercial development sectors

Table 6.6 illustrates that there is no headroom for CIL on the development of hotels, restaurants

and care homes in Derbyshire Dales at the current time.

6.2.5 Sensitivity testing

Sensitivity analysis has been carried out on rental values and yields to reflect fluctuations in

property market conditions over the Local Plan period. We have increased rental values by 10%

and reduced property yields by 100 base points (1%) to reflect market growth. Conversely, we

have decreased rental values by 10% and increased property yields by 100 base points (1%) to

demonstrate the impact of declining market conditions on commercial development. The results

of our analysis are presented in Tables 6.7 and 6.8.

As with the residential development typologies, we have also tested the impact of an increase in

build costs to account for Strategic Polices 4 and 9. The results of this sensitivity analysis is

shown in Tables 6.9 and 6.10.


46

Table 6.7 Commercial development viability results plus 10% rental values

As demonstrated by Table 6.7, increasing rental costs and property yields by 10% to reflect

improved local property market conditions improves development viability. For town centre

locations, this enables up to a maximum of £282 per sq m CIL charge on retail warehousing,

however shopping centres reman unable to support CIL. Retail development in out of centre

locations is also able to support CIL at up to £812 per sq m (superstores). The development of

convenience stores in Local Centres and villages is still unable to support CIL despite higher

revenues and property yields. With the exception of care homes (up to £210 per sq m), all other

commercial development has no headroom for CIL, despite a 10% projected growth in rents and

yield compression.

Scheme

Site Size

(hectares)

GIA Floor

coverage

(Sq m)

Benchmark Land

Value per

hectare (£)

Actual

Benchmark

Land Value

(scaled to site

area - £)

Residual Land

Value

(£)

Residual

Land Value

minus actual

benchmark

Land Value

(£)

Maximum

Available for

CIL

(£)

Retail

Town Centre

Shopping Centre 1.25 5000 £1,235,500 £1,544,375 -£2,648,316 -£4,192,691 -£839

Retail Warehousing 0.75 3000 £1,235,500 £926,625 £1,774,046 £847,421 £282

Superstore 1.60 3995 £1,235,500 £1,976,800 £5,222,691 £3,245,891 £812

Supermarket 0.60 1500 £1,235,500 £741,300 £473,791 -£267,509 -£178


Local Centre


Village Shops


Out of Centre

Retail Warehousing 0.75 3000 £1,235,500 £926,625 £1,774,046 £847,421 £282

Superstore 1.60 3995 £1,235,500 £1,976,800 £5,222,691 £3,245,891 £812

Supermarket 0.60 1500 £1,235,500 £741,300 £588,810 -£152,490 -£102


Office

Town centre 0.38 3,000 £494,200 £187,796 -£3,452,009 -£3,639,805 -£1,213

Out of town 0.38 3,000 £494,200 £187,796 -£3,080,882 -£3,268,678 -£1,090

Industrial


Medium industrial / warehouse1.43 5,000 £494,200 £706,706 -£522,857 -£1,229,563 -£246

Other commercial

Hotel 0.45 1,800 £1,235,500 £555,975 -£170,956 -£726,931 -£404

Restaurant 0.16 400 £1,235,500 £197,680 £10,280 -£187,400 -£469

Carehome High Value Area 0.65 2,586 £1,178,100 £765,765 £1,168,538 £402,773 £156

Carehome Mid Value Area 0.65 2,586 £1,070,000 £695,500 £1,168,538 £473,038 £183

Carehome Lower Value Area 0.65 2,586 £963,900 £626,535 £1,168,538 £542,003 £210

Commercial Viability Analysis - Sensitivity Analysis (plus 10% rental values minus 1% property yields)


47

Conversely, as shown in Table 6.8, the analysis demonstrates that a decline in market conditions

(where rental values reduce by 10%) negates CIL headroom for commercial development

schemes across the board.

Table 6.8 Commercial Development Viability Results minus 10% rental values

Table 6.9 and 6.10 demonstrate the impact of Local Plan policies on commercial development in current

market conditions. Increasing build costs by 5% and 10% to account for the provision of renewable and

low carbon technologies and green infrastructure respectively, does adversely impact on viability, however

there is still headroom for CIL on certain retail developments.

Scheme

Site Size

(hectares)

GIA Floor

coverage

(Sq m)

Benchmark Land

Value per

hectare (£)

Actual

Benchmark

Land Value

(scaled to site

area - £)

Residual Land

Value

(£)

Residual

Land Value

minus actual

benchmark

Land Value

(£)

Maximum

Available for

CIL

(£)

Retail

Town Centre

Shopping Centre 1.25 5000 £1,235,500 £1,544,375 -£4,301,663 -£5,846,038 -£1,169


Superstore 1.60 3995 £1,235,500 £1,976,800 £846,855 -£1,129,945 -£283

Supermarket 0.60 1500 £1,235,500 £741,300 -£991,936 -£1,733,236 -£1,155


Local Centre


Village Shops

Convenience Store 0.16 400 £1,235,500 £197,680 -£215,843 -£413,523 -£1,034

Out of Centre


Superstore 1.60 3995 £1,235,500 £1,976,800 £846,855 -£1,129,945 -£283

Supermarket 0.60 1500 £1,235,500 £741,300 -£923,911 -£1,665,211 -£1,110


Office

Town centre 0.38 3,000 £494,200 £187,796 -£4,336,367 -£4,524,163 -£1,508

Out of town 0.38 3,000 £494,200 £187,796 -£3,961,436 -£4,149,232 -£1,383

Industrial


Medium industrial / warehouse1.43 5,000 £494,200 £706,706 -£1,715,646 -£2,422,352 -£484

Other commercial

Hotel 0.45 1,800 £1,235,500 £555,975 -£1,332,437 -£1,888,412 -£1,049

Restaurant 0.16 400 £1,235,500 £197,680 -£329,270 -£526,950 -£1,317

Carehome High Value Area 0.65 2,586 £1,178,100 £765,765 -£593,990 -£1,359,755 -£526

Carehome Mid Value Area 0.65 2,586 £1,070,000 £695,500 -£593,990 -£1,289,490 -£499

Carehome Lower Value Area 0.65 2,586 £963,900 £626,535 -£593,990 -£1,220,525 -£472

Commercial Viability Analysis - Sensitivity Analysis (minus 10% rental values plus 1% property yields)


48

Table 6.9 Commercial Development Viability Results 5% cost uplift

Assuming a 5% uplift in build costs, up to £109 per sq m CIL can be charged on superstores in

town centres and out of centre locations. It should be noted however that all other commercial

development has no headroom for CIL.

With a 10% increase in build costs the headroom for CIL is reduced, however up to £51 per sq m

can be charged on superstores. All other commercial development has no headroom for CIL.

Scheme

Site Size

(hectares)

GIA Floor

coverage (Sq

m)

Benchmark Land

Value per hectare

(£)

Actual Benchmark

Land Value

(scaled to site area

- £)

Residual Land

Value

(£)

Residual Land

Value minus

actual benchmark

Land Value (£)

Maximum

Available for CIL

(£)

Retail

Town Centre

Shopping Centre 1.25 5000 £1,235,500 £1,544,375 -£3,911,609 -£5,455,984 -£1,091


Superstore 1.60 3995 £1,235,500 £1,976,800 £2,411,004 £434,204 £109

Supermarket 0.60 1500 £1,235,500 £741,300 -£523,789 -£1,265,089 -£843


Local Centre


Village Shops


Out of Centre


Superstore 1.60 3995 £1,235,500 £1,976,800 £2,411,004 £434,204 £109

Supermarket 0.60 1500 £1,235,500 £741,300 -£437,330 -£1,178,630 -£786


Office

Town centre 0.38 3,000 £494,200 £187,796 -£4,234,978 -£4,422,774 -£1,474

Out of town 0.38 3,000 £494,200 £187,796 -£3,843,290 -£4,031,086 -£1,344

Industrial

Small industrial /

warehouse 0.71 2,500 £494,200 £350,882 -£1,905,078 -£2,255,960 -£902

Medium industrial /

warehouse 1.43 5,000 £494,200 £706,706 -£1,381,809 -£2,088,515 -£418

Other commercial

Hotel 0.45 1,800 £1,235,500 £555,975 -£989,825 -£1,545,800 -£859

Restaurant 0.16 400 £1,235,500 £197,680 -£212,546 -£410,226 -£1,026

Carehome High Value Area 0.65 2,586 £1,178,100 £765,765 £6,555 -£759,210 -£294

Carehome Mid Value Area 0.65 2,586 £1,070,000 £695,500 £6,555 -£688,945 -£266

Carehome Lower Value Area 0.65 2,586 £963,900 £626,535 £6,555 -£619,980 -£240

Commercial Viability Analysis - Sensitivity Analysis (plus 5% build costs)


49

Table 6.10 Commercial Development Viability Results 10% cost uplift

Scheme

Site Size

(hectares)

GIA Floor

coverage

(Sq m)

Benchmark Land

Value per

hectare (£)

Actual

Benchmark

Land Value

(scaled to

site area - £)

Residual

Land Value

(£)

Residual Land

Value minus

actual

benchmark

Land Value

(£)

Maximum

Available

for CIL

(£)

Retail

Town Centre

Shopping Centre 1.25 5000 £1,235,500 £1,544,375 -£4,246,539 -£5,790,914 -£1,158


Superstore 1.60 3995 £1,235,500 £1,976,800 £2,179,463 £202,663 £51

Supermarket 0.60 1500 £1,235,500 £741,300 -£663,760 -£1,405,060 -£937


Local Centre


Village Shops


Out of Centre


Superstore 1.60 3995 £1,235,500 £1,976,800 £2,179,463 £202,663 £51

Supermarket 0.60 1500 £1,235,500 £741,300 -£574,135 -£1,315,435 -£877


Office

Town centre 0.38 3,000 £494,200 £187,796 -£4,518,146 -£4,705,942 -£1,569

Out of town 0.38 3,000 £494,200 £187,796 -£4,107,924 -£4,295,720 -£1,432

Industrial


Medium industrial / warehouse 1.43 5,000 £494,200 £706,706 -£1,556,544 -£2,263,250 -£453

Other commercial

Hotel 0.45 1,800 £1,235,500 £555,975 -£1,141,464 -£1,697,439 -£943

Restaurant 0.16 400 £1,235,500 £197,680 -£265,887 -£463,567 -£1,159

Carehome High Value Area 0.65 2,586 £1,178,100 £765,765 -£150,795 -£916,560 -£354

Carehome Mid Value Area 0.65 2,586 £1,070,000 £695,500 -£150,795 -£846,295 -£327

Carehome Lower Value Area 0.65 2,586 £963,900 £626,535 -£150,795 -£777,330 -£301

Commercial Viability Analysis - Sensitivity Analysis (plus 10% build costs)


50

7. Implications of Viability Results for Local Plan and CIL

7.1. Local Plan policies

HC4 Affordable Housing

The District will seek to maximise the delivery of affordable housing across the plan area by

working in partnership with the Homes and Communities Agency and registered social landlords,

developers and communities.

The previous viability report tested in September 2015 included the provision of 45% affordable

housing on sites of 25 units or more or on sites of 0.75 hectares or more. We also tested 33%

affordable housing on sites of 10-24 units or more or on sites of 0.1 hectares or more.

However we also tested the viability of residential development by varying the affordable housing

contributions to 30%, 20% and 15% to demonstrate the impact of such changes on the headroom

available for schemes. Following changes in planning policy guidelines on planning obligations,

we have also tested the impact of affordable housing on all residential schemes – thereby

reducing the minimum threshold where sites of less than 10 units are exempt from CIL.

Our initial analysis indicated that the Council’s draft policy of 45% on large sites and 33% on small

sites was not viable except for in the highest value parts of the District. Value Area 1 displayed

the ability to bear this level of affordable housing but Value Area 2 was marginally viable and

Value Area 3 could bear no more than 30% affordable housing in current market conditions.

Value Area 3 includes several of the main settlements and is where a large proportion of the

future development of the area is to be accommodated.

We recommended that as a District wide affordable housing target policy should not exceed 30%.

This level is predicated on the viability of development in the lower value area (Value Area 3).

The Council has taken on board our recommendations and has reduced the policy requirement

for affordable housing to 30% of all housing units with a threshold of 10 dwellings or more or with

a combined floor space of more than 1000 sq m.

The sensitivity analysis has demonstrated that variation in market conditions and individual

development circumstances could have a significant effect on affordable housing viability, both

positive and negative. Therefore we consider that in terms of policy structure, there should be

both flexibility such that the affordable housing level is sought as a target (but with a viability

clause to reflect individual / exceptional circumstances), and that it is subject to review through

the plan period to ensure consistency with market capacity. We would also note that the emerging

national requirement for a portion of affordable homes to be ‘starter’ could, subject to clarification

of regulations, have the beneficial impact of enhancing viability of development since the overall

transfer values of the affordable housing would be increased (starter home values will be fixed at

80% of OMV compared with shared ownership at 70% of OMV and affordable rent at 50% of

OMV).


51

HC11 Housing Mix and Housing Type

The housing mix prescribed by the Local Plan must be implemented in a flexible way in order to

ensure compatibility with market requirements. The mix indicated by policy puts the emphasis at

the smaller end of the size spectrum which could result in house builders seeking to increase the

dwelling capacity to achieve target site cover. The analysis contained in our report shows that by

increasing the density of dwellings on site, viability levels can be upheld. However this does not

reflect the possibility that such a prescriptive mix could stymie delivery rates and market appetite.

Therefore we consider it essential that this policy is implemented in a cautious manner.

In respect of the requirement for 10% of homes on sites over 10 units to meet wheel chair

accessibility requirements is not considered would onerously affect viability. The appraisals

carried out in our assessment provide adequate costs and buffers to absorb such factors.

HC14 Open space, Sport and Recreational Facilities

We consider that the majority of contributions for such facilities will be collected via the Community

Infrastructure. However, for those where on site requirements will be prevail, we have allowed

adequate allowance within the S106 budget to cover such costs. Therefore, as worded, we do

not consider that the policy presents any difficulties in terms of compliance from a viability

perspective.

PD7 Climate Change

The Council will support the provision of renewable and low-carbon technologies, including both

standalone installations, and micro-renewables integrated within new or existing development.

Our analysis has shown that by increasing the build costs of residential and commercial

development by 5% to account for the increased costs in providing renewable and low carbon

technologies reduces the viability of development. This is based on evidence presented by Zero

Carbon Hub in their report “Cost Analysis: Meeting the Zero Carbon Standard”, February 2014.

In the case of commercial development schemes the headroom for CIL decreases from £165 per

sq m to £109 per sq m for superstore developments and from £49 per sq m to £0 per sq m for

convenience stores when compared to the headroom for CIL at baseline costs. However despite

the increase in build costs of 5% per sq m, there is still headroom to charge CIL on some forms

of retail development whilst including a contribution for renewables and low carbon technologies.

Because this policy is worded in a flexible way with a caveat relating to viability, it is not considered

it would place an immovable burden on development that could place deliverability at risk.

7.2. CIL

The evidence presented in this report demonstrates the diversity of development viability across

Derbyshire Dales. Residential and retail are the only development typologies considered to be

generally capable of bearing CIL at the current time.

The viability of CIL on residential development is limited to high and mid value areas of the

District when a policy of 33% and 45% affordable housing contributions is applied. However, at


52

30% affordable housing, there is considered to be potential for CIL within all areas of the District

albeit at a relatively nominal level in Value Area 3. Reducing the affordable housing requirements

to 20% would dramatically increase the level of CIL viability, however there is an important

balance to be struck between affordable housing provision and securing funding for infrastructure

which is necessary to deliver economic growth.

Smaller sites of under 1 hectare have slightly higher capacity to support CIL than larger sites.

As CIL rates can be differentiated according to scheme size, understanding this differing viability

impact is helpful in forming the parameters for the Council’s CIL charging strategy – especially

when the majority of sites (74%) coming forward for residential development in Derbyshire Dales

are less than 3 hectares in size. However, the difference is relatively small and we consider that

such differences could be negated by the higher construction costs encountered on smaller sites.

The viability to charge CIL on commercial development is limited. Some types of retail

development are able to bear a CIL, with certain formats of supermarket indicated to have

headroom – although this varies in terms of the location of the development with only town centre

and out of centre locations being able to support CIL. All other commercial development

typologies have no headroom for CIL in current market conditions.

Viability Proofing – Accounting for the “Buffer”

Caution is required to ensure that the rates that are set for CIL are not at a level that would

undermine the delivery of development. CIL is not easy to vary on a case by case basis once

set and therefore there is a risk that if not set at an appropriate level that the effect could be

either to reduce other planning obligation requirements or in a worst case scenario prevent land

from coming forward for development.

The analysis contained in this report is predicated on high level and indicative schemes and

assumptions. It should be noted that in reality, the development market is not homogenous and

there is potential for wide variation in many of the inputs to a viability appraisal including the price

of land, the developer’s return and site development costs.

There is also potential for variation in both market conditions and construction costs arising from

changes to building regulations which will influence changes in viability headroom for CIL.

Government guidance makes it clear that CIL rates should not be set right at the margins of

viability. At Paragraph 019 Reference ID: 25-019-20140612), the guidance specifies that “there

is room for some pragmatism. It would be appropriate to ensure that a ‘buffer’ or margin is

included, so that the levy rate is able to support development when economic circumstances

adjust”. Evidence from recent CIL examinations indicates that a minimum discount of 25-30%

from the maximum CIL viability is considered reasonable to demonstrate that the ‘balance’ has

been struck.


53

CIL charging scenarios

The table below outlines recommended maximum CIL charging scenarios based on the above

viability analysis. For the residential sector, three CIL scenarios are outlined to reflect the

potential CIL levies at the various affordable housing rates. The maximum headroom figures are

based on averages from the range of schemes tested, which have then been discounted to allow

for the ‘viability buffer’. Although this approach results in a relatively small discount in the low

value area, We consider that this reduced discount is justified due to the various in built viability

buffers which would insulate the impacts of CIL on deliverability.

In respect of retail rates, only the large superstore and convenience store indicate CIL headroom.

An approximate 50% discount has been applied to these property types consistent with the

approach taken to the residential CIL levels.


54

Table 7.2 CIL Charging Scenarios per sq m

Maximum CIL Headroom range (30 DPH / 40 DPH)

With allowance for buffer

Residential at 30% AH

Value Area High £161-£293 £120

Value Area Medium £58-£179 £50

Value Area Lower £0-63 £10

Retail

Town Centre

Shopping Centre £0 £0

Retail Warehousing £0 £0

Superstore £165 £80

Supermarket £0 £0

Convenience Store £49 £20

Local Centre


Villages

Convenience store £0 £0

Out of Centre

Retail Warehousing £0 £0

Superstore £165 £80

Supermarket £0 £0


Care homes £0 £0

All other commercial uses £0 £0


55

8. Strategic Site Sampling

National Planning Practice Guidance recommends that viability evidence prepared in support of

CIL should involve sampling of sites from its area:

“A charging authority should directly sample an appropriate range of types of sites across its

area, in order to supplement existing data. This will require support from local developers. The

exercise should focus on strategic sites on which the relevant Plan (the Local Plan in England,

Local Development Plan in Wales, and the London Plan in London) relies, and those sites where

the impact of the levy on economic viability is likely to be most significant (such as brownfield

sites)” Paragraph: 019 Reference ID: 25-019-20140612.

Whilst the area wide viability model presented earlier in this report is based on area wide

schemes, those schemes are nonetheless based on typologies of sites and developments either

already underway or anticipated to come forward through the Local Plan in Derbyshire Dales.

Moreover the appraisal assumptions selected have been devised with in-built contingency to

cater for a range of circumstances. They therefore provide a robust basis from which to draw

conclusions on viability.

However, there is merit in assessing viability on an individual site basis to test and reinforce the

evidence, particularly in relation to the various large scale site allocations proposed as part of

the Draft Local Plan. Large scale sites can experience a higher level of cost due to the need to

open up a site for development, on site planning obligations and longer lead-in and delivery

times. As a result the economics of development can vary when compared with smaller sites.

These matters are examined in this section of the report.

A sample of sites have been chosen based on those major allocations which form a key part of

the Local Plan’s housing delivery. Housing sites have been prioritised over commercial since it

is housing development which will bear the majority of Local Plan and CIL standards. A number

of the sites are identified as mixed use developments and in this case a land sale for the

employment land has been assumed alongside the build out of the housing (much in the way a

housebuilder would approach the delivery of a residential led mixed use site). The following nine

sites have been selected:


56

Table 8.1: Strategic Sites Selected for Viability Analysis

Figure 8.1 overleaf illustrates the location of each of the selected strategic sites. All of the sites

are located in Value Area 2 with the exception of Land at Halldale Quarry and Land off Gritstone

Road and Pinewood Road which are located in the low Value Area 3.

Derbyshire Dales District Council has provided information on each of the development sites

including the site size and the housing numbers proposed. The strategic site development

policies have also been reviewed and used to inform the development appraisal assumptions.

Fore Consulting has provided indicative, high level cost assumptions on infrastructure / access

improvements for each site. High level, indicative cost advice has been secured from Cushman

& Wakefield’s in house quantity surveyor on abnormal costs to supplement these infrastructure

costs.

Development appraisals have been produced using Argus Developer software incorporating the

appropriate level of CIL for each development based on the proposed CIL rates in Table 7.2.

Argus Developer provides a period by period residual development appraisal cashflow which

enables the costs and revenues from a development to be modelled over time with the residual

land price being inserted at the outset of the development programme.

Appendix 5 provides site proformas detailing each of the sites together with appraisal

assumptions and appraisal summaries.

Ref Address Town Gross area (ha)

Capacity /No

of units Brownfield Greenfield 1 2 3

SHLAA167 Leys Farm, Ashbourne Ashbourne 15.59 115 X X

SHLAA241 Land to the rear of RBS Darley Dale Darley Dale 10.18 143 X X X

SHLAA266 Land at Ashbourne Airfield, Ashbourne Phase 1 Ashbourne 367 X X

SHLAA266 Land at Ashbourne Airfield, Ashbourne Phase 2 Ashbourne 1100 X X

SHLAA269 Land off Middleton Road and Cromford Road, Wirksworth Wirksworth 9.04 126 X X

SHLAA281 Land at A6 (Stancliffe Quarry), Dale Road North, Darley DaleDarley Dale 10.15 100 X X

SHLAA435 Land at Halldale Quarry, Matlock Spa Road, Matlock Matlock 7.9 220 X X

SHLAA473 Land at Middle Peak Quarry, Wirksworth Wirksworth 72 645 X X X

SHLAA 224 Land off Gritstone Road / Pinewood Road, Matlock Matlock 20.8 430 X X

Type Value area

49.9


57

Figure 8.1: Location of Strategic Sites


58

8.1. Appraisal Assumptions

The development assumptions and appraisals for each of the strategic sites are tabled in

Appendix 5. The key differences in variables to those in the area wide analysis are:

We have tailored the delivery programme for each strategic site to reflect the number of

units being delivered. However the principle of a six month lead-in prior to construction

with sales staggered six months after construction commencement has been applied

across all sites.

Indicative cost assumptions have been made for on-site contributions for site specific S106

payments and Local Plan Policy standards as opposed to the application of a general

allowance of £1,000 per unit in the area wide viability analysis. Cost assumptions are

based on advice provided by Cushman and Wakefield’s in house QS and Fore Consulting.

A Community Infrastructure Levy has been incorporated at the appropriate level as

detailed in the preceding chapter. The timing of payments has been phased (with a pro

rata attribution according to the level of houses payable at the commencement of each

phase).

Professional fees have been increased from 8% to 12% to reflect the requirements for

masterplans and other technical studies on larger scale sites.

Contingencies have been increased from 3% to 5% to reflect the increased risk in

delivering large scale development sites.

Capital receipts from the disposal of land for employment are phased with receipts profiled

at the commencement of each development phase.

An affordable housing contribution of 30% is assumed. This incorporates a mix of

affordable rent (80%) and shared ownership (20%) with transfer values at 70% OMV for

shared ownership and 50% OMV for affordable rent.

Sites have been assessed to determine their infrastructure and abnormal costs in

accordance with site masterplans (where available) and Local Plan policies. This is based

on advice provided by Fore Consulting in respect of infrastructure requirements and

Cushman & Wakefield Cost Consultancy. However it should be noted that the costs are

indicative / high level as they have not been provided without the benefit of detailed

feasibility or site investigations and as such, they are not comprehensive or definitive and

exclude certain abnormal costs that may be necessary in order to deliver the development

scheme.

Build costs have been adjusted downwards from the BCIS level to a volume house builder

rate of £1022 per sq m (£95 per sq ft) in accordance with cost advice. A 0.5% increase on

this level has been applied for ‘accessible homes’ in accordance with the effect of the Local

Plan policy


59

A minimum net land value benchmark of £494,200 per ha has been referenced to reflect

the minimum price for an un-serviced site. However for reference the benchmark for a full

serviced site free from abnormals has also been included.

8.2. Results

A summary of the results of the development appraisals illustrating the residual land value of

each of the strategic development sites is presented in Table 8.2 below. The appraisals have

been modelled at the two density scenarios to illustrate the impact on net land values.

Table 8.2: Results of Strategic Site Viability Analysis

30 dwellings per hectare

40 dwellings per hectare

The results illustrate that the residual land values per hectare achieved for each of the strategic

sites are above the range of £619,325 - £1,195,450 per hectare (£250,627 - £483,772 per acre).

All of the strategic sites tested have the capacity to support CIL, affordable housing at 30% and

payments towards policy requirements such as green infrastructure / open space provision and

SHLAA

Reference

Site Value

Area

Net site

Area

(Hectares)

Residual

Land Value

(£)

Residual

Land Value

per hectare

(£)

Benchmark

minimum

land value

per hectare

(£)

Benchmark

for

serviced

site free

from

abnormals

(£)SHLAA167 Leys Farm, Ashbourne 2 3.8 £2,651,011 £691,568 £494,200 £1,070,000

SHLAA241 Land to the rear of RBS, Darley Dale 2 4.8 £2,952,114 £619,325 £494,200 £1,070,000

SHLAA266 Land at Ashbourne Airfield, Ashbourne Phase 1 2 12.2 £14,624,343 £1,195,450 £494,200 £1,070,000


SHLAA269 Land off Middleton Road and Cromford Road, Wirksworth 2 4.2 £4,207,227 £1,001,721 £494,200 £1,070,000

SHLAA281 Land at A6 (Stancliffe Quarry), Dale Road North, Darley Dale 2 3.3 £2,394,525 £718,358 £494,200 £1,070,000

SHLAA435 Land at Halldale Quarry, Matlock Spa Road, Matlock 3 7.3 £5,925,284 £807,993 £494,200 £963,900

SHLAA473 Land at Middle Peak Quarry, Wirksworth 2 21.5 £17,926,512 £833,791 £494,200 £1,070,000

SHLAA 224 Land off Gritstone Road / Pinewood Road, Matlock 3 14.3 £9,299,796 £648,823 £494,200 £963,900

SHLAA

Reference

Site Value

Area

Net site

Area

(Hectares)

Residual

Land Value

(£)

Residual

Land Value

per hectare

(£)

Benchmark

minimum

land value

per hectare

(£)

Benchmark

for

serviced

site free

from

abnormals

(£)

SHLAA167 Leys Farm, Ashbourne 2 2.9 £2,651,011 £922,091 £494,200 £1,070,000

SHLAA241 Land to the rear of RBS, Darley Dale 2 3.6 £2,952,114 £825,766 £494,200 £1,070,000



SHLAA269 Land off Middleton Road and Cromford Road, Wirksworth 2 3.2 £4,207,227 £1,335,628 £494,200 £1,070,000

SHLAA281 Land at A6 (Stancliffe Quarry), Dale Road North, Darley Dale 2 2.5 £2,394,525 £957,810 £494,200 £1,070,000

SHLAA435 Land at Halldale Quarry, Matlock Spa Road, Matlock 3 5.5 £5,925,284 £1,077,324 £494,200 £963,900

SHLAA473 Land at Middle Peak Quarry, Wirksworth 2 16.1 £17,926,512 £1,111,722 £494,200 £1,070,000

SHLAA 224 Land off Gritstone Road / Pinewood Road, Matlock 3 10.8 £9,299,796 £865,097 £494,200 £936,900


60

on site infrastructure such as cycle paths, access improvements and SUDS or attenuation tanks

to mitigate against flood risk.

It should be noted that there may be additional costs required in order to bring forward

development on the strategic sites which are identified as a result of further due diligence;

however the residual land values identified allow sufficient buffer to account for a level of

additional cost without compromising the ability to deliver the Local Plan policy requirements and

CIL.


61

9. Conclusions and Recommendations

Prior to the referendum relating to the UK’s membership of the European Union and the

associated ‘Brexit’ uncertainty, market conditions had undoubtedly improved over the last 18

months in the residential sector. Whilst the uncertainty has cast some doubt over the housing

market in the immediate short term, Derbyshire Dales is an area of relatively strong demand with

sales values generally exceeding £2,368 per sq m (£220 per sq ft). As a result, the viability

analysis that has been produced displays positive results across most residential development

typologies and in most locations.

The implications for the viability of sites put forward through the SHLAA is that they are expected

to be viable, subject to the nature and extent of individual site constraints (which have not been

examined within this report) and the level of planning obligations that the Council seeks through

the Local Plan and proposed Community Infrastructure Levy.

The viability analysis indicates that the draft Local Plan policies are broadly compliant with the

viability requirements of the NPPF although care will be required to ensure that these policies

are implemented flexibility.

In respect of CIL, the level of headroom on residential development depends to a large extent

on the affordable housing required and there is a trade-off which needs to be considered by the

Council in respect of the relative and competing needs of affordable housing versus community

infrastructure required to deliver economic growth.

At an affordable housing level of 30%, our analysis indicates there is headroom for CIL on

residential development ranging from £0 per sq m to £120 per sq m depending on location. The

strategic site sampling validates the area wide viability modelling. However, it is acknowledged

that there may be additional costs in bringing forward the strategic sites as additional information

is made available in terms of deliverability.


Appendix 1: Open space and recreational standards


Equipment costs

Category

Sq m per

dwelling

requirement

in Local Plan*

Cost per sq

m**

Cost per

dwelling General

Large sites (500

units or more) Assumptions

Children's play 0.93 105.00£ 97.65£ S106 S106 On site or nearby off site

Outdoor sports facilities 42.43 40.00£ 1,697.20£ CIL CIL

No guidance in supportive text

but assumed from wording of

Policy H13 that scale will

dictate off site pooled

contribution via CIL

Parks and gardens 19.03 15.00£ 285.45£ CIL S106

Wording of supporting text

indicates that this will be a

general contribution therefore

it is envisaged this will be via

CIL except for large scale sites

Semi natural green space 32.71 10.00£ 327.10£ excluded excluded

Amenity green space 29.93 12.00£ 359.16£ excluded excluded

Allotments 3.94 15.00£ 59.10£ CIL S106

Civic Space 0.23 20.00£ 4.60£ CIL S106

Sports Halls 41.7 960.00£ 40,032.00£ CIL CIL

Swimming Pools 22.7 2,400.00£ 54,480.00£ CIL CIL

Fitness provision 1,400.00£ -£ CIL CIL

* land except in case of swimming pools, sports halls and fitness provision which is assumed to be floor area of buildings

** costs based on SPONS handbook

Equipment costs per dwelling

General sites 97.65£

Large scale sites 446.80£

Land costs

Land required for general sites 0.93

Land required for large scale sites 24.13

Assume existing use value - agricultural

per ha 25,000£

per sq m 2.5

Cost of additional land per dwelling for

general sites 2.33£

Cost of additional land per dwelling for

large sites 60.33£

Commuted sum for maintenance

Cost per sq m £1.60

Commuted cost per dwelling (general) £1.49

Commuted cost per dwelling (large sites) £38.61

Total cost impact per dwelling

Total cost per dwelling (general) 101.46£

Total cost per dwelling (large sites) 545.73£

S106 or CIL (assumption of how

these requirements will be

applied)


states that 'towns and villages

across plan area have

access…so contributions will

not be sought'.


indicates that this will be a

general contribution therefore

it is envisaged this will be via

CIL except for large scale sites

No guidance in supportive text

but assumed from wording of

Policy H13 that scale will

dictate off site pooled

contribution via CIL


Appendix 2: Market evidence


Residential – New build developments in Derbyshire Dales: Source

Cushman & Wakefield, April 2016


Developer Number of Beds Transaction Date Sales Price Achieved (£) Area (sqft) £/sqft Date Address Sold Price (£) Area (sqft) £ Psf Overall Averages

5 bed detached not sold £575,000 1700 £338.24 11-Dec-15 111 lime tree road 525,000£ 2497 210.25£

5 bed detached not sold £550,000 1600 £343.75 04-Dec-15 109 line tree road 545,000£ 2497 218.26£

5 bed detached not sold £550,000 1600 £343.75

£341.91 Average 214.26£

plot 1 - 4 bed eastcoat Feb-15 £450,000 1683 £267.38 Dec-15 16 spire close 345,000£ 1399 246.60£

plot 5 - 4 bed detached astley Oct-14 £325,000 1415 £229.68 Nov-15 12 spire close 500,000£ 1948 256.67£

plot6 - 4 bed detached didbrook Oct-14 £425,000 1821 £233.39 Oct-15 11 spire close 485,000£ 1991 243.60£

plot 7 - 5 bed detached Oct-14 £450,000 1959 £229.71 Aug-15 18 spire close 340,000£ 1399 243.03£

plot 8 Oct-14 £425,000 1821 £233.39 Jun-15 2 spire close 520,000£ 1948 266.94£

plot 9 - corbrideg 5 bed detached Oct-14 £495,000 2033 £243.48 Jun-15 9 spire close 495,000£ 2023 244.69£

plot 11 tunstall 5 bed detached Oct-14 £485,000 1987 £244.09

corbridge last week £550,000 2033 £270.54

plot 6 astley this month £345,000 1415 £243.82

plot 17 didbrook Mar-15 £435,000 1821 £238.88

astley Feb-14 £340,000 1415 £240.28

Average £243.15 Average 250.26£ £245.66

3 bed semi 2015 £191,250 850 £225.00 Nov-15 10 tutbury hollow 325,000£ 1345 241.64£

3 bed detached 2015 £215,250 1050 £205.00 Nov-15 5 tutbury hollow 290,000£ 1173 247.23£

4 bed detacvhe 2015 £249,550 1150 £217.00 Oct-15 14 tutbuiy hollow 197,950£ 840 235.65£

4 bed mid 2015 £297,000 1350 £220.00 Oct-15 4 tutbury hollow 320,000£ 1313 243.72£

5 bed detached 2015 £445,050 2150 £207.00 Oct-15 6 tutbury hollow 197,950£ 840 235.65£

Oct-15 8 tutbury hollow 197,950£ 840 235.65£

Average £214.80 Average 239.92£ £228.50

Corfon 4 bed detached Dec 14 - present £365,000 1344 £271.58

aston 4 bed Dec 14 - present £384,950 1597 £241.05

milton 3 bed mid terr Dec 14 - present £210,000 1001 £209.79

milton 3 bed mid terr Dec 14 - present £220,000 1001 £219.78

shirebridge 4 bed semi Dec 14 - present £265,000 1426 £185.83

lichfield 3bed link detached Dec 14 - present £229,000 1000 £229.00

belmoor 4bed link detached Dec 14 - present £359,950 1350 £266.63

penrose 3 bed end terrace Dec 14 - present £225,000 1001 £224.78

milton 3 bed end terrace Dec 14 - present £225,000 1001 £224.78

milton 3 bed semi Dec 14 - present £225,000 1001 £224.78

Average £229.80 £229.80

darwin 3 bed detch jan 15 - present £234,950.00 921 £255.10 Dec-15 11 bower close 284,000£ 1227 231.46£

alwells 3 bed detached jan 15 - present £239,950.00 960 £249.95 Dec-15 1 bower close 199,950£ 818 244.44£

radcliffe4 bed detach jan 15 - present £274,950.00 1070 £256.96 Dec-15 13 bower close 299,950£ 1345 223.01£

crompton 4 bed detach jan 15 - present £325,000.00 1341 £242.36 Nov-15 6 bower close 299,950£ 1345 223.01£

darwin 3 bed detch £229,950 921 £249.67 Nov-15 5 bower close 291,900£ 1227 237.90£

rydle 2 bed end terrace £172,950 657 £263.24 Oct-15 3 bower close 199,950£ 818 244.44£

Oct-15 7 bower close 264,950£ 1076 246.24£

Aug-15 4 bower close 299,950£ 1345 223.01£

Jun-15 8 bower close 229,950£ 958 240.03£

Jun-15 2 bower close 310,000£ 1345 230.48£

Average £251.09 Average 234.40£ £241.33

New Sold Prices

Lime Tree Road, Matlock, DE4 3DU (asking prices only, 3 one off new build properties)

4) Wheeldon

Hopton Rise, Porter Lane, Middleton-by-wirksworth Derbyshire DE4, DE4 4LS- 47 dev - 12 sold

5) Miller Homes

Lodge Farm Chase, Ashbourne, 38 dev, 4 legally, 7 on going sales

1) Willersley

Construction

2) Bloor Homes

St Oswalds Manor, Belle Vue Road, Ashbourne, DE6 1AU

3) Radleigh Homes

Saxon Fields, Wyaston Road, Ashbourne, DE6


2 bed flat Nov-14 £205,000 807 £254.03

2 bed flat Oct-14 £200,000 861 £232.29

Average £243 £243

42 -2 bed flat Sep-14 £125,000 667 £187.41

50 - 2 bed flat Apr-14 £125,000 667 £187.41

25 morledge - Detached Mar-15 £275,950 1270 £217.28

4 morledge - detached jan 15 - present £295,950 1270 £233.03

6 vale rise Feb-14 £285,950 1270 £225.16

Average £210 £210.06

6 - 3 bed detached Sep-14 £395,000 1894 £208.55

5 - 4 bed detached Aug-14 £435,000 1808 £240.60

Average £224.58 £224.58

Wells 4 bed detached 340,000£ 1344 252.98

Mitford 4 bed detached 340,000£ 1380 246.38

Chatsworth 5 bed detached 475,000£ 1885

Rosebury 5 bed detached 499,000£ 1983 251.64

Chichester 5 bed 1885

Buchan 4 bed 1264

darwin 3 bed detch 921

Nevis 3 bed 767

Rydal 2 bed 567

Average 250.33 250.33

162500 £154,375.00 592 260.77

165000 £156,750.00 592 264.78

162500 £154,375.00 592 260.77

162500 £154,375.00 592 260.77

200000 £190,000.00 850 223.53

200000 £190,000.00 936 202.99

220000 £209,000.00 807 258.98

Average 247.51 247.51

10) Rightmove (Fidler

Taylor)

Baileycroft Mews, Cemetry Lane, Wirksworth, DE4 4FZ

Luke Lane, Dales View, Brailsford, DE6 3BY

9) Miller Homes

RIGHTMOVE,

NETHOUSEPRICE &

ZOOPLA

COMPARABLES

6) Parkside, old englishe road, Matlock, DE4 3SX

7) Morledge, Matlock DE4 3SD (William Davis Homes)

8) Saracens Court, Brailsford, DE6 3DX


Industrial transactions: Source Estates Gazette, May 2015

Transaction type

Address Deal/Auction date

Use type Total space Rental income

Size (sq m) Size(sq ft) per annum

per sq m per sq ft

Lease Unit B, Brookfield Industrial Estate, Tansley View, Old Coach Road, Tansley, Matlock, Derbyshire, DE4 5ND

24/03/2015 Industrial / Distribution

152 1,640 £12,000 £78.79 £7.32

Lease Ground, 2 North Leys, Ashbourne, Derbyshire, DE6 1DQ


204 2,193 £9,000 £44.18 £4.10

Lease Unit 3, Kingsfield Industrial Estate, Derby Road, Wirksworth, Matlock, Derbyshire, DE4 4BG


486 5,228 £15,000 £30.88 £2.87

Lease Unit 7, Kingsfield Industrial Estate, Derby Road, Wirksworth, Matlock, Derbyshire, DE4 4BG


400 4,307 £12,000 £30.03 £2.79

Lease Workshop at Midbrooke Building, Industrial Unit, Intakes Lane, Turnditch, Belper, Derbyshire, DE56 2LU


204 2,197 £12,000 £58.88 £5.47

Lease Old Hall Farm, Hales Green, Yeaveley, Ashbourne, Derbyshire, DE6 2DS


308 3,310 £7,500 £24.43 £2.27

Lease Airfield Industrial Estate, Blenheim Road, Ashbourne, Derbyshire, DE6 1HA


701 7,549 £40,000 £57.04 £5.30

Lease Unit 1, Runway Business Park, Moor Farm Road, Airfield Industrial Estate, Ashbourne, Derbyshire, DE6 1HD


285 3,072 £12,500 £43.80 £4.07


Office transactions: Source Estates Gazette, May 2015

Transaction Deal/Auction Total space Rental income

type Address date Use type

Size Size(sq ft) per annum

per sq m per sq ft

Lease Offices, 5a St John Street, 5a St. John Street, Ashbourne, Derbyshire, DE6 1GP

15/08/2014 Office 24 262 £6,749 £277.28 £25.76

Lease Units 3 & 4 - Ground Floor, Waterside Business Park - Spire House, Waterside Road, Ashbourne, Derbyshire, DE6 1DG

08/05/2014 Office 294 3,163 £45,000 £153.14 £14.23

Lease 24 Market Place, Ashbourne, Derbyshire, DE6 1HQ

19/02/2014 Office 122 1,312 £9,000 £73.84 £6.86

Lease GF Suite, Compton Offices, King Edward Street, Ashbourne, Derbyshire, DE6 1BW

27/01/2014 Office 42 448 £7,000 £168.19 £15.63

Lease Unit 1a - Ground Floor, Airfield Industrial Estate - Albany Court, Moor Farm Road, Airfield Industrial Estate, Ashbourne, Derbyshire, DE6 1HD

01/12/2012 Office 133 1,430 Not quoted

Lease 1 Parkhead Road, Causeway Lane, Crown Square, Matlock, Derbyshire, DE4 3AR

15/12/2011 Office 55 592 £5,028 £90.96 £8.45

Lease Unit 8, Lime Tree Business Park, Lime Tree Road, Matlock, Derbyshire, DE4 3EJ

15/11/2011 Office 63 682 £6,000 £94.72 £8.80

Lease Unit 9, Lime Tree Business Park, Lime Tree Road, Matlock, Derbyshire, DE4 3EJ

15/11/2011 Office 63 682 £6,000 £94.72 £8.80

Lease 42a St John Street, Ashbourne, Derbyshire, DE6 1GH

01/06/2011 Office 78 844 £6,000 £76.42 £7.10

Lease Unit 3 - Ground Floor, Waterside Business Park - Spire House, Waterside Road, Ashbourne, Derbyshire, DE6 1DG

26/05/2011 Office 94 1,011 £14,154 £150.70 £14.00


Retail transactions: Source Estates Gazette, May 2015

Transaction type

Address Deal /Auction date

Use type

Total space Rental income

Size (Sq m)

Size (sq ft)

per annum per sq m per sq ft

Lease Unit 7, Shawcroft Centre, Shawcroft, Ashbourne, Derbyshire, DE6 1GD

15/11/2014 Retail 79 849 £12,650 £160.38 £14.90

Lease Ground, 8 Firs Parade, Matlock, Derbyshire, DE4 3AS

01/09/2014 Retail £13,500

Lease 31 Dale Road, Matlock, Derbyshire, DE4 3LT 28/08/2014 Retail 18 196 £6,000 £329.51 £30.61

Lease Ground, 35 Dale Road, Matlock, Derbyshire, DE4 3LT

28/08/2014 Retail 29 310 £8,000 £277.78 £25.81

Lease Entire Building, 25 Dig Street, 25 Dig Street, Ashbourne, Derbyshire, DE6 1GF

15/07/2014 Retail 319 3,436 £25,000 £78.32 £7.28

Lease Ground, 15 Firs Parade, Matlock, Derbyshire, DE4 3AS

10/02/2014 Retail 68 733 £10,600 £155.66 £14.46

Lease Ground, 40-42 North Parade, Matlock Bath, Matlock, Derbyshire, DE4 3NS

01/10/2013 Retail 108 1,164 £16,500 £152.58 £14.18

Lease Unit 3, The Riverside Centre, South Parade, Matlock Bath, Matlock, Derbyshire, DE4 3NR

15/08/2013 Retail 74 796 £10,000 £135.23 £12.56


25/04/2013 Retail 108 1,165 £12,717 £117.50 £10.92

Lease 19 Firs Parade, Matlock, Derbyshire, DE4 3AS 10/11/2012 Retail 63 680 £12,000 £189.95 £17.65

Lease Unit 5, Waterside Retail Park, Highfield Road, Ashbourne, Derbyshire, DE6 1DG

15/04/2012 Retail 373 4,013 £66,215 £177.61 £16.50

Lease 5 Dig Street, Ashbourne, Derbyshire, DE6 1GF 28/10/2011 Retail 100 1,075 £15,000 £150.20 £13.95

Lease 5a St John Street, 5a St. John Street, Ashbourne, Derbyshire, DE6 1GP

15/10/2011 Retail 94 1,014 £25,000 £265.38 £24.66


05/09/2011 Retail 151 1,626 £17,000 £112.54 £10.46

Lease Unit 1, Wellington Yard, St John Street, Ashbourne, Derbyshire, DE6 1GH

01/05/2011 Retail 65 699 £7,500 £115.49 £10.73


Leisure transactions: Source Estates Gazette, May 2015

Transaction Auction Deal/Auction Total space

type sale status

Address date Use type Sub use type

Size UoM Size(sq ft)

Price

Auction Sold New Bath Hotel, New Bath Road, Matlock Bath, Matlock, Derbyshire, DE4 3PX

12/02/2015 Hotel Hotels (C1) £930,000

Auction Sold 76 Jackson Road, Matlock, Derbyshire, DE4 3JQ

10/07/2014 General, Hotel

Residential (C3), Hotels (C1)

£133,000

Auction Sold Hope & Anchor, Market Place, Wirksworth, Matlock, Derbyshire, DE4 4ET

14/10/2013 Drinking Establishment (Pub/Bar)

Leisure (A4)

£270,000

Auction Sold Hope & Anchor, Market Place, Wirksworth, Matlock, Derbyshire, DE4 4ET

09/09/2013 Drinking Establishment (Pub/Bar), General

Leisure (A4), Residential (C3)

£249,000


Appendix 3: Summary of stakeholder responses to questionnaire survey


Written responses

Question

number Question

Name of respondee Yes NO

Emery Planning See letter dated 12 June 2015 attached

William Davies X

The Guinness Partnership X Generally yes however;

Does the methodology reflect the complexity/timing in developing rural housing,

landowner’s aspirations on one hand and PPPA on the other with the restrictions and

covenants imposed?

Some of these issues are looked at in more detail later in this questionnaire and if the

tests reflect both then yes the methodology is ok.

NCHA X

Acclaim Housing Group Limited X

Fisher German LLP X

Radleigh Group Limited X Within the valuation process you do need to make an allowance for abnormal costs

associated with bring any development site forward.

Westleigh Partnership Limited X


William Davies X

The Guinness Partnership X While these are probably reflective of the average values in these areas, what might be

different is the volumes of transactions in the higher value areas are probably very low

which might skew the analysis.

NCHA X


Fisher German LLP X

Radleigh Group Limited X


Quantitative Response

Do you agree with

the viability testing

methodology listed

above?

Do the above value

areas adequately

cover the range of

market areas

currently in the

District?

2.1

3.1



William Davies X Density shouold be nearer 30 DPM or lower. Levels play a significant part in Derbyshire

Dales. The price bands are too great. I would rank:

Ashbourne and Villages - Highest priced area

Matlock and Villages - second priced area

Wirksworth and Villages - lowest priced area

The Guinness Partnership X A straight average density might not be reflective of the build in these areas, on the

smaller sites, [which might be rural] densities could be lower, given topography, likely

site characteristics, construction issues and demand etc. and the larger sites, if sites of

that size become available may be would cater for the high end of the market with very

much reduced densities for more executive type homes. You might find 35 would be

appropriate for schemes 4-6 but lower at either end

NCHA X

Acclaim Housing Group Limited X Value areas appear to be relevant and appropriate, but I am involved in affordable

housing delivery only. Open market valuation levels across the district are not an aspect

of my day to day work.

On unit mix for affordable schemes I would typically expect to see more emphasis on

smaller housetypes, including some one and two bed apartments on affordable housing

developments or schemes providing affordable homes through S106. 10% of the overall

mix on larger sites would not be unusual.

Fisher German LLP X Densities should be lower – Closer to 25dph.

Radleigh Group Limited X Your assessment should include sites which have detailed planning permission, where we feel the

actual densities are far lower than suggested above.

Furthermore we would query the sales prices going forward into the new plan period as at present

there is a demand which raises house prices. With more development sites coming on board this

will create competition whereby this will force sales prices down. This needs to be allowed for.

Do these figures make an allowance on just new build or second hand properties too?

Westleigh Partnership Limited X Affordable - 1 BF x 10%

- 2 BH x 45%

- 3 BH x 20%

- 2BB x 15%

- 4 BH x 10%

100%

Spec - 2BH S x 10%

- 3 BH S x 10%

- 3 BH D x 10%

- 4 BH D x 50%

- 5 BH D x 20%

100%

Do the selection of

site sizes, dwelling

mixes and densities

reflect an

appropriate range

for the District

3.2



William Davies X House Type Size (Sq ft)

1 bed flat 550

2 bed flat 650

2 bed house 800

3 bed house 1,000

4 bed house 1,300

5 bed house 2,000

The Guinness Partnership Use NDSS - Would it be appropriate to use national space standards 2015

NCHA X

Acclaim Housing Group Limited X 3 Bed house - Size 82 sq m

Fisher German LLP X

Radleigh Group Limited X 1 Bed flat - 570 sq ft

2 bed flat - 650/700 sq ft

2 bed house - 690 sq ft

3 bed house - 850 sq ft

4 bed house - 1,350 sq ft

5 bed house - 2,000 sq ft

Westleigh Partnership Limited X 1 Bed Flat - 48 sq m

2 Bed Flat - 56 sq m

2 Bed House - 68 sq m

3 Bed House - 84 sq m

4 Bed House - 90-140 sq m

5 Bed House - 130 - 150 sq m


William Davies X Value Area 1 - £225 psf

Value Area 2 - £210 psf


Value Area 4 - £190 spf


The Guinness Partnership X

NCHA No Response


Fisher German LLP X Value Area 1 - £230 psf


Range of £175-£230 psf. Don’t agree with the value areas.

Radleigh Group Limited X Value Area 1 - £225 psf



Westleigh Partnership Limited X Top Value = £280 psf

Mid Value = £220 psf

Low Value = £160 psf

3.3

Do you agree with

our size assumptions

in the above table?

3.4

Do you agree with

the sales value

assumptions?



William Davies X Other costs / appraisal assumptions - Professional fees (inc planning) 8% on

construction costs

The Guinness Partnership X While I can agree with the notional sales values and build costs, the added complexity

of developing within the national park needs to be assessed and requirements from

PPPA and some of the covenants and restrictions that can be applied impact on

mortgagability and development costs.

Smaller schemes, particularly rural within the PPPA are typically very much more

expensive to develop and a separate section/weighting may be applied here?

NCHA X

Acclaim Housing Group Limited X 3 bed house sizes look generous. Affordable 3 bed homes are typically in the range 80-

85 sqm. Other housetypes size assumptions look reasonable but we do not develop

many 4 and 5 bed affordable homes and spec developers experience may be more

relevant.

Unable to comment meaningfully on sales values, but cost assumptions look realistic.

Fisher German LLP X Build Cost £

Houses - £100 psf

Flats - £115 psf

Radleigh Group Limited X Whilst we agree to a certain degree, we would query on how you would breakdown the build costs,

for example the cost to build to FFL and then above FFL to completion.

One assume abnormal costs are not taken into account?



William Davies Professional fees at 6% appear a little low nearer 8%

The Guinness Partnership Lead in times for smaller any rural sites may be longer than suggested

NCHA No Response

Acclaim Housing Group Limited ‘Other cost’ assumptions look generally realistic for modelling purposes on sites without

serious abnormals or infrastructure costs.

However complexity of development varies significantly from site to site, there is no

typical site in the Dales. A wide range of development factors affect development costs

across the district – topography, access, scale, ground conditions, contamination,

planning contributions.

Fisher German LLP Generally agree

Radleigh Group Limited We would suggest raising abnormal allowances to say between 12-15%.

Professional fees should also be raised given complex planning issues, including Appeal

processes and general rise in fees.

Westleigh Partnership Limited OK

Do you agree with

our cost

assumptions?

Please detail below

whether you agree

or disagree with the

assumptions

proposed in terms of

other development

costs and phasing.

Please detail

whether any other

consideration should

be taken.

3.6

3.5



William Davies I cannot imagine any site in Derbyshire Dales viable with 45% affordable housing.

Target should be 30%. Affordable needs to be a mix of shared ownership, affordable

rent, social rent, low cost for sale to aid viability

The Guinness Partnership How do you intend to calculate the transfer values of affordable units?

DDDC and PPPA to comment on S106 contributions [presuming non housing related], I

feel these are low but it might be that we generally operate within the peak park which

have higher requirements and this may be a reasonable average?

NCHA In terms of tenure one significant one is not considered ie Affordable Rent whereby rent

is set at 80% of open market rent. This sometimes helps to increase transfer values but

DDDC prefer rents to be capped at Local Housing allowance which mitigates the

improvement. In terms of transfer values as a %OMV our view is:

Social Rent 45-50%

Affordable Rent 50%-55%

Intermediate ( Shared ownership) 70-75%

Acclaim Housing Group Limited Generally agree with the assumptions.

Please note that RP transfer levels are influenced by market rent levels but affordability

is tested on a site by site basis. Our approach is to ensure affordable homes remain

accessible and affordable to people in housing need. S106 offers are capped at

affordable rent levels in line with the Councils Local Housing Allowance, which can be

significantly lower than 80% of market rent levels in the higher value locations in the

district. This reduces transfer values offered to developers.

We also base shared ownership offers on an assumption that 25% equity sale is

required in higher value locations to maintain affordability for local people in lower paid

employment. This also reduces transfer values offered to developers.

Fisher German LLP No Response

Radleigh Group Limited Housing need is extremely complex within DD given a large proportion already built.

One would argue there is an oversupply and that the threshold should now be reduced

in line with other Councils in the East Midlands.

Furthermore, off site contributions should also be allowed for.

Westleigh Partnership Limited Affordable Rent

Transfer Value - 55% OMV

Shared Ownership - 65% to 70% OMV

We currently allow 3K pa but this would cover CIL as well.

Please detail below

where you agree and

disagree with the

assumptions

proposed and

whether any other

consideration should

be taken.

3.7



William Davies No recent experience of land values in Derbyshire Dales

The Guinness Partnership No Response

NCHA No Response

Acclaim Housing Group Limited No Response


Radleigh Group Limited No Response

Westleigh Partnership Limited Value Area 1 - High Value Area - £500k per acre

Value Area 3 - Mid Value Area - £350k per acre

Value Area 5 - Low Value Area - £200k per acre

Emery Planning

William Davies No Response

The Guinness Partnership No Comment

NCHA No Response

Acclaim Housing Group Limited Unable to comment on retail assumptions.



Westleigh Partnership Limited We have no interest or comment to make on retail, commercial development in DDC area.

Emery Planning



NCHA No Response








NCHA No Response








NCHA No Response





4.1

Do the above

hypothetical

schemes adequately

cover the necessary

range of retail

development likely

to come forward in

Derbyshire Dales?

Please detail below.

Please comment on

your experience of

residential land

values across the

five Areas in

Derbyshire Dales

3.8

4.2

Do you agree with

these value

assumptions?

4.3

Do you agree with

our cost

assumptions?

4.4

Do you agree with

our development

cost and phasing

assumptions?





NCHA No Response








NCHA No Response








NCHA No Response








NCHA No Response





5.1

Do the above

hypothetical

schemes adequately

cover the necessary

range of office

development likely

to come forward in

Derbyshire Dales? If

not, please detail

below.

5.2

Do you agree with

these value

assumptions?

5.3

Do you agree with

our cost

assumptions?

5.4

Do you agree with

our development

cost and phasing

assumptions?





NCHA No Response

Acclaim Housing Group Limited Unable to comment on industrial development assumptions.







NCHA No Response








NCHA No Response








NCHA No Response





6.1

Do the above

hypothetical

schemes adequately

cover the necessary

range of industrial

development likely

to come forward in

the Derbyshire

Dales? If not, please

detail below.

6.2

Do you agree with

these value

assumptions?

6.3

Do you agree with

our cost

assumptions?

6.4

Do you agree with

our development

cost and phasing

assumptions?





NCHA No Response

Acclaim Housing Group Limited Unable to comment on commercial development assumptions







NCHA No Response








NCHA No Response








NCHA No Response








NCHA No Response




Westleigh Partnership Limited No Response

We have no interest or comment to make on retail, commercial development in DDC area.

Do you agree with

these value

assumptions?

7.1

Do the above

hypothetical

schemes adequately

cover the necessary

range of

development likely

to come forward in

the Derbyshire

Dales? If not, please

detail below.

7.2

7.3

Do you agree with

these cost

assumptions?

7.4

Do you agree with

our development

cost and phasing

assumptions?

Please comment on

your experience of

commercial land

values in Derbyshire

Dales

7.5


Appendix 4: List of stakeholders invited to participate in viability consultation

June 2015

Organisation

Coverworld UK Ltd

The Thornhill Settlment

Fisher German

Miller Homes Ltd

Barton Willmore

Bakewell & Partners LLP

GJ Perry Planning Consultant

AMS Enterprises Ltd

Plan.it Ltd

Wheeldon Homes

Lone Star

Clowes Developments

Gleeson Strategic

Gladman Developments

William Davis

Wildgoose contruction

Radleigh Homes

Equity Housing Group

Peak District Rural HA

Guinness

East Midlands HA

Dales Housing Ltd

Acclaim Housing Group

Nottingham Community Housing Association

Derwent Living

Waterloo

Westleigh Developments

Pegasus Planning Group

Richborough Estates

Savills

Turley Associates

Alliance Planning

Planning Design Practice


Appendix 5: Residential development appraisal results 30% Affordable

Housing

30 Dwellings per hectare

Value

Area Scheme

Site Size

(hectares)

Floor

coverage

(less AH

requirement

(Sq m)

Benchmark Land

Value per

hectare (£)

Actual

Benchmark

Land Value(£)

Residual Land

Value

(£)

Residual

Land Value

per hectare

minus

actual

benchmark

Land Value

(£)

Maximum

Available for

CIL

(£)

1 0.25 781 £1,178,100 £294,525 £599,600 £305,075 £391

2 0.50 976 £1,178,100 £589,050 £747,255 £158,205 £162

3 0.70 1,326 £1,178,100 £824,670 £1,004,458 £179,788 £136

4 1.00 1,932 £1,178,100 £1,178,100 £1,463,866 £285,766 £148

5 1.50 2,863 £1,178,100 £1,767,150 £2,179,566 £412,416 £144

6 3.00 5,794 £1,178,100 £3,534,300 £4,233,270 £698,970 £121

7 5.00 9,656 £1,178,100 £5,890,500 £6,802,146 £911,646 £94

8 10.00 19,301 £1,178,100 £11,781,000 £13,633,865 £1,852,865 £96

1 0.25 781 £1,070,000 £267,500 £490,750 £223,250 £286

2 0.50 976 £1,070,000 £535,000 £587,500 £52,500 £54

3 0.70 1,326 £1,070,000 £749,000 £785,683 £36,683 £28

4 1.00 1,932 £1,070,000 £1,070,000 £1,146,369 £76,369 £40

5 1.50 2,863 £1,070,000 £1,605,000 £1,713,321 £108,321 £38

6 3.00 5,794 £1,070,000 £3,210,000 £3,322,274 £112,274 £19

7 5.00 9,656 £1,070,000 £5,350,000 £5,337,603 -£12,397 -£1

8 10.00 19,301 £1,070,000 £10,700,000 £10,695,266 -£4,734 £0

1 0.25 781 £963,900 £240,975 £381,900 £140,925 £180

2 0.50 976 £963,900 £481,950 £427,745 -£54,205 -£56

3 0.70 1,326 £963,900 £674,730 £569,155 -£105,575 -£80

4 1.00 1,932 £963,900 £963,900 £822,176 -£141,724 -£73

5 1.50 2,863 £963,900 £1,445,850 £1,245,829 -£200,021 -£70

6 3.00 5,794 £963,900 £2,891,700 £2,410,217 -£481,483 -£83

7 5.00 9,656 £963,900 £4,819,500 £3,883,959 -£935,541 -£97

8 10.00 19,301 £963,900 £9,639,000 £7,780,450 -£1,858,550 -£96

Residential Area Wide Viability Analysis

Schemes 1-8: 30% Affordable Housing

H

i

g

h

M

e

d

i

u

m

L

o

w

e

r


Value

Area Scheme

Site Size

(hectares)

Floor

coverage

(less AH

requirement

(Sq m)

Benchmark Land

Value per

hectare (£)

Actual

Benchmark

Land Value(£)

Residual Land

Value

(£)

Residual

Land Value

per hectare

minus

actual

benchmark

Land Value

(£)

Maximum

Available for

CIL

(£)

1 0.25 781 £1,178,100 £294,525 £559,103 £264,578 £339

2 0.50 976 £1,178,100 £589,050 £681,368 £92,318 £95

3 0.70 1,326 £1,178,100 £824,670 £913,129 £88,459 £67

4 1.00 1,932 £1,178,100 £1,178,100 £1,329,726 £151,626 £78

5 1.50 2,863 £1,178,100 £1,767,150 £1,993,275 £226,125 £79

6 3.00 5,794 £1,178,100 £3,534,300 £3,857,130 £322,830 £56

7 5.00 9,656 £1,178,100 £5,890,500 £6,187,207 £296,707 £31

8 10.00 19,301 £1,178,100 £11,781,000 £12,398,507 £617,507 £32

1 0.25 781 £1,070,000 £267,500 £450,253 £182,753 £234

2 0.50 976 £1,070,000 £535,000 £521,613 -£13,387 -£14

3 0.70 1,326 £1,070,000 £749,000 £695,450 -£53,550 -£40

4 1.00 1,932 £1,070,000 £1,070,000 £1,011,052 -£58,948 -£31

5 1.50 2,863 £1,070,000 £1,605,000 £1,519,893 -£85,107 -£30

6 3.00 5,794 £1,070,000 £3,210,000 £2,944,496 -£265,504 -£46

7 5.00 9,656 £1,070,000 £5,350,000 £4,738,493 -£611,507 -£63

8 10.00 19,301 £1,070,000 £10,700,000 £9,493,572 -£1,206,428 -£63

1 0.25 781 £963,900 £240,975 £341,403 £100,428 £129

2 0.50 976 £963,900 £481,950 £361,858 -£120,092 -£123

3 0.70 1,326 £963,900 £674,730 £478,183 -£196,547 -£148

4 1.00 1,932 £963,900 £963,900 £689,995 -£273,905 -£142

5 1.50 2,863 £963,900 £1,445,850 £1,056,434 -£389,416 -£136

6 3.00 5,794 £963,900 £2,891,700 £2,042,542 -£849,158 -£147

7 5.00 9,656 £963,900 £4,819,500 £3,276,693 -£1,542,807 -£160

8 10.00 19,301 £963,900 £9,639,000 £6,562,754 -£3,076,246 -£159



H

i

g

h

M

e

d

i

u

m

L

o

w

e

r

Value

Area Scheme

Site Size

(hectares)

Floor

coverage

(less AH

requirement

(Sq m)

Benchmark Land

Value per

hectare (£)

Actual

Benchmark

Land Value(£)

Residual Land

Value

(£)

Residual

Land Value

per hectare

minus

actual

benchmark

Land Value

(£)

Maximum

Available for

CIL

(£)

1 0.25 781 £1,178,100 £294,525 £518,605 £224,080 £287

2 0.50 976 £1,178,100 £589,050 £615,481 £26,431 £27

3 0.70 1,326 £1,178,100 £824,670 £822,460 -£2,210 -£2

4 1.00 1,932 £1,178,100 £1,178,100 £1,199,392 £21,292 £11

5 1.50 2,863 £1,178,100 £1,767,150 £1,796,352 £29,202 £10

6 3.00 5,794 £1,178,100 £3,534,300 £3,483,402 -£50,898 -£9

7 5.00 9,656 £1,178,100 £5,890,500 £5,591,234 -£299,266 -£31

8 10.00 19,301 £1,178,100 £11,781,000 £11,203,020 -£577,980 -£30

1 0.25 781 £1,070,000 £267,500 £409,755 £142,255 £182

2 0.50 976 £1,070,000 £535,000 £455,726 -£79,274 -£81

3 0.70 1,326 £1,070,000 £749,000 £606,258 -£142,742 -£108

4 1.00 1,932 £1,070,000 £1,070,000 £875,185 -£194,815 -£101

5 1.50 2,863 £1,070,000 £1,605,000 £1,327,269 -£277,731 -£97

6 3.00 5,794 £1,070,000 £3,210,000 £2,566,985 -£643,015 -£111

7 5.00 9,656 £1,070,000 £5,350,000 £4,137,790 -£1,212,210 -£126

8 10.00 19,301 £1,070,000 £10,700,000 £8,288,587 -£2,411,413 -£125

1 0.25 781 £963,900 £240,975 £300,905 £59,930 £77

2 0.50 976 £963,900 £481,950 £295,971 -£185,979 -£191

3 0.70 1,326 £963,900 £674,730 £387,939 -£286,791 -£216

4 1.00 1,932 £963,900 £963,900 £555,804 -£408,096 -£211

5 1.50 2,863 £963,900 £1,445,850 £860,809 -£585,041 -£204

6 3.00 5,794 £963,900 £2,891,700 £1,653,995 -£1,237,705 -£214

7 5.00 9,656 £963,900 £4,819,500 £2,671,667 -£2,147,833 -£222

8 10.00 19,301 £963,900 £9,639,000 £5,348,673 -£4,290,327 -£222



H

i

g

h

M

e

d

i

u

m

L

o

w

e

r


Value

Area Scheme

Site Size

(hectares)

Floor

coverage

(less AH

requirement

(Sq m)

Benchmark Land

Value per

hectare (£)

Actual

Benchmark

Land Value(£)

Residual Land

Value

(£)

Residual

Land Value

per hectare

minus

actual

benchmark

Land Value

(£)

Maximum

Available for

CIL

(£)

1 0.25 781 £1,178,100 £294,525 £741,257 £446,732 £572

2 0.50 976 £1,178,100 £589,050 £955,158 £366,108 £375

3 0.70 1,326 £1,178,100 £824,670 £1,285,696 £461,026 £348

4 1.00 1,932 £1,178,100 £1,178,100 £1,884,794 £706,694 £366

5 1.50 2,863 £1,178,100 £1,767,150 £2,786,908 £1,019,758 £356

6 3.00 5,794 £1,178,100 £3,534,300 £5,416,277 £1,881,977 £325

7 5.00 9,656 £1,178,100 £5,890,500 £8,684,222 £2,793,722 £289

8 10.00 19,301 £1,178,100 £11,781,000 £17,405,847 £5,624,847 £291

1 0.25 781 £1,070,000 £267,500 £621,522 £354,022 £453

2 0.50 976 £1,070,000 £535,000 £779,428 £244,428 £250

3 0.70 1,326 £1,070,000 £749,000 £1,048,927 £299,927 £226

4 1.00 1,932 £1,070,000 £1,070,000 £1,528,462 £458,462 £237

5 1.50 2,863 £1,070,000 £1,605,000 £2,273,566 £668,566 £234

6 3.00 5,794 £1,070,000 £3,210,000 £4,416,408 £1,206,408 £208

7 5.00 9,656 £1,070,000 £5,350,000 £7,111,204 £1,761,204 £182

8 10.00 19,301 £1,070,000 £10,700,000 £14,207,680 £3,507,680 £182

1 0.25 781 £963,900 £240,975 £501,787 £260,812 £334

2 0.50 976 £963,900 £481,950 £603,698 £121,748 £125

3 0.70 1,326 £963,900 £674,730 £807,709 £132,979 £100

4 1.00 1,932 £963,900 £963,900 £1,179,329 £215,429 £112

5 1.50 2,863 £963,900 £1,445,850 £1,761,528 £315,678 £110

6 3.00 5,794 £963,900 £2,891,700 £3,417,267 £525,567 £91

7 5.00 9,656 £963,900 £4,819,500 £5,484,260 £664,760 £69

8 10.00 19,301 £963,900 £9,639,000 £10,989,416 £1,350,416 £70



H

i

g

h

M

e

d

i

u

m

L

o

w

e

r

Value

Area Scheme

Site Size

(hectares)

Floor

coverage

(less AH

requirement

(Sq m)

Benchmark Land

Value per

hectare (£)

Actual

Benchmark

Land Value(£)

Residual Land

Value

(£)

Residual

Land Value

per hectare

minus

actual

benchmark

Land Value

(£)

Maximum

Available for

CIL

(£)

1 0.25 781 £1,178,100 £294,525 £457,943 £163,418 £209

2 0.50 976 £1,178,100 £589,050 £539,351 -£49,699 -£51

3 0.70 1,326 £1,178,100 £824,670 £720,210 -£104,460 -£79

4 1.00 1,932 £1,178,100 £1,178,100 £1,048,724 -£129,376 -£67

5 1.50 2,863 £1,178,100 £1,767,150 £1,571,857 -£195,293 -£68

6 3.00 5,794 £1,178,100 £3,534,300 £3,047,177 -£487,123 -£84

7 5.00 9,656 £1,178,100 £5,890,500 £4,900,013 -£990,487 -£103

8 10.00 19,301 £1,178,100 £11,781,000 £9,817,844 -£1,963,156 -£102

1 0.25 781 £1,070,000 £267,500 £359,978 £92,478 £118

2 0.50 976 £1,070,000 £535,000 £395,571 -£139,429 -£143

3 0.70 1,326 £1,070,000 £749,000 £524,871 -£224,129 -£169

4 1.00 1,932 £1,070,000 £1,070,000 £760,775 -£309,225 -£160

5 1.50 2,863 £1,070,000 £1,605,000 £1,156,804 -£448,196 -£157

6 3.00 5,794 £1,070,000 £3,210,000 £2,226,536 -£983,464 -£170

7 5.00 9,656 £1,070,000 £5,350,000 £3,600,805 -£1,749,195 -£181

8 10.00 19,301 £1,070,000 £10,700,000 £7,213,046 -£3,486,954 -£181

1 0.25 781 £963,900 £240,975 £262,013 £21,038 £27

2 0.50 976 £963,900 £481,950 £251,792 -£230,158 -£236

3 0.70 1,326 £963,900 £674,730 £329,130 -£345,600 -£261

4 1.00 1,932 £963,900 £963,900 £469,404 -£494,496 -£256

5 1.50 2,863 £963,900 £1,445,850 £736,662 -£709,188 -£248

6 3.00 5,794 £963,900 £2,891,700 £1,404,314 -£1,487,386 -£257

7 5.00 9,656 £963,900 £4,819,500 £2,269,515 -£2,549,985 -£264

8 10.00 19,301 £963,900 £9,639,000 £4,543,137 -£5,095,863 -£264



H

i

g

h

M

e

d

i

u

m

L

o

w

e

r


40 Dwellings per hectare

Value

Area Scheme

Site Size

(hectares)

Floor

coverage

(less AH

requirement

(Sq m)

Benchmark Land

Value per

hectare (£)

Actual

Benchmark

Land Value(£)

Residual Land

Value

(£)

Residual

Land Value

per hectare

minus

actual

benchmark

Land Value

(£)

Maximum

Available for

CIL

(£)

1 0.25 902 £1,178,100 £294,525 £701,227 £406,702 £451

2 0.50 1,216 £1,178,100 £589,050 £923,530 £334,480 £275

3 0.70 1,822 £1,178,100 £824,670 £1,389,115 £564,445 £310

4 1.00 2,646 £1,178,100 £1,178,100 £1,994,999 £816,899 £309

5 1.50 3,862 £1,178,100 £1,767,150 £2,903,021 £1,135,871 £294

6 3.00 7,724 £1,178,100 £3,534,300 £5,509,699 £1,975,399 £256

7 5.00 12,883 £1,178,100 £5,890,500 £8,774,117 £2,883,617 £224

8 10.00 25,809 £1,178,100 £11,781,000 £17,627,910 £5,846,910 £227

1 0.25 902 £1,070,000 £267,500 £573,722 £306,222 £339

2 0.50 1,216 £1,070,000 £535,000 £720,107 £185,107 £152

3 0.70 1,822 £1,070,000 £749,000 £1,089,959 £340,959 £187

4 1.00 2,646 £1,070,000 £1,070,000 £1,562,291 £492,291 £186

5 1.50 3,862 £1,070,000 £1,605,000 £2,280,678 £675,678 £175

6 3.00 7,724 £1,070,000 £3,210,000 £4,320,226 £1,110,226 £144

7 5.00 12,883 £1,070,000 £5,350,000 £6,931,807 £1,581,807 £123

8 10.00 25,809 £1,070,000 £10,700,000 £13,936,871 £3,236,871 £125

1 0.25 902 £963,900 £240,975 £446,216 £205,241 £228

2 0.50 1,216 £963,900 £481,950 £517,616 £35,666 £29

3 0.70 1,822 £963,900 £674,730 £785,171 £110,441 £61

4 1.00 2,646 £963,900 £963,900 £1,137,128 £173,228 £65

5 1.50 3,862 £963,900 £1,445,850 £1,657,765 £211,915 £55

6 3.00 7,724 £963,900 £2,891,700 £3,124,964 £233,264 £30

7 5.00 12,883 £963,900 £4,819,500 £5,041,292 £221,792 £17

8 10.00 25,809 £963,900 £9,639,000 £10,137,704 £498,704 £19



H

i

g

h

M

e

d

i

u

m

L

o

w

e

r

Value

Area Scheme

Site Size

(hectares)

Floor

coverage

(less AH

requirement

(Sq m)

Benchmark Land

Value per

hectare (£)

Actual

Benchmark

Land Value(£)

Residual Land

Value

(£)

Residual

Land Value

per hectare

minus

actual

benchmark

Land Value

(£)

Maximum

Available for

CIL

(£)

1 0.25 902 £1,178,100 £294,525 £653,789 £359,264 £398

2 0.50 1,216 £1,178,100 £589,050 £838,862 £249,812 £205

3 0.70 1,822 £1,178,100 £824,670 £1,263,419 £438,749 £241

4 1.00 2,646 £1,178,100 £1,178,100 £1,814,838 £636,738 £241

5 1.50 3,862 £1,178,100 £1,767,150 £2,645,988 £878,838 £228

6 3.00 7,724 £1,178,100 £3,534,300 £5,016,507 £1,482,207 £192

7 5.00 12,883 £1,178,100 £5,890,500 £8,014,070 £2,123,570 £165

8 10.00 25,809 £1,178,100 £11,781,000 £16,104,029 £4,323,029 £168

1 0.25 902 £1,070,000 £267,500 £526,283 £258,783 £287

2 0.50 1,216 £1,070,000 £535,000 £637,497 £102,497 £84

3 0.70 1,822 £1,070,000 £749,000 £963,478 £214,478 £118

4 1.00 2,646 £1,070,000 £1,070,000 £1,384,568 £314,568 £119

5 1.50 3,862 £1,070,000 £1,605,000 £2,031,082 £426,082 £110

6 3.00 7,724 £1,070,000 £3,210,000 £3,826,417 £616,417 £80

7 5.00 12,883 £1,070,000 £5,350,000 £6,134,206 £784,206 £61

8 10.00 25,809 £1,070,000 £10,700,000 £12,331,579 £1,631,579 £63

1 0.25 902 £963,900 £240,975 £398,778 £157,803 £175

2 0.50 1,216 £963,900 £481,950 £432,423 -£49,527 -£41

3 0.70 1,822 £963,900 £674,730 £661,382 -£13,348 -£7

4 1.00 2,646 £963,900 £963,900 £956,374 -£7,526 -£3

5 1.50 3,862 £963,900 £1,445,850 £1,400,715 -£45,135 -£12

6 3.00 7,724 £963,900 £2,891,700 £2,629,197 -£262,503 -£34

7 5.00 12,883 £963,900 £4,819,500 £4,272,203 -£547,297 -£42

8 10.00 25,809 £963,900 £9,639,000 £8,595,642 -£1,043,358 -£40



H

i

g

h

M

e

d

i

u

m

L

o

w

e

r


Value

Area Scheme

Site Size

(hectares)

Floor

coverage

(less AH

requirement

(Sq m)

Benchmark Land

Value per

hectare (£)

Actual

Benchmark

Land Value(£)

Residual Land

Value

(£)

Residual

Land Value

per hectare

minus

actual

benchmark

Land Value

(£)

Maximum

Available for

CIL

(£)

1 0.25 902 £1,178,100 £294,525 £606,351 £311,826 £346

2 0.50 1,216 £1,178,100 £589,050 £753,144 £164,094 £135

3 0.70 1,822 £1,178,100 £824,670 £1,140,917 £316,247 £174

4 1.00 2,646 £1,178,100 £1,178,100 £1,635,844 £457,744 £173

5 1.50 3,862 £1,178,100 £1,767,150 £2,388,922 £621,772 £161

6 3.00 7,724 £1,178,100 £3,534,300 £4,523,058 £988,758 £128

7 5.00 12,883 £1,178,100 £5,890,500 £7,250,853 £1,360,353 £106

8 10.00 25,809 £1,178,100 £11,781,000 £14,573,765 £2,792,765 £108

1 0.25 902 £1,070,000 £267,500 £478,845 £211,345 £234

2 0.50 1,216 £1,070,000 £535,000 £550,851 £15,851 £13

3 0.70 1,822 £1,070,000 £749,000 £838,862 £89,862 £49

4 1.00 2,646 £1,070,000 £1,070,000 £1,212,323 £142,323 £54

5 1.50 3,862 £1,070,000 £1,605,000 £1,768,252 £163,252 £42

6 3.00 7,724 £1,070,000 £3,210,000 £3,328,891 £118,891 £15

7 5.00 12,883 £1,070,000 £5,350,000 £5,372,264 £22,264 £2

8 10.00 25,809 £1,070,000 £10,700,000 £10,803,853 £103,853 £4

1 0.25 902 £963,900 £240,975 £351,339 £110,364 £122

2 0.50 1,216 £963,900 £481,950 £347,540 -£134,410 -£111

3 0.70 1,822 £963,900 £674,730 £535,611 -£139,119 -£76

4 1.00 2,646 £963,900 £963,900 £782,837 -£181,063 -£68

5 1.50 3,862 £963,900 £1,445,850 £1,148,682 -£297,168 -£77

6 3.00 7,724 £963,900 £2,891,700 £2,131,456 -£760,244 -£98

7 5.00 12,883 £963,900 £4,819,500 £3,503,349 -£1,316,151 -£102

8 10.00 25,809 £963,900 £9,639,000 £7,056,431 -£2,582,569 -£100



H

i

g

h

M

e

d

i

u

m

L

o

w

e

r

Value

Area Scheme

Site Size

(hectares)

Floor

coverage

(less AH

requirement

(Sq m)

Benchmark Land

Value per

hectare (£)

Actual

Benchmark

Land Value(£)

Residual Land

Value

(£)

Residual

Land Value

per hectare

minus

actual

benchmark

Land Value

(£)

Maximum

Available for

CIL

(£)

1 0.25 902 £1,178,100 £294,525 £867,163 £572,638 £635

2 0.50 1,216 £1,178,100 £589,050 £1,186,842 £597,792 £492

3 0.70 1,822 £1,178,100 £824,670 £1,784,088 £959,418 £527

4 1.00 2,646 £1,178,100 £1,178,100 £2,549,808 £1,371,708 £518

5 1.50 3,862 £1,178,100 £1,767,150 £3,721,568 £1,954,418 £506

6 3.00 7,724 £1,178,100 £3,534,300 £7,079,395 £3,545,095 £459

7 5.00 12,883 £1,178,100 £5,890,500 £11,199,661 £5,309,161 £412

8 10.00 25,809 £1,178,100 £11,781,000 £22,495,744 £10,714,744 £415

1 0.25 902 £1,070,000 £267,500 £726,906 £459,406 £509

2 0.50 1,216 £1,070,000 £535,000 £964,850 £429,850 £353

3 0.70 1,822 £1,070,000 £749,000 £1,449,913 £700,913 £385

4 1.00 2,646 £1,070,000 £1,070,000 £2,082,925 £1,012,925 £383

5 1.50 3,862 £1,070,000 £1,605,000 £3,028,339 £1,423,339 £369

6 3.00 7,724 £1,070,000 £3,210,000 £5,748,548 £2,538,548 £329

7 5.00 12,883 £1,070,000 £5,350,000 £9,145,562 £3,795,562 £295

8 10.00 25,809 £1,070,000 £10,700,000 £18,373,224 £7,673,224 £297

1 0.25 902 £963,900 £240,975 £586,650 £345,675 £383

2 0.50 1,216 £963,900 £481,950 £740,666 £258,716 £213

3 0.70 1,822 £963,900 £674,730 £1,120,902 £446,172 £245

4 1.00 2,646 £963,900 £963,900 £1,605,788 £641,888 £243

5 1.50 3,862 £963,900 £1,445,850 £2,343,791 £897,941 £233

6 3.00 7,724 £963,900 £2,891,700 £4,440,905 £1,549,205 £201

7 5.00 12,883 £963,900 £4,819,500 £7,106,314 £2,286,814 £178

8 10.00 25,809 £963,900 £9,639,000 £14,281,698 £4,642,698 £180



H

i

g

h

M

e

d

i

u

m

L

o

w

e

r


Value

Area Scheme

Site Size

(hectares)

Floor

coverage

(less AH

requirement

(Sq m)

Benchmark Land

Value per

hectare (£)

Actual

Benchmark

Land Value(£)

Residual Land

Value

(£)

Residual

Land Value

per hectare

minus

actual

benchmark

Land Value

(£)

Maximum

Available for

CIL

(£)

1 0.25 902 £1,178,100 £294,525 £535,292 £240,767 £267

2 0.50 1,216 £1,178,100 £589,050 £658,985 £69,935 £58

3 0.70 1,822 £1,178,100 £824,670 £998,269 £173,599 £95

4 1.00 2,646 £1,178,100 £1,178,100 £1,432,994 £254,894 £96

5 1.50 3,862 £1,178,100 £1,767,150 £2,093,066 £325,916 £84

6 3.00 7,724 £1,178,100 £3,534,300 £3,961,414 £427,114 £55

7 5.00 12,883 £1,178,100 £5,890,500 £6,335,364 £444,864 £35

8 10.00 25,809 £1,178,100 £11,781,000 £12,734,096 £953,096 £37

1 0.25 902 £1,070,000 £267,500 £419,431 £151,931 £168

2 0.50 1,216 £1,070,000 £535,000 £476,484 -£58,516 -£48

3 0.70 1,822 £1,070,000 £749,000 £727,143 -£21,857 -£12

4 1.00 2,646 £1,070,000 £1,070,000 £1,049,027 -£20,973 -£8

5 1.50 3,862 £1,070,000 £1,605,000 £1,532,425 -£72,575 -£19

6 3.00 7,724 £1,070,000 £3,210,000 £2,884,579 -£325,421 -£42

7 5.00 12,883 £1,070,000 £5,350,000 £4,665,219 -£684,781 -£53

8 10.00 25,809 £1,070,000 £10,700,000 £9,383,096 -£1,316,904 -£51

1 0.25 902 £963,900 £240,975 £305,782 £64,807 £72

2 0.50 1,216 £963,900 £481,950 £293,937 -£188,013 -£155

3 0.70 1,822 £963,900 £674,730 £452,957 -£221,773 -£122

4 1.00 2,646 £963,900 £963,900 £664,054 -£299,846 -£113

5 1.50 3,862 £963,900 £1,445,850 £974,059 -£471,791 -£122

6 3.00 7,724 £963,900 £2,891,700 £1,811,580 -£1,080,120 -£140

7 5.00 12,883 £963,900 £4,819,500 £2,967,185 -£1,852,315 -£144

8 10.00 25,809 £963,900 £9,639,000 £5,975,913 -£3,663,087 -£142



H

i

g

h

M

e

d

i

u

m

L

o

w

e

r

Appendix 6: Strategic site sampling appraisals


Derbyshire Dales District Council Site Specific Viability Analysis

SHLAA167 Leys Farm Residential development

Location plan

Site Promoter/developer contact details

Radleigh Homes

Site address

Leys Farm, Wyaston Road, Ashbourne

Site size

15.59 ha (gross) 38.5 acres 3.83 ha (net) 9.5 acres

Details of proposed development including current planning status

Housing – 115 dwellings anticipated. 30 dwellings per hectare

Site constraints

The site comprises pasture land. The northern half of the site is gently sloping and the southernmost third of the site sloping down to the southern boundary is steeply sloping and considered unsuitable for development at this stage. To accommodate a suitable access along Wyaston Road, the highway would need to be widened and the hedge relocated further into the site to ensure suitable visibility.

Accommodation schedule

Housing Mix

Ha (net)

No units

1 bed

2 bed

3 bed

4 bed

5 bed

Total

3.83 115 4 32 40 2 2 80 Total Market

11 10 6 1 1 29 Total Social & Affordable Rented

3 2 1 0 0 6 Total Shared Ownership

35 Total Affordable

1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 4 bed

5 bed Total sq m

223 2093 3794 263 349 6722 Total market sq m

613 654 569 131 174 2142 Total social & affordable rented sq m

167 131 95 0 0 393 Total shared ownership

LEAP children’s play area

POS area

Anticipated start date

Development appraisal assumes immediate start

Anticipated build period

6 months pre construction 6 months post construction Total construction – 46 months

No development phase and timing of delivery

115 units. One outlet. Sale rate of 30 units per outlet per annum equating to 3 years 10 months for delivery.

Planning obligations (including AH) & timing of payments

S106 contributions addressed below in abnormal costs 30% affordable housing (80% social rented and 20% shared ownership)


CIL £50 per sq m = £369,100

Sales revenue achieved / anticipated for housing units (market)

Value area 2 - £2,583.33 per sq m - £240 per sq ft

Affordable housing revenues (please specify according to tenure)

Social rent – 50% of market value £1,291.67 per sq m Shared ownership - 70% of market value £1,808.33 per sq m

Build costs (per sq m/per sq ft)

£1,022.57 per sq m / £95 per sq ft Uplift of 0.5% for accessible housing standards = £1,028 per sq m

Abnormal costs

To accommodate a suitable access along Wyaston Road, the highway would need to be widened and the hedge relocated further into the site to ensure suitable visibility. The topography of the southernmost third of the site is steeply sloping and considered unsuitable for development at this stage. The rear gardens and elevations of properties served by Premier Drive, Northwood View and Clumber Close back onto the site and care should be taken to protect the residential amenity of these properties by ensuring appropriate separation distances are achieved. The root protection areas of the existing trees throughout the site and particularly along the northern boundary, should be protected, with gardens a suitable length so the canopies of the trees do not dominate the private garden space of new properties. Given the location of the site at the edge of Ashbourne, care should be taken to ensure that the building line, built form density and the proposed soft landscaping creates an attractive and softened edge to the development. Indicative cost assumptions:

Access along Wyaston Road - £120,000

LEAP play area - £80,000

POS and green infrastructure - £350,000

Stepped foundations £2,500 per dwelling

Retaining walls - £100,000

SUDS ponds x4 - £55,000 each

Root protection - £5,000

Adjustment of site levels - £150,000

Secure by Design - £600 per property

Extra over costs - £100,000

Profit (Market units and Affordable units)

17.37% Blended profit rate to account of market (20% of GDV) and affordable units (6% of GDV)

Land value

Benchmark land value £1,069,986 per ha (£433,000 per acre) - residential

Any other relevant information

Planning permission secured on this development

Fees

Professional fees -12% on construction costs Contingencies - 5% on construction costs Stamp duty – At prevailing level Agent and Legal Fees on land – 1.5% Sales, legal and marketing costs – 3.5% Finance costs - 6.75% debt funding


SHLAA241 Land to the rear of RBS, Darley Dale Residential Development

Location plan


Site address

Land to the rear of RBS Darley Dale

Site size

10.18 ha (gross) – 25.15 acres 4.76 ha (net) – 11.75 acres


Housing – 143 dwellings expected. 30 dwellings per hectare.

Site constraints

Parts of the site are affected by Flood Zone 2 & 3. The site is on land associated with DFS and adjoining agricultural fields fronting the A6 through Darley Dale close to its junction with Station Road and Chesterfield Road. The site has various existing uses. Large areas on the north western and


north eastern sides comprise open agricultural land. Central and southern areas are occupied by development associated with DFS (furniture retail warehouse). There are three residential properties on site. New access required to serve the development comprising a new junction on the A6 frontage. Improvement of existing and development of new pedestrian / cycle routes Provision of public open space and green infrastructure on site with links to the wider countryside. Potential for historical / archaeological interest - Warney Brook and Mill Lade. Developer contributions required towards the production of infrastructure, educational services and other community services including open space.


Housing Mix

Ha (net)

No units

1 bed

2 bed

3 bed

4 bed

5 bed

Total

4.76 143 5 40 50 3 2 100 Total Market

14 12 7 1 1 35

Total Social & Affordable Rented


43 Total Affordable

1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 4 bed 5 bed Total

sq m

279 2616 4743 394 446 8477 Total market sq m






6 months pre construction 6 months post construction Total construction 57 months


143 units. One outlet. Sale rate of 30 units per outlet per annum equating to 4 years 7 months to delivery.


S106 contributions addressed below in abnormal costs 30% affordable housing (80% social rented and 20% shared ownership) CIL at £50 per sq m = £473,350


Value area 2 - £2,583.33 per sq m - £240 per sq ft market units




£1,022.57 per sq m / £95 per sq ft Uplift of 0.5% for accessible housing standards = £1028 per sq m

Abnormal costs

Indicative cost assumptions for

access improvements: £110,000 (profiled 6 months duration from construction start)

demolition works (DFS): £200,000 (assumes 2-3 storeys)

on site POS /Green infrastructure £300,000

Flood mitigation (raising land levels by 750mm) - £1,000,000

Attenuation tanks - £500,000

Secured by design - £85,800




Land value



Fees

Professional Fees -12% on construction costs Contingencies - 5% on construction costs Stamp Duty – At prevailing level Agent and legal fees on land – 1.5% Sales, legal and marketing costs – 3.5%


Finance costs - 6.75% debt funding



SHLAA266 Land at Ashbourne Airfield Phase 1 Mixed use development

Location plan


Site address

Land at Ashbourne Airfield, Ashbourne

Site size



Housing – 367 dwellings expected at 30 dwellings per hectare Employment Land – 8 hectares

Site constraints

Access improvements required. Potential for contamination given previous use as airfield.


Residential

Housing Mix

Ha (net)

No units

1 bed

2 bed

3 bed

4 bed

5 bed

Total

21.23 367 13 103 128 6 6 256 Total Market



110 Total Affordable


sq m

725 6737 12141 788 788 21178 Total market sq m



Commercial Mixed use hub comprising:

500 sq m total floor space - Use Class A1 retail / A2 financial and professional services

500 sq m total restaurants / cafes / A4 drinking establishments

750 sq m D1 non-residential institution/community facility

500 sq m enterprise centre Assumed 1 hectare land sale in Year 1 for mixed use hub. Land sale based on employment land value benchmark of £494,200 per ha / £200,000 per acre 8 hectares of employment land - Land sale based on employment land value benchmark of £494,200 per ha / £200,000 per acre. Disposal profile - 2 hectares in each of years 1 and 2. 1 hectare in each of year 3, 4, 5 and 6.




6 months pre construction 6 months post construction 49 months total construction


367 units. Three outlets. Sales rate of 25 units per outlet per annum equating to 75 units per annum therefore giving a development timescale of 4 years 11 months.



S106 addressed in abnormals costs below 30% affordable housing (80% social rented and 20% shared ownership) CIL at £50 per sq m = £1,781,280 (three instalments of £394,367).







Abnormal costs

Access Improvements – Indicative cost assumption £300,000

Provision of a landscape buffer between existing and new development. Provision of a landscape bund alongside the south eastern and north eastern boundaries of Vital Earth at least 7.5m in height and topped with 2m acoustic fencing. Provision of a landscape buffer to the rear of existing properties on Lady Hole Lane. The provision of tree planting alongside the western boundary of the site Indicative cost assumption: £250,000 per phase

The provision of an area reserved for wildlife along the north eastern boundary and the provision of public open space and green infrastructure on site with links

Indicative cost assumption: £262,500

Substation - £150,000

Gas governor £70,000

Infrastructure - £100,000 per phase

Secure by Design - £220,200

On site attenuation tanks - £800,000

Extra Over Costs - £100,000 per phase

Developer contribution towards the provision of infrastructure, educational services and other community services including open space as required, included in CIL contribution.

Provision for public transport, cycle and pedestrian routes to Ashbourne town centre, included in CIL contribution.



Land value

Benchmark land value £1,069,986 per ha (£433,000 per acre) - residential Benchmark land value £494,200 per ha (£200,000 per acre) - employment


Fees

Professional Fees -12% Contingencies - 5% Stamp Duty – At prevailing rate Agent and legal fees on land – 1.5% Sales, legal and marketing fees – 3.5% Finance - 6.75% Debt funding



SHLAA266 and at Ashbourne Airfield Phase 2 Mixed use development

Location plan


Site address

Land at Ashbourne Airfield, Ashbourne

Site size

49.9 ha (gross) – 121 acres 44.6 ha (net) – 90.5 acres


Housing – 1,100 dwellings expected. 30 dwellings per hectare. Employment land – 8 hectares

Site constraints

Access improvements – costs included in Phase 1. Potential for contamination given previous use as airfield.


Housing Mix

Ha (net)

No units

1 bed

2 bed

3 bed

4 bed

5 bed

Total

44.6 1100 39.0 308.

0 385.

0 19.0 19.0 770 Total Market

106.

0 92.0 53.0 7.0 6.0 264 Total Social & Affordable Rented

26.0 23.0 13.0 2.0 2.0 66 Total Shared Ownership



sq m

2174 20144 36519 2494 3315 64646 Total market sq m






6 months pre construction 6 months post construction 132 months total construction


1,100 units. Four outlets, 25 units per outlet per annum = 100 units per annum equating to 11 years delivery rate. Three phases of residential development with residential units distributed equally across all three phases. 8 hectares of employment land – Land sale based on employment land value benchmark of £494,200 per ha / £200,000 per acre. Disposal profile: Phase 1 – 3 hectares = £1,482,600 Phase 2 – 2.5 hectares = £1,235,500 Phase 3 – 2.5 hectares = £1,235,500


S106 addressed in abnormals costs below 30% affordable housing (80% social rented and 20% shared ownership) CIL at £50 per sq m = £3,611,800


(Paid in three instalments: Phase 1 = £1,203,933; Phase 2 = £1,203,933; Phase 3 = £1,203,933).







Abnormal costs

Secure by Design Phase 1 & Phase 2 - £240,000, Phase 3 - £180,000

Substation - £150,000 (Phase 1)

Gas Governor - £70,000 (Phase 1)

Infrastructure - £100,000 per phase

On site attenuation tank - £1.5m (Phase 1)

POS and Green Infrastructure - £262,500 per phase

Landscape Bund and Buffers - £250,000 per phase

Extra Over costs - £100,000 per phase Provision for public transport, cycle and pedestrian routes to Ashbourne town centre included in s106 costs



Land value

Benchmark land value £1,069,986 per ha (£433,000 per acre) - residential Benchmark land value £494,200 per ha (£200,000 per acre) – employment


Fees



SHLAA269 Land off Middleton Road & Cromford Road, Wirksworth Mixed Use Development

Location plan


Site address

Land off Middleton Road and Cromford Road, Wirksworth

Site size



Housing – 126 dwellings proposed. 30 dwellings per hectare Employment Land – 2 hectares


Site constraints

Contamination and ground survey required Ecological survey required Flood Risk Assessment required


Housing Mix

Ha (net)

No units

1 bed

2 bed

3 bed

4 bed

5 bed

Total

6.2 126 4 35 44 2 2 87 Total Market



38 Total Affordable

1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 4

bed 5 bed Total

sq m

223 2289 4174 263 349 7297 Total market sq m



Land sale based on employment land value benchmark of £494,200 per ha / £200,000 per acre. 2 ha of employment land sold £988,400






126 units. One outlet, 30 units per annum equating to 4 years and 3 months delivery time.


S106 addressed in abnormals costs below 30% affordable housing (80% social rented and 20% shared ownership) CIL at £50 per sq m = £408,350.







Abnormal costs

Provision of enhanced pedestrian crossing facilities on the B5036 - Indicative cost assumption: £85,000

Provision of a comprehensive landscaping plan, including retention of landscape and ecological features. Provision of a substantial landscape buffer between the development and Local Wildlife Site DD451 which sits within the north-western boundary of the site - Indicative cost assumption: £150,000

Provision of open space and green infrastructure on site with links established to the wider countryside - Indicative cost assumption: £300,000

Secured by design – indicative cost assumption £75,600

On site attenuation tanks – indicative cost assumption £450,000

Extra Over Costs: £100,000

Developer contributions towards the provision of infrastructure, educational services and other community services including open space included within s106 contribution.



Land value

Benchmark land value £1,069,986 per ha (£433,000 per acre) - residential Benchmark land value £494,200 per ha (£200,000 per acre) – employment


Fees




SHLAA281 Land at Stancliffe Quarry Residential Development

Location plan


Site address

Land at A6 (Stancliffe Quarry), Dale Road North, Darley Dale

Site size

10.15 ha (gross) – 25 acres 3.3 ha (net) – 8.15 acres


Housing – 100 dwellings proposed. 30 dwellings per hectare

Site constraints

Former quarry site likely to require remediation and potential for stabilisation of the north east quarry face adjacent to Stancliffe Hall.


Housing Mix

Ha (net)

No units

1 bed

2 bed

3 bed

4 bed

5 bed

Total

3.3 100 4 28 35 2 1 70 Total Market



30 Total Affordable

1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 4

bed 5 bed Total

sq m

223 1831 3320 263 174 5811 Total market sq m



Anticipated Start Date

Development appraisal assumes immediate start.




110 units. One outlet. 30 units per annum equating to 3 years 8 months to delivery.


S106 addressed in abnormals costs below 30% affordable housing (80% social rented and 20% shared ownership) CIL at £50 per sq m = £325,050



Affordable housing revenues (please



specify according to tenure)



Abnormal costs

A new access with the A6 to serve the comprehensive development is

required - Indicative cost assumption: £100,000

Improvements to existing and development of new pedestrian / cycle routes - Indicative cost assumption: £269,000 (assumes 1,076m long x 3m wide cycle path at £250 per m)

Open space/Green Infrastructure provision – indicative cost assumption: £250,000

Secured by design – indicative cost assumption £60,000

On site attenuation tank - indicative cost assumption £400,000

Extra Over costs: £100,000

Developer contribution towards the provision of infrastructure, educational services and other community services including open space included within s106 contribution



Land value



Fees




SHLAA435 Halldale Quarry Mixed Use Development

Location plan


Site address

Halldale Quarry, Matlock Spa Road, Matlock

Site size



Housing – 220 dwellings proposed. 30 dwellings per hectare 2 hectares employment space

Site constraints

The site lies within a designated RIGS site. The site is potentially contaminated or unstable and requires further investigation and remediation. Environmental Health comments pending. Site predominantly brownfield (more than 70% of site area).


Housing Mix

Ha (net)

No units

1 bed

2 bed

3 bed

4 bed

5 bed

Total

9.3 220 8 62 77 4 4 155 Total Market



66 Total Affordable

1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 4

bed 5 bed Total

sq m

446 4055 7304 525 698 13028 Total market sq m



2 hectares of employment land – Land sale based on employment land value benchmark of £494,200 per ha / £200,000 per acre. (£988,400)


Development appraisal assumes immediate start.


6 months per construction 6 months post construction 53 months total construction.


220 units. 2 outlets. 25 units per outlet per annum equating to 50 units per annum, 4 years 5 months to delivery.



Sales revenue achieved / anticipated for



housing units (market)


Social rent – 50% of market value £1,211 per sq m Shared ownership - 70% of market value £1,657.64 per sq m



Abnormal costs

Provision of crossing facilities across Matlock Spa Road and the provision of footways up to and into the site - Indicative cost assumption: £40,000


Secured by design – Indicative cost assumption £132,000

On site attenuation tanks - £600,000

Extra Over Costs: £100,000 Developer contributions towards the provision of infrastructure, educational services and other community services including open space through s106 contributions.



Land value

Benchmark land value £963,900 per ha (£390,000 per acre) – residential Benchmark land value £494,200 per ha (£200,000 per acre) - employment.


Fees



SHLAA473 Land at Middle Peak Quarry, Wirksworth Residential Development

Location plan


Tarmac

Site address

Land at Middle Peak Quarry, Wirksworth

Site size

72 ha (gross) – 178 acres 7.3 ha (net) – 18 acres

Details of proposed development

Housing – 645 dwellings expected. 30 dwellings per hectare.


including current planning status

Site constraints

Former Limestone Quarry therefore parts of the site will likely to be unstable and potentially contaminated. There are a number of environmental designations on the site; Dale Quarry SSS1, Stoney wood Wildlife site, Regionally important geological site, Tree preservation orders, Middleton conservation area, Wirksworth conservation area, scheduled monument, designated and non-designated heritage assets.


Housing Mix

Ha (net)

No units

1 bed

2 bed

3 bed

4 bed

5 bed

Total

7.3 220 23 181 226 11 11 452 Total Market

62 54 31 4 4 155 Total Social &

Affordable Rented

15 14 8 1 1 39 Total Shared

Ownership



sq m

1258 11812 21413 1482 1969

37,93

5 Total market sq m

3452 3544 2937 508 675

11,11

5 Total social & affordable rented sq m

863 886 734 127 169 2,779 Total shared ownership




6 months pre construction 6 months post construction Total construction 103 months (8.6 years)


645 units. 3 outlets. Sale rate of 25 units per outlet per annum equating to 75 units per annum, 103 months to delivery.


S106 addressed in abnormals costs below 30% affordable housing (80% social rented and 20% shared ownership) CIL at £50 per sq m = £2,083,150







Abnormal costs

Provision of enhanced pedestrian crossing facilities on the B5036 -

Indicative cost assumption: £220,000

Improvements of existing and development of new pedestrian/cycle routes - Indicative cost assumption: £250,000

Provision of open space and green infrastructure on site with links established to the wide countryside - Indicative cost assumption: £400,000

Secured by design – Indicative cost assumption £387,000

On site attenuation tank – Indicative cost assumption £1,500,000


Developer contributions towards the provision of infrastructure, educational services and other community services including open space as required included within s106 contributions.



Land value

Benchmark land value £963,900 per ha (£390,000 per acre) – residential


Fees



SHLAA224 Land off Gritstone Road / Pinewood Road, Matlock Residential development

Location plan


Site address

Land off Gritstone Road/ Pinewood Road, Matlock

Site size



Housing – 430 units. 30 dwellings per hectare.

Site constraints

Site is predominantly greenfield - more than 70%.



Housing Mix

Ha (net)

No units

1 bed

2 bed

3 bed

4 bed

5 bed

Total

14.3 430 15 120 151 8 8 301 Total Market





sq m

839 7875 14276 988 1313 25290 Total market sq m






6 months pre construction 6 months post construction Total construction 52 months (4 years 2 months)


430 units. Assume 4 outlets. Sale rate of 25 units per annum per outlet equating to 100 units per annum, 4 years and 4 months to delivery





Affordable housing revenues (please

Social rent – 50% of market value £1,211 per sq m Shared ownership - 70% of market value £1,657.64 per sq m

specify according to tenure)



Abnormal costs

Secure by design – Indicative cost assumption - £261,600

Provision of a link road through the development to Gritstone Road - Indicative cost assumption: £600,000

Improvements to existing and development of new pedestrian/cycle routes - Indicative cost assumption: £187,500 (749m @ £250 per m)


On site attenuation tank – Indicative cost assumption - £900,000

Gas governor – Indicative cost assumption - £75,000

Electricity substation - £150,000

Extra Over costs - £100,000

Developer contributions towards the provision of infrastructure, educational service and other community services including open space through s106 contributions.



Land value

Benchmark land value £963,900 per ha (£390,000 per acre) – residential


N/A

Fees


Download - Derbyshire Dales District Council Local Plan & Community ... Plan... · letting markets. At ... This report represents an update to the version that was produced in ... Cushman &

Top Related