Page 415 - All files for Planning Inspectorate update

Policy DP31 in the DP requires developments on sites such as this to provide 30%
affordable housing on site. The policy states that proposals 'that do not meet these
requirements will be refused unless significant clear evidence demonstrates to the
Council's satisfaction that the site cannot support the required affordable housing
from a viability and deliverability perspective. Viability should be set out in an
independent viability assessment on terms agreed by the relevant parties, including
the Council, and funded by the developer. This will involve an open book approach.'

Policy ASW15 in the AWNP has similar aims and refers to a requirement to provide
30% affordable housing unless clear financial evidence has been provided to
demonstrate why that cannot be provided.

The applicants have provided viability information with their application that seeks to
demonstrate that the scheme is not viable to provide any affordable housing on site.
This information has been independently assessed by consultants appointed by the
District Council. The results of the appraisal that has been carried out by the District
Councils consultants has indicated that based on the full revised section 106
contributions and containing 6 units for affordable rent and 3 for shared ownership
the scheme produces a small surplus of £12,394.

The applicants do not accept this conclusion. They state 'We have so far taken a
viability approach to the scheme, following your own recommendations, and our
viability report demonstrates that the scheme is unviable if affordable housing is
provided. Your consultants have argued, and primarily because they put a value to
ground rents for future leases, that 9 affordable houses should be provided on site.
We have drawn your attention to the Central Government advice that it is to remove
any financial value to ground rent in future leases and that they will be legislating via
the Leasehold Reform Act in the near future. For this reason we are of the opinion
that our case is very robust at appeal especially as the legislation will likely catch up
during the appeal process.' These comments are noted. However the Council
considers that viability guidance requires a development to be assessed as of today,
and at the time of writing ground rents are still chargeable. The Council's position is
therefore that ground rents should be included in viability assessments until new
legislation is drafted and enacted to the contrary.

The applicants have also suggested that if the Council do not accept the applicant's
viability arguments, then Vacant Building Credit should be applied to the scheme. In
2014, Government introduced a vacant building credit (VBC) which may be applied
to sites where a vacant building is brought back into lawful use, or is demolished to
be replaced by a new building. The vacant building credit reduces the requirement
for affordable housing contributions based on the amount of vacant floor space being
brought back into use or redeveloped by offering a financial credit.

In this case officers have advised the applicant that we do not consider that VBC
applies to this proposal. The site was put forward for residential development by the
land owner in early 2013 as part of the neighbourhood plan preparation and they
advised that they lease the building to EDF but that the current lease runs out in
2017/18. This would suggest that the site was made empty for the sole purposes of
redevelopment. The building has also not been empty for a continuous period of 5
years and the original application for 71 dwellings on the site offered 30% on site