viability, showing 30% AH viability over the cycle of LDP period. 25/02/10 Clay Farm & Multi phase Viability Land price paid is irrelevant, as is Important decision: dealing Farm, strategic res methodology. developer’s accountancy method. with viability approach, use of Shelford Rd, dev site Use of price paid Risk reflects market uncertainty and land price paid etc. SoS Cambridge for land. AH should not be the Insp decision- differed from PINS re “flex”. took account of economic cycle use of Supplementary Planning argument even though this was not Obligation to deal with delivery raised by either expert. mechanics for AH. Considers delivery a short term problem and can be ignored in this case. 26/05/10 Former Royal Viability Methodology LA argued discounts of defaults LA sought discount of build Hotel, because of house” services cost, prof fees, profit & interest “in Newbury, available to developer. Arguments cost. Insp preferred industry Gillingham rejected by insp, who preferred in the absence of “standards” HCA EAT & BCIS data. good alternative evidence. 10/03/10 Viability Land valuation Appellant argued land value as Insp reiterated the existing land Roche buildings, date & escalator purchase price to ensure delivery, value is correct approach. Broadwater mechanism and proposed escalator mechanism Developer carries risk not Road, Welwyn for commuted sum in lieu of LA. Garden City AH/s106. Insp rejected both- LA should not carry the risk. 30/06/10 West of Multi phase Viability reviews Similar arguments as Lydney. Insp Case supports the Beverley, Innsworth Lane strategic res deferred if AH did not appear to understand IRR lydney and HCA documents & North of A40, dev site amount is approach on multi-phase requirement to revisit viability in Innsworth, inadequate. developments long phased schemes Gloucester
viability, showing 30% AH viability over the cycle of LDP period. 25/02/10 Clay Farm & Farm, Shelford Rd, Cambridge Multi phase strategic res dev site Viability methodology. Use of price paid for land. Land price paid is irrelevant, as is developer’s accountancy method. Risk reflects market uncertainty and AH should not be the “flex”. Insp took account of economic cycle argument even though this was not raised by either expert. Important decision: dealing with viability approach, use of land price paid etc. SoS decision- differed from PINS re use of Supplementary Planning Obligation to deal with delivery mechanics for AH. Considers delivery a short term problem and can be ignored in this case. 26/05/10 Former Royal Hotel, Newbury, Gillingham Viability Methodology LA argued discounts of defaults because of “in house” services available to developer. Arguments rejected by insp, who preferred HCA EAT & BCIS data. LA sought discount of build cost, prof fees, profit & interest cost. Insp preferred industry “standards” in the absence of good alternative evidence. 10/03/10 Roche buildings, Broadwater Road, Welwyn Garden City Viability Land valuation date & escalator mechanism Appellant argued land value as purchase price to ensure delivery, and proposed escalator mechanism for commuted sum in lieu of AH/s106. Insp rejected both- LA should not carry the risk. Insp reiterated the existing land value is correct approach. Developer carries risk not LA. 30/06/10 West of Innsworth Lane & North of A40, Innsworth, Gloucester Multi phase strategic res dev site Viability reviews deferred if AH amount is inadequate. Similar arguments as Lydney. Insp did not appear to understand IRR approach on multi-phase developments Case supports the Beverley, lydney and HCA documents requirement to revisit viability in long phased schemes
Valuation_od_development_land_-_Workbook_1.0.docx