Grounds of Appeal Statement - Basingstoke

21
Grounds of Appeal Statement Home Farm, Laverstoke Park Estate, Laverstoke Prepared For Kaduna Limited, IOM GB/KW/8078 August 2016

Transcript of Grounds of Appeal Statement - Basingstoke

Grounds of Appeal Statement

Home Farm, Laverstoke Park Estate, Laverstoke

Prepared For

Kaduna Limited, IOM

GB/KW/8078

August 2016

Grounds of Appeal Statement 1 Home Farm, Laverstoke Park Estate, Laverstoke

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 2

2 SITE, SITE CONTEXT AND PROPOSAL 3

SITE CONTEXT 3

PROPOSAL 4

3 PLANNING POLICY AND MAIN ISSUES 6

PLANNING POLICY 6

MAIN ISSUES 9

4 GROUNDS OF APPEAL 12

REASON FOR REFUSAL 12

THIRD PARTIES 14

S106 CONTRIBUTION 14

MERITS OF THE SCHEME 15

5 CONCLUSION 16

6 APPENDIX 17

COVERING LETTER AND VIABILITY REPORT 17

Grounds of Appeal Statement 2 Home Farm, Laverstoke Park Estate, Laverstoke

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This statement is submitted in support of an appeal by way of Planning Inquiry by Kaduna Limited (IOM), against the decision of Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council to refuse planning permission on 12th February 2016 for the conversion of agricultural buildings to 10 no. residential dwellings, including demolition, partial demolition and re-build, and small scale extensions. Creation of shared access, parking areas including car barns. Installation of a biomass boiler and associated landscaping at Home Farm, Laverstoke Park, Laverstoke, Whitchurch, Hampshire, RG28 7NT.

1.2 The development was refused for the following reason:

1. The application does not represent a sustainable form of development as it fails to provide on or off site Affordable Housing. It has not been satisfactorily demonstrated through a viability appraisal that the proposed development could not reasonably deliver on site Affordable Housing or make an off-site financial contribution towards Affordable Housing. The figures contained within the submitted viability report are not disputed, however it is considered that the report does not conclude the Affordable Housing contributions would make the development unviable. Subsequently the proposal is contrary to Saved Policy C2 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011, and the guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular paragraph 50, which seeks to create mixed and balanced communities through the provision of on or off-site Affordable Housing.

1.3 In this statement we make regular reference to the “Officer Report”. This is the Committee Report that was considered by Members of the Development Control Meeting on 10 February 2016. The main case in support of the application was submitted in the Planning Statement produced by Bell Cornwell LLP. This statement seeks to respond specifically to the reasons for refusal and the concerns raised by the Council Members of the Development Control Meeting.

1.4 A Planning Inquiry is requested because the viability figures and their interpretation will need testing by the experts in front of an Inspector.

Grounds of Appeal Statement 3 Home Farm, Laverstoke Park Estate, Laverstoke

2 SITE, SITE CONTEXT AND PROPOSAL

SITE CONTEXT

2.1 The appeal site is located within Laverstoke Park Estate, approximately 700m to the north of the villages of Laverstoke and Freefolk. The site comprises a complex of traditional 19th Century buildings (15 in total plus two modern farm buildings which are excluded from the application site). The buildings are mainly flint and brick panels with slate roofs and timber framed structures. The buildings are a mixture of single and two storeys.

2.2 The barn complex is accessed off Watch Lane which connects to the B3400 to the southwest. The B3400 is the main road running through the villages of Laverstoke and Freefolk. London Road connects the villages with Basingstoke and Whitchurch.

2.3 The complex is located to the south of three cottages (44-46 Watch Lane) and to the north of 42 Watch Lane. Approximately 480m to the north east is the Overston Rugby ground and 150m to the east is the Home Farm Gardener’s Cottage which is adjacent to a large walled garden. To the south-east is Laverstoke House (Grade II*) which is set within landscaped parkland and lakes. To the west of the site, on the opposite side of the lane, are open fields.

2.4 The site is within the countryside. All of the site is identified as being within the Laverstoke and Freefolk Conservation Area boundary. The site as a whole is located outside of, but adjoining, the Laverstoke Area of Special Landscape Quality and the Laverstoke Park Registered Garden. The Laverstoke and Freefolk Conservation Area Appraisal (2003) identifies that the buildings are ‘prominent in views across the open countryside from the south-west’. The buildings within the barn complex are not listed.

Figure 1 – Aerial image showing the appeal site location in relation to the B3400. Insert from the Laverstoke and Freefolk Conservation Area Appraisal identifying the Conservation Area,

Laverstoke Area of Special Landscape Quality and Laverstoke Park Registered Garden boundaries. Source: Google Maps and Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council website.

Grounds of Appeal Statement 4 Home Farm, Laverstoke Park Estate, Laverstoke

PROPOSAL

2.5 Planning permission was sought for the:

Conversion of agricultural buildings to 10 no. residential dwellings, including demolition, partial demolition and re-build, and small scale extensions. Creation of shared access, parking areas including car barns. Installation of a biomass boiler and associated landscaping at Home Farm, Laverstoke Park, Laverstoke, Whitchurch, Hampshire, RG28 7NT.

Figure 2 – Building labels.

2.6 The majority of the existing buildings would be retained and used. There are some small scale contemporary extensions proposed to accommodate entrance lobbies and additional living space.

2.7 The materials would consist of repaired brick and flint panels, vertical oak boarding, horizontal larch boarding, oak framing, aluminium faced wooden windows, timber doors, slate roofing and conservation rooflights.

2.8 A comprehensive landscaping scheme for the ten individual gardens and communal areas is proposed. Walls of a traditional design alongside new hedgerow and tree planting would be introduced. Two cheery trees would require removal; one adjacent to building A2 and the other adjacent to B3. To the east of building H an area of young and early mature trees including Ash, Sycamore and Norway Maple will be removed and replaced with fencing and hedgerow planting.

2.9 The existing barns would be utilised for the following:

Barn A – located on the eastern side of the site – single storey brick and flint with sheet roofing; converted into 2 no. two bed dwellings (Barns A1 and A2) with gardens located to the east of the building.

Grounds of Appeal Statement 5 Home Farm, Laverstoke Park Estate, Laverstoke

Barn B – located in the middle of the site, north of barns A, D and G – two storey brick and flint with slate roof with substantial roof damage – converted to 3 no. four bed dwellings (Barns B1, B2 and B3) with gardens located to the north on existing areas of open land. Connected to Barn D at first floor.

Barn C – located on the western side of the site immediately adjacent to Watch Lane – mainly two storey with single storey at the northern end – converted to 2 no. dwellings, one three bed (Barn 1) and one four bed (Barn C2) dwelling with garden areas to the east of building (Barn E included within curtilage of both).

Barn D – located centrally within the site, south of Barn B and attached to Barn B at first floor at northern end – northern part two storey with single storey to south, brick and flint, modern timber boarding, slate and sheet roofing – converted to 2 no. four bed dwellings (Barns D1 and D2) with garden areas to west of building adjacent to garden areas for Barns C1 and C2.

Barn E – located between Barn C and Barn D – single storey mono-pitched, brick and flint part demolished and becomes part of Barns C1 and C2 through provision of modern extension.

Barn F – attached to southern end of Barn D – single storey, brick and flint with slate roof incorporated into Barn D1.

Barn G – located between Barns A and D – single storey – poor state of repair with roof missing in part – building demolished to accommodate parking for proposed dwellings.

Barn H – located to the east of Building A – single storey, brick and flint with timber cladding – to be converted to garaging for Barn A1 and proposed biomass boiler. The biomass boiler act as a mini district heating system which would mean that the development would be heated by a zero carbon heating system.

Barn K – located to northern boundary of site – single storey, overgrown with part of the roof missing – to be converted into 1no. 2 bed unit.

Buildings I and J are not part of the planning application.

Grounds of Appeal Statement 6 Home Farm, Laverstoke Park Estate, Laverstoke

3 PLANNING POLICY AND MAIN ISSUES

PLANNING POLICY

3.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires all applications for planning permission to be determined in accordance with the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan

3.2 At the time of determination the Development Plan comprised of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011. Saved policy C2 of the 1996-2011 Local Plan stated the following:

Policy C2 – Affordable Housing

The Council will negotiate provisions of an element of affordable housing on all the housing sites above the thresholds set out below, taking into account the circumstances of each site (including the viability of development); the particular need for affordable housing in that locality and in the Borough; the practicality of delivering the affordable housing (including funding); and the achievement of other planning objectives.

The level of affordable housing provision may vary depending on the specifics of the site; however, the Council’s intended starting point for negotiations will be 40%.

Within the settlement policy boundary of Basingstoke town, the minimum threshold is 25 dwellings, or 1.0 hectare;

Within settlements of at least 3,000 population outside Basingstoke town area, the minimum threshold is 15 dwellings, or 0.5 hectare;

Within settlements with fewer than 3,000 population, the minimum threshold is 7 dwellings, or 0.2 hectare.

Planning conditions will be imposed or a legal agreement sought to ensure that the affordable housing provided remains affordable for so long as there remains a need for it.

3.3 On 26 May 2016, Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council adopted the Local Plan 2011-2029.

3.4 Saved policy C2 of the 1996 – 2011 Local Plan has been replaced by Policy CN1 of the 2011 to 2029 Local Plan. It reads:

Policy CN1 – Affordable Housing

The Council will require 40% affordable housing on all market housing sites. On-site provision will be expected for 5 or more net residential units. In exceptional circumstances off-site provision or financial contributions of equivalent value will be accepted.

Grounds of Appeal Statement 7 Home Farm, Laverstoke Park Estate, Laverstoke

Development proposals of less than 5 net residential units will be required to pay financial contributions of equivalent value towards the provision of affordable housing in the borough.

The tenure split of affordable homes will be 70% rented and 30% intermediate products.

15% of affordable homes should meet enhanced accessibility of adaptability standards to enable people to stay in their homes as their needs change.

In seeking affordable housing provision the council will have regard to the current viability of developments including land values and other development costs.

The applicant will be required to submit an open book viability assessment where schemes do not meet the above policy requirements. In such cases the council will commission an independent review of the viability study, for which the applicant will bear the cost. Such proposals will only be acceptable where the viability case is accepted by the local planning authority and the approach contributes towards creating mixed and balanced communities.

3.5 The relevant policy for determining this appeal is therefore Policy CN1 of the 2011-2029 Local Plan. Other development plan policies will be as outlined in the Local Plan adopted 2016.

National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

3.6 The National Planning Policy Framework (2012) (NPPF) is a material consideration. Paragraph 50 of the NPPF is referenced within the reason for refusal. The paragraph reads in full:

To deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, widen opportunities for home ownership and create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities, local planning authorities should:

Plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends, market trends and the needs of different groups in the community (such as, but not limited to, families with children, older people, people with disabilities, service families and people wishing to build their own homes);

Identify the size, type, tenue and range of housing that is required in particular locations, reflecting local demand; and

Where they have identified that affordable housing is needed, set policies for meeting this need on site, unless off-site provision or a financial contribution of broadly equivalent value can be robustly justified (for example to improve or make more effective use of the existing housing stock) and the agreed approach contributes to the objective of creating mixed and balanced communities. Such policies should be sufficiently flexible to take account of the changing market conditions over time.

3.7 The NPPF is clear in paragraph 173 that development should be viable and deliverable:

Grounds of Appeal Statement 8 Home Farm, Laverstoke Park Estate, Laverstoke

Pursuing sustainable development requires careful attention to viability and costs in plan-making and decision-taking. Plans should be deliverable. Therefore, the sites and the scale of development identified in the plan should not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened. To ensure viability, the costs of any requirements likely to be applied to development, such as required 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.

Planning Practice Guidance

3.8 The Planning Practice Guidance also provides further guidance on viability. Paragraph 001 reference ID: 10-001-20140306 states:

The National Planning Policy Framework policy on viability applies also to decision-taking. Decision-taking on individual schemes does not normally require an assessment of viability. However, viability can be important where planning obligations or other costs are being introduced. In these cases decisions must be underpinned by an understanding of viability, ensuring realistic decisions are made to support development and promote economic growth. Where the viability of a development is in question, local planning authorities should look to be flexible in applying policy requirements wherever possible.

3.9 It goes on to state in paragraph 016 reference ID: 10-016-20140306:

Decision-taking on individual applications does not normally require consideration of viability. However, where the delivery of the development may be compromised by the scale of planning obligations and other costs, a viability assessment may be necessary. This should be informed by the particular circumstances of the site and proposed development in question. Assessing the viability of a particular site requires more detailed analysis than at plan level.

A site is viable if the value generated by its development exceeds the costs of development it and also provides sufficient incentive for the land to come forward and the development to be undertaken.

3.10 The Planning Practice Guidance also advises on how viability of planning obligations should be considered in decision taking (Paragraph 019 reference ID: 10-019-20140306):

In making decisions, the local planning authority will need to understand the impact of planning obligations on the proposal. Where an applicant is able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the local planning authority that the planning obligation would cause the development to be unviable, the local planning authority should be flexible in seeking planning obligations.

This is particularly relevant for affordable housing contributions which are often the largest single item sought on housing developments. These contributions should not be sought without regard to individual scheme viability. The financial viability of the individual scheme should be carefully considered in line with the principles of this guidance.

Grounds of Appeal Statement 9 Home Farm, Laverstoke Park Estate, Laverstoke

Assessing viability should lead to an understanding of the scale of planning obligations which are appropriate. However, the National Planning Policy Framework is clear that where safeguards are necessary to make a particular development acceptable in planning terms, and these safeguards cannot be secured, planning permission should not be granted for unacceptable development.

3.11 Examples of safeguards are given in paragraph 176 of the NPPF. They are stated as being matters such as environmental mitigation or compensation.

3.12 On 19 May 2016 the Planning Practice Guidance was updated to reflect the order of the Court of Appeal dated 13 May 2016, which gives legal effect to the policy set out in the Written Ministerial Statement of 28 November 2014. Paragraph 031 reference ID 23b-031-20160519

There are specific circumstances where contributions for affordable housing and tariff style planning obligations (section 106 planning obligations) should not be sought from small scale and self-build development. This follows the order of the Court of Appeal dated 13 May 2016, which give legal effect to the policy set out in the Written Ministerial Statement of 28 November 2014 and should be taken into account.

These circumstances are that;

Contributions should not be sought from developments from 10-units or less, and which have a maximum combined gross floorspace of no more than 1000sqm

3.13 The ministerial statement that announced this change to the planning guidance identified that there is a disproportionate burden of developer contributions on small-scale developers. It is acknowledged that as this scheme is re-using the majority of the existing buildings to create the ten dwellings the internal gross floorspace will exceed the maximum threshold limit of 1000sqm at 1505sqm.

Other Material Guidance

3.14 There are a number of material considerations that are relevant to the determination of the application. These include:

Affordable Housing SPD;

Laverstoke and Freefolk Conservation Area Appraisal; and

Design and Sustainability SPD.

MAIN ISSUES

3.15 The planning application was considered by Basingstoke and Deane’s Development Control Committee on 10th February 2016.

3.16 The Officer Report considered by Members of the Committee recommended approval of the development. Eleven reasons for approval were given:

Grounds of Appeal Statement 10 Home Farm, Laverstoke Park Estate, Laverstoke

1. The proposal would result in the redevelopment and retention of existing rural buildings which are a non-designated heritage asset located within the Laverstoke and Freefolk Conservation Area within an alternative residential use appropriate to the character of the buildings, and as such complies with Section 12 paragraph 140 of the National Planning Policy Framework and with Saved Policies D6 (ii) and EC6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

2. The proposed development would preserve and enhance the character of the Laverstoke and Freefolk Conservation Area and as such complies with adopted policies in particular Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Saved Policy E3 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011, the Laverstoke and Freefolk Conservation Area Appraisal and Appendix 4 of the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document – the Historic Environment Conservation Areas.

3. The proposal would preserve the special architectural or historic interest of the non-designated heritage assets, and as such complies with the adopted policies and guidance, in particular Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Saved Policy E2 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

4. The development would not cause an adverse impact on highway safety and adequate parking would be provided to serve the proposed development and as such the proposal complies with Saved Policy A1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

5. The proposed development would be of an appropriate design relates to surrounding development in a sympathetic manner and as such complies with Section 3 and 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

6. The proposed development would not result in an undue loss of privacy or cause undue overlooking, overshadowing, overbearing or noise and disturbance impacts to the neighbouring properties and as such complies with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

7. The proposal would conserve the biodiversity value and nature conservation interests of the site and as such the proposal would comply with Section 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Saved Policy E7 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

8. The proposed development would not have an adverse impact on the landscape character and scenic quality of the area due to the reuse of the existing farm buildings. The proposal therefore complies National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Saved Policy E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

9. The proposal would not increase the risk of flooding at the site or on adjacent land and would not therefore accord with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012).

Grounds of Appeal Statement 11 Home Farm, Laverstoke Park Estate, Laverstoke

10. The proposed development would provide for a mix of housing and as such the proposal would comply with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012); Saved Policy C3 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 and the Council’s Housing Mix and Lifetime Mobility Standards Supplementary Planning Document.

11. Through the provision of a Section 106 agreement the development will provide adequate infrastructure to mitigate the impact of the development. The development therefore complies with Saved Policies C1 and C9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 and the Community Infrastructure Levy regulation 2010.

3.17 The viability report submitted in support of the planning application is appended to this grounds of appeal statement. In addition an updated viability report will be provided to ensure that the most up to date costs are considered when the appeal is determined.

3.18 The Officer Report identified that a section 106 agreement to the value of £78,605 would be necessary to secure off-site financial contributions towards the developments impact on:

Community facilities

Education

Playing fields

Equipped Play Provision

3.19 As stated in the S106 Contributions section of this statement we request that the Planning Inspector considers the S106 contribution requests to established whether they are necessary to mitigate the impact of the development.

Grounds of Appeal Statement 12 Home Farm, Laverstoke Park Estate, Laverstoke

4 GROUNDS OF APPEAL

REASON FOR REFUSAL

4.1 The reason for refusal is given as:

The application does not represent a sustainable form of development as it fails to provide on or off site Affordable Housing. It has not been satisfactorily demonstrated through a viability appraisal that the proposed development could not reasonably deliver on site Affordable Housing or make an off-site financial contribution towards Affordable Housing. The figures contained within the submitted viability report are not disputed, however it is considered that the report does not conclude that Affordable Housing contributions would make the development unviable. Subsequently the proposal is contrary to Saved Policy C2 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011, and the guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular paragraph 50, which seeks to create mixed and balanced communities through the provision of on or off-site Affordable Housing.

4.2 Policy CN1 of the 2011-2029 Local Plan requires 40% affordable housing to be provided on-site for schemes of 5 or more net residential units. It goes on to state that ‘In exceptional circumstances off-site provision or financial contributions of equivalent value will be accepted’.

4.3 The location of the site and the size of the dwellings proposed is not appropriate to provide on-site Affordable Housing. This was acknowledged within the Officer Report which noted that ‘The Housing Officer advises that the viable integration and subsequent delivery of four affordable homes could be extremely challenging and finding an RSL to take over and manage such units would prove difficult’. It was thereby accepted that this scheme represented an exceptional circumstance whereby on-site affordable housing was not appropriate.

4.4 The application did not offer an affordable off-site contribution. Policy CN1 of the Local Plan 2011-2029 is very clear when it states that:

‘In seeking affordable housing provision the council will have regard to the current viability of developments including land values and other development costs.

The applicant will be required to submit an open book viability assessment where schemes do not meet the above policy requirements. In such cases the council will commission an independent review of the viability study, for which the applicant will bear the cost.’

4.5 A viability report was submitted to the local planning authority prior to the determination of the planning application along with a covering letter. The viability report took into consideration all typical costs associated with a development of this nature including housing valuations, sales fees, build costs, technical specialist’s costs, survey costs, marketing and S106 costs. It did not however include a land value as the site is already within the applicant’s ownership.

Grounds of Appeal Statement 13 Home Farm, Laverstoke Park Estate, Laverstoke

4.6 The covering letter identified that there would be a potential return of around 13% and noted that this 13% is ‘significantly less than the typical 20% profit which considered reasonable for a developer to achieve’. It was noted that ‘based on these figures the site would not be attractive to a developer who would not be able to offer a land value to the owner’. The local planning authority was made aware that the Estate wishes to continue to develop the site itself to bring about the benefits set out within the planning statement. The covering letter then considered how the inclusion of affordable housing into the scheme would ‘render the project with a nil return value’ it was clearly concluded that the scheme would thereby be ‘unviable and no development of the site would occur’.

4.7 As acknowledged within the Officer Report under the heading ‘Affordable Housing’ the viability report was independently reviewed by consultant’s on behalf of the Council. The consultant’s advice informed the conclusions made within the Officer Report. That advice was not shared with the applicant.

4.8 The figures contained within the applicant’s viability report were interrogated by the local planning authority. As set out within the Officer Report, ‘the high build costs were queried with the council’s consultant’. The local planning authority were informed that the costs were because ‘the barns are mainly brick and flint, the costs of mending/rebuilding the walls would be higher. There is also the issue that the barns which have to be underpinned due to the lack of foundations; these are just some elements which add to the build costs’.

4.9 It is clearly stated in the Officer Report that the Council’s ‘consultant is therefore satisfied that the build costs identified by the applicant are realistic and reasonable’. This is further confirmed by the reason for refusal ‘…The figures contained within the submitted viability report are not disputed…’.

4.10 The Members of the Development Control Committee were provided with copies of both the applicant’s and the consultant’s viability reports to inform their decision. The applicant as stated above was not provided with a copy of the Council’s consultant’s viability report in advance of the meeting, or at the meeting and so could not check the advice being given.

4.11 Members of the Committee questioned Mrs K Wall who spoke in support of the scheme (on behalf of the applicant) about viability but without specific developer profit percentages being discussed. It was made clear by Mrs Wall that the applicant could not make the off-site affordable housing contribution offer as this would mean that the scheme could not be delivered.

4.12 It was clear the Members were looking to see whether a gesture could be made with regard to some affordable housing off-site contribution being provided.

4.13 During ‘Questions of the Officers’ at the Development Control Committee, Members were advised by Officers that a developer would as a general rule look to receive a 17.5-20% profit from a development. It was noted that “when the figures were run through for this scheme that there is a negative value for the site”. So if a developer was to come along and develop the site they would need to factor in the purchase price as well. As set out within the Officer Report the site would be ‘unattractive to potential developers’.

Grounds of Appeal Statement 14 Home Farm, Laverstoke Park Estate, Laverstoke

4.14 The Officer noted that the only way the development would come forward would be if the existing land owner developed the site and accepted a lower percentage of 13-14%. At this point the Members should have been directed to the paragraph within the Officer Report under the heading ‘Affordable Housing’ which provided a fuller explanation of why the land owner would develop the scheme for a reduced profit and that it was the intention of the land owner to develop the site:

‘Although the consultant is of the opinion that developer interest in the scheme would be exceedingly low, there would be scope for the existing landowner to develop the site, this is partly because there would be no acquisition costs because the buildings are already under his control. As such the owner may consider reducing the profits to between 13-14% which would reduce the deficit to zero. At present the buildings represent a liability and have no value in their current state, therefore a conversion with reduced profits may prove the incentive to the current owner to convert the barns’.

4.15 The Officer went on to advise members on the profit margin that had been allowed for in the overall viability assessment and stated that “20% has been allowed for”. It was noted that the scheme was at the higher end of the typical 17.5-20% developer profit however due to the risk associated with it a 20% profit was appropriate.

4.16 This latter advice from Officers potentially misled the Members of the Committee because they may have thought that if a profit of 20% was being achieved there was scope for an affordable housing gesture to be made. Whereas the applicant had demonstrated in their viability assessment that the scheme would only achieve a 13% profit on cost.

THIRD PARTIES

4.17 It is noted that there were objections from nearby residents on technical grounds. These concerns related to highways safety and access and surface water drainage.

4.18 The concerns of the local residents were not supported by Hampshire County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority, the Highway Authority or the Local Planning Authority.

S106 CONTRIBUTION

4.19 The Officer Report identified that a section 106 agreement to the value of £78,605 would be necessary to secure off-site financial contributions towards the developments impact on:

Community facilities

Education

Playing fields

Equipped Play Provision

Grounds of Appeal Statement 15 Home Farm, Laverstoke Park Estate, Laverstoke

4.20 In the Officer Report it is stated that the contributions are necessary to make the development sustainable and to address the impact that the development would have on the existing facilities.

4.21 A Unilateral Undertaking will be provided to secure the payment of the monies if the Planning Inspector is satisfied that the contributions pass the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 122 (2010) which state that an obligation must be:

(a) Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;

(b) Directly related to the development; and

(c) Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

4.22 Furthermore, the Planning Inspector must be satisfied that since the determination of the application no more than five contributions have been requested for the identified project. This is because since the 6th April the Regulations are clear in stating that only five developments can contribute towards a project. This needs testing at the time of the Public Inquiry.

MERITS OF THE SCHEME

4.23 The Laverstoke and Freefolk Conservation Area Appraisal makes reference to the cohesive group of buildings that is prominent in views across the open countryside from the south-west.

4.24 The scheme would make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area and it would not thereby compromise the existing quality of the Conservation Area. This satisfies Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. This would further enhance the setting of the adjacent Laverstoke Area of Special Landscape Quality and Laverstoke Park Registered Garden.

COST APPLICATION

4.25 Whilst it is accepted that an appellant should bear their own costs in an appeal, the Council has already agreed that the figures within the viability report are not disputed. The appellant claims that this shows that no affordable housing contribution could be offered from this development, on this site at this time. Therefore if it is found that the Council was unreasonable in refusing the application for the reason given and this resulted in an avoidable delay, then a costs claim will be made before the end of the Inquiry.

Grounds of Appeal Statement 16 Home Farm, Laverstoke Park Estate, Laverstoke

5 CONCLUSION

5.1 Any further information or evidence received from the Local Planning Authority or Third Parties will be dealt with in evidence from the applicant.

5.2 An up to date viability report will be provided to ensure accurate figures inform the Planning Inquiry.

5.3 As explained in paragraph 4.25 a cost claim will be made if the appellant considers that the Local Planning Authority acted unreasonably.

Grounds of Appeal Statement 17 Home Farm, Laverstoke Park Estate, Laverstoke

6 APPENDIX

COVERING LETTER AND VIABILITY REPORT

30 November 2015

Dear Sue Tarvit,

Conversion of agricultural buildings to 10 no. residential dwellings, including

demolition, partial demolition and re-build, and small scale extensions. Creation of

shared access, parking areas including car barns. Installation of a biomass boiler

and associated landscaping at Home Farm, Laverstoke Park, Laverstoke,

Whitchurch, RG28 7NT (15/02441/FUL).

Following receipt of the affordable housing officer’s comments on 29th September 2015 our

client has been working through the financial situation with regards to viability. Laverstoke

Estate employed MEA Consulting to analyse the drawings and prepare the Construction costs

on recommendation from the Architect Andrew Macallan. Citicentric were employed to analyse

the costs provided and to produce a financial statement.

Attached is the financial statement which sets out the build costs, other outgoings such as

S.106 requirements alongside a realistic estimate of the sales price of the dwellings. The

sales prices have been informed by working with two local valuers, Knight Frank and

Winkworth.

The headline figures are that there would be £5,134,144 in overall outgoings inc. £78,605.00

of S106 contributions and £5,805,000 in sales thereby leaving an overall potential profit of

£670,856. This would equate to a potential return of around 13%.

Laverstoke Estate is committed to bringing these dilapidated and redundant buildings back

into economic use. The cost of undertaking a high quality restoration as detailed in the

planning application is substantially higher than a more commercial development of a “new

build” requiring the demolition of the existing structures and replacement with modern homes.

This approach is consistent with the Estates long term management and investment

philosophy which will not always generate the same short term returns as those often required

by small developers.

The possible 13% return is therefore significantly less than the typical 20% profit which is

considered reasonable for a developer to achieve. Based on these figures the site would not

be attractive to a developer who would not be able to offer a land value to the owner.

However, the Estate wishes continue to develop the site itself which would bring forward the

benefits set out within the planning statement. If however they were required to pay an off-

Hook

Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council

Civic Offices

London Road

Basingstoke

Hampshire

RG21 4AH

GB/KW/6954

site affordable housing contribution it would render the project with a nil return value and

therefore unviable and no development of the site would occur.

We ask that, in line with Governments clear guidance on the need to significantly boost the

housing supply that a flexible approach is taken with regard to considering this specific case

and the benefits that the proposal would bring with the regard to reusing and rebuilding

existing barns within the Home Farm complex.

Please let us know if this information is enough to let you make a decision.

Yours Sincerely,

BELL CORNWELL

Kristina Wall

Senior Planner

[email protected]