Taunton & S Somerset viab · Affordable Housing Site Viability Study Page ii 8. The sites were...

Taunton & South Somerset

Housing Market Areas

Strategic Housing Land

Viability Assessment

February 2009

Final Report

Execut ive Summary

Page i

Executive Summary

1. Fordham Research was commissioned by the four Councils to carry out a study of

affordable housing viability in the two Housing Market Areas (HMAs) of Taunton & South

Somerset. The viability study formed part of a wider Strategic Housing Market Assessment

for these areas. It was intended to inform ongoing work on the preparation of Local

Development Frameworks, by examining the impact on housing viability of alternative

levels of affordable housing requirement.

2. The study involved preparing financial appraisals for a number of actual (permitted or

proposed) and notional housing sites in the two HMAs. The appraisals were designed to

assess the impact on development viability of alternative requirements for affordable

housing provision. Viability would be examined for a range of sites in a variety of

development situations. A ‘modelling’ approach was taken, using bespoke spreadsheet

software.

3. In discussions the four Councils had developed a nine-category site typology. Using this

they identified a combination of twelve ‘actual’ sites together with seven notional sites

(identical to an actual site but located elsewhere), for testing. The sites ranged in size from

two to 300+ dwellings.

4. Of the actual sites, eight had been permitted and reached construction stage; three others

were permitted or otherwise resolved to permit. An application for the remaining site was

expected imminently. Reflecting the selection typology, the sites were a mixture of

greenfield, and previously developed land.

5. The twelve actual sites provided just over 800 dwellings, at densities ranging from 20 to

104 dwellings per ha.

6. All of the actual sites (except one) were subject to a comparatively recent planning

application, the details of the development proposals were used in carrying out appraisals.

For the site with no application, a schedule of proposed accommodation which had been

made available in advance was used.

7. The development proposals provide for a considerable mixture of development types and

situations. We normally find that development densities (measured in terms of sq ft per acre

or sq m per ha point to a ‘baseline’ urban density of around 15,000-15,500 sq ft per acre

(3,450-3,550 sq m per ha). In fact, three of the actual sites produce densities in this range;

three more rural/edge of town sites have densities a little below this range, and five a little

above; one site has a significantly higher, inner urban density reflecting a three storey

apartment built form.

Affordable Hous ing Si te Viab i l i ty Study

Page ii

8. The sites were tested with no affordable housing, and for options of 15%, 30%, and 45%

affordable housing. In each case the affordable housing was assumed to be a combination

of social rented and intermediate housing; options for a 60/40 split and 80/20 split were

both tested. The intermediate housing was expected to achieve the target outgoings for

intermediate housing being proposed in the parallel SHMA study.

9. The affordable housing was to be provided on the basis of zero Social Housing Grant.

Advice was sought from Councils’ partner RSLs about appropriate selling prices with zero

grant. We also considered appropriate levels for the total cost of other planning gain

contributions which might apply for each of the sites, using a combination of the actual

contributions secured or sought - where available - and an assessment of what might be

sought today. As an alternative to this approach we also considered a tariff type approach,

with the overall figure being set at two levels of £13,000 and £20,000 per dwelling

respectively.

10. The local market for residential development was examined. There is a fair supply of

newbuild housing across the area as a whole. Prices vary quite widely within the area,

being highest in some of the smaller towns and villages, and lowest in all or parts of the

main towns. Prices in the most expensive areas are more than half again of those in the

cheapest. Taking into account current selling prices on schemes across the Market Area,

we determined price levels for flats and houses on each site.

11. We also looked at evidence in respect of land values for appropriate alternative uses for the

sites.

12. We considered assumptions in respect of development costs and the other financial and

site assumptions required to carry out appraisals. Abnormal costs were expected to arise

on several sites. Appropriate assumptions to determine the building programme for each

site were determined.

13. Appraisals for each site were produced in respect of all of the affordable options. They used

a bespoke spreadsheet based financial analysis package. The approach was to determine

the residual land value, i.e. what value the site would have after taking into account the

costs of development, the likely income from sales and/or rents, and an appropriate amount

of developer’s profit. In order for the proposed development to be viable, the residual value

must exceed the value from a valid alternative use.

14. The appraisals showed that with no requirement for affordable housing, the sites delivered

land values between about £100k and £1.2 m per acre (£250k-£3.0m per ha). These

results were somewhat below what VOA published data and information on locally available

small plots suggested local values for ‘oven ready’ land would be. The appraisals are

therefore felt much more likely to present a ‘worst case’ than to be unduly optimistic.

Execut ive Summary

Page iii

15. As increasing amounts of affordable housing are introduced, the land value falls away.

About half of the sites still achieved a positive land value with the highest requirement of

45% affordable housing. However on some sites, those with highest densities, land value

falls away much more quickly as the affordable contribution increases. On such sites the

land value, the main source of the affordable contribution, is a much lower proportion of the

scheme’s total cost. Since land value is the main means of providing ‘developer subsidy,’

this means that it cannot go as far on high density schemes as with a low density

development.

16. Whether each individual option produces a viable outcome will depend on the land value

from alternative uses. For the identified sites the alternative use was normally either

industrial, agricultural or garden land. Of these, industrial use was assumed to have the

highest alternative use value, ranging from £285k per acre (£600k per ha) in the three

larger towns down to £175k per acre (£430k per ha) in the two smaller settlements where it

applied. Agricultural use was the least valuable at £25k per ha/£10k per acre. Unused

garden land was assumed to be worth £100k per acre (£250k per ha). One site, a former

car park, was assumed to have a comparatively high existing use value of £300k per acre

(£750k per ha).

17. This information, adjusted for any abnormal development costs that would still arise in the

alternative use, was used to deduce whether the individual sites were viable at different

levels of affordable housing provision. The results showed that one notional site was

unviable even with 100% market housing. Of the 19 sites i.e. including the latter, 13 could

produce 15% affordable housing and remain viable, plus two which were classed as

marginal because although there was a surplus over alternative use value, this did not

provide a sufficient ‘cushion’ to bring the site forward. At 30% this and two additional sites

became unviable, and one more became marginal. By 45%, only four sites remained viable

(plus four marginals).

18. Alternative appraisals were prepared assuming developer contributions at £13k and £20k

per dwelling. The greater financial burden these imposed impacted on viability, particularly

for the smaller sites; with the lower rate only six sites were fully viable at 30% affordable,

falling to five for the higher rate.

19. Councils will need to consider these findings carefully in formulating policy targets in

emerging Local Development Documents. Their impact is considered further in Chapter 29

of the main SHMA study, where practical proposals for appropriate targets are set out.

20. Stakeholders contributed to the production of the study, and their contribution was

invaluable. There were disagreements in some areas and where this was so, we have

endeavoured to highlight the issue. A key area of disagreement was with how much

account should be taken of the costs of bringing land forward for development, which under

the former Local Plan system could at times be quite considerable.


Page iv

Table of Con tents

Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... i

List of abbreviations ........................................................................................................ iii

Preamble ............................................................................................................................1

1. Introduction....................................................................................................................3

National guidance ....................................................................................................................................... 3

Housing market downturn........................................................................................................................... 4

Fordham Research ..................................................................................................................................... 5

Structure of this report ................................................................................................................................ 5

2. Individual development sites........................................................................................7

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 7

Two market areas ....................................................................................................................................... 7

Identifying a range of sites.......................................................................................................................... 7

The actual sites........................................................................................................................................... 9

Development assumptions ....................................................................................................................... 11

3. Affordable housing and other developer contributions...........................................13

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 13

Affordable housing assumptions............................................................................................................... 13

Other developer contributions................................................................................................................... 17

4. Local market conditions .............................................................................................19

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 19

Issues to consider ..................................................................................................................................... 19

The residential market .............................................................................................................................. 20

Price assumptions for financial appraisals ............................................................................................... 23

Land values............................................................................................................................................... 24

Current and alternative use values ........................................................................................................... 26

5. Assumptions for viability analysis.............................................................................31

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 31

Development costs ................................................................................................................................... 31

Financial and other appraisal assumptions .............................................................................................. 35

Site acquisition and disposal costs ........................................................................................................... 37

Alternative use value comparison............................................................................................................. 38


Page ii

6. Results of viability analysis........................................................................................39

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 39

Financial appraisal approach and assumptions ....................................................................................... 39

Appraisal results: ...................................................................................................................................... 39

Alternative use benchmarks ..................................................................................................................... 41

Comparison results ................................................................................................................................... 45

Community Infrastructure Levy................................................................................................................. 47

7. Implications of results.................................................................................................49

Our approach ............................................................................................................................................ 49

Implications of appraisal results................................................................................................................ 50

Individual Council areas: guidance ........................................................................................................... 52

Appendices ......................................................................................................................53

Appendix 1. Newbuild schemes .....................................................................................55

Appendix 2. House price variations...............................................................................59

Appendix 3. Additional appraisals : 35% target............................................................63

Appendix 4. Variant appraisals : community infrastructure levy ................................65

Appendix 5. Financial appraisal summaries .................................................................69

Lis t o f abbrev ia t ions

Page i i i

List of abbreviations

£ k thousand pounds

£ m million pounds

dw dwelling

dwgs dwellings

ft foot

ha hectare

m metre

Q1 Quarter 1

sq square

Preamble

Page 1

Preamble

1. It is a requirement of Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) that a target is set for the proportion

of affordable housing to be delivered through new developments. This target should reflect not

only the need for affordable housing but also the impact on the viability of new development of

including affordable housing. This study responds to that requirement. It uses a methodological

approach which is easily ‘updatable’, allowing the targets to be periodically revisited and

reviewed.

2. This work is part of a wider study, Strategic Housing Market Assessments (SHMAs) for the two

housing market areas of Taunton & South Somerset. The SHMAs will now provide input into

ongoing work on preparation of Local Development Frameworks for each of the Districts.

3. Based on an assessment of the balance between the need for market housing and the need for

affordable housing, the SHMAs found the levels of need suggested targets for the amounts of

affordable housing to be provided in new projects of around 35% in the South Somerset

Housing Market Area (HMA) and 40% in the Taunton HMA. However, these targets do not take

account of the commercial factors of what it is viable and realistic for developers to be asked to

provide. The 35% and 40% targets are the correct targets to balance the overall housing

market over time – but may not be the appropriate targets now.

4. The purpose of this viability study is to enable the councils to set robust targets for affordable

housing policy which reflect current commercial circumstances. It is important to note that the

actual amount of affordable housing to be achieved on any specific site must be assessed for

that actual site, and will take into the particular factors of developing that site at that point of the

economic cycle. Any such assessment will not only take into account the normal costs of

developing that site (including on one hand S106 and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

payments and on the other the availability of grants and subsidies), but also the abnormal costs

(such as off-site highways works etc).

5. The availability and cost of land is at the core of the viability of any development of new

houses. The fact that a developer has ‘over paid’ for a site will not excuse them from providing

affordable housing – and likewise the fact that they have underpaid will not require him to

provide more. It has been recognised by stakeholders that in the current development and

planning regime the cost of meeting S106 requirements and the provision of affordable housing

is a factor in development appraisals and does impact on land values.

Taunton & South Somerset Af fordable Hous ing Si te Viab i l i ty Study

Page 2

6. This study is to inform the setting the current target in a robust way. Since the work was first

commissioned, it has become clear that the targets which are set in Local Development

Frameworks (LDFs) will need to be reviewed regularly to reflect changes in the general viability

of development. The housing market has declined markedly since early 2008, and continues to

do so, which makes it absolutely essential that the findings are regularly reviewed. At the

conclusion of the study the financial software package is to be made available to the four

Councils, with training. This will enable the study results to be reviewed and updated regularly,

in house, so as to ensure ongoing support for the emerging and eventual plan policies.

7. We would like to take this opportunity to thank all the stakeholders that have contributed to this

report (and the SHMA process generally). During the preparation of this report a wide range of

views were expressed. The contribution of all stakeholders, especially the house builders has

been invaluable. Where agreement was not reached on substantive points we have made a

judgement, and highlighted the various views expressed. Agreement was reached on all points

other than around that of land prices used in the viability study where differences remain over

how much account should be taken of the costs of promoting, assembling and bringing land

forward for development. It has not been possible to reach agreement on several substantive

matters affecting viability and in these cases the text of this report represents the Fordham

Research’s considered opinion. We have identified these areas of disagreement in the text of

the report.

8. Part of the reason for the diversity of views in this area is due to the change from the old local

plan system to the new Local Development Framework system. We acknowledge that in the

past the business of promoting land through the local plan system could often be protracted

and expensive. The new LDF system is less complicated, and whilst the costs of land

assembly will remain, the costs – and therefore the risks – of promoting will be substantially

less. We have taken the view that it is correct to base this study on the LDF system rather than

the historic local plan system. Several land promoters in the Partnership expressed the view

that this assumption had yet to be proved. They pointed out that all previous changes to the

Planning System, ostensibly made with the intention of speeding the process and reducing

costs for applicants, had actually had the opposite effect, and they contend that there is no

basis for the assumption made.

1. In t roduct ion

Page 3

1. Introduction

1.1 Fordham Research was commissioned by the four Councils in April 2008, to produce

guidance on the financial viability implications of alternative targets and size thresholds for

affordable housing provision within the combined area. This study is structured so as to be

easily updatable so to allow the targets to be periodically revised.

1.2 This work formed part of a wider study, Strategic Housing Market Assessments (SHMAs)

for the two housing market areas of Taunton & South Somerset. The SHMAs were being

carried out in parallel, to develop an understanding of local housing markets in this sub-

region, to build a picture of housing needs and requirements, and to suggest appropriate

targets for housing provision based on this analysis. The SHMAs will provide input into

ongoing work on preparation of Local Development Frameworks for each of the Districts.

1.3 The viability study will ensure that advice on targets in the main SHMAs are supported by

rigorous analysis showing that the targets can be achieved without undermining site

viability and imperilling the delivery of housing provision overall. Like the main study, it is

being produced with the benefit of involvement from stakeholders.

1.4 This study is to inform the setting the current target in a robust way. This target will need to

be reviewed regularly to reflect changes in the profitability of development. The housing

market has declined markedly during the period of this study – and continues to do so, it is

therefore essential that the findings are regularly reviewed.

National guidance

1.5 Guidance on affordable housing policy issues is now provided by PPS3.

1.6 Whilst from 2000 onwards the earlier guidance, Planning Policy Guidance 3 (PPG3),

recognised the need to take into account the economics of development when setting

affordable housing targets and negotiating contributions from developers, PPS3 further

reinforces this message. It suggests that Local Development Documents (LDDs) should set

an overall target for the amount of affordable housing to be provided, which should:

‘&.reflect an assessment of the likely economic viability of land for housing within the area,

taking account of the risks to delivery and drawing on informed assessments of the likely

levels of finance available for affordable housing, including public subsidy and the level of

developer contribution that can reasonably be secured.’ (S29)


Page 4

1.7 LDDs should also set out the range of circumstances in which affordable housing will be

required. The national indicative minimum size threshold is to be 15 dwellings However,

Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) may:

‘&set lower minimum thresholds, where viable and practicable, including in rural areas.

This could include setting different proportions of affordable housing to be sought for a

series of site-size thresholds over the plan area. LPAs will need to undertake an informed

assessment of the economic viability of any thresholds and proportions of affordable

housing proposed&.’ (S29)

1.8 The analysis in the present study is designed to be consistent with the above requirements.

However it also needs to address the particular implications of the dramatic downturn in the

housing market that set in from early 2008.

Housing market downturn

1.9 The normal approach in a viability study of this kind is to prepare financial appraisals for a

range of sites representative of development in the area as a whole, testing varying

alternative levels of affordable housing provision. The work would involve deciding what

form of development would be expected on each site; as is conventional with such

appraisals, they would use current figures for build costs and house prices, making

sensible assumptions about other developer contributions(‘planning gain’), and a variety of

other technical matters.

1.10 By the spring of 2008 it had become clear that the onset of a ‘credit crunch’, which

emerged during the previous autumn, had triggered a serious downturn in the housing

market. A severe reduction in the availability of mortgages led to a reduction in prices,

which have impacted in turn on purchaser confidence. At the time of calculating the

information for this report, July 2008, it has become clear that, after a very long interval in

historical terms, during which house prices have been rising almost continuously, we have

now entered a period of adjustment. A similar adjustment was precipitated in the early 90s,

after rapid price rises in the period 1986-89. During that previous adjustment house prices

fell back considerably over a number of years. However at that time significant economic

problems, and historically high interest rates, contributed to the need for a very substantial

price adjustment.

1.11 The trigger for the present conditions within the housing market lay outside the housing

market. The underlying demand/supply relationship remains, with an increasing need for

more homes due to demographic changes, so it is more than likely that growth will return to

the market at some time in the future. As and when that will be, and to what extent, are not

a matter for this study. As prices appear still to be falling, and it is not possible to

determine where or when they might stabilise, a study based on today’s prices only, is

going to be of limited use and will require regular review.

1. In t roduct ion

Page 5

1.12 We have considered whether the proposed study approach should be modified to take

account of this unusual situation. Clearly, continued and regular monitoring of the

development situation will be required. Fortunately, the existing agreed arrangement to

pass the appraisal software to the Councils at the end of the study will conveniently provide

for this to happen. However, it will be necessary to subject appraisals to price sensitivity

tests, and to frame policy advice from an appropriate starting point in price terms.

Fordham Research

1.13 Fordham Research has been providing advice to Councils in respect of planning gain and

development viability since the late 1980s. The firm’s approach throughout this time has

involved the preparation of financial appraisals. Over the last few years in particular,

Councils have increasingly commissioned the firm to evaluate financial appraisals which

have been prepared by developers in order to support a case for a reduced affordable

housing contribution, for enabling development, and so on.

1.14 Since 1993 Fordham Research has become a leading consultancy in carrying out Housing

Needs Surveys (and more recently the more wide ranging Strategic Housing Market

Assessments that have largely replaced them) and advising Councils on affordable housing

policy issues. Since that time we have assisted Councils on very many occasions by

providing expert witness services at Local Plan and S78 Inquiries, in order to successfully

support housing need and affordable housing policies. Particularly in recent years, this has

regularly included evidence in respect of viability issues.

Structure of this report

1.15 The remainder of the report covers the following topics:

Chapter 2 - The individual development sites

Chapter 3 - Affordable housing and developer contributions assumptions

Chapter 4 - Local market conditions

Chapter 5 - Assumptions for viability analysis

Chapter 6 - Results of viability analysis

Chapter 7 - Implications of viability results


Page 6

2. Ind iv idual development s i tes

Page 7

2. Individual development sites

Introduction

2.1 This Section deals with the sites identified for study, first outlining the key characteristics of

each site, and then considering the assumptions made about proposed development upon

each site for the purpose of producing a financial appraisal.

2.2 The individual sites chosen were visited at an early stage in the work.

Two market areas

2.3 The four Councils together provide an area of some diversity, geographically as well as in

terms of market conditions. The South Somerset area comprises a range of substantial

settlements, much the largest centre at Yeovil, spread across an area of undulating

topography with many attractive villages. The three other districts look to a principal centre

at Taunton, but there are other sizeable centres at Bridgwater, Burnham/Highbridge, and

Minehead. Much of Sedgemoor is flat fen country, though hills border it east and northward,

and the town of Cheddar lies within the boundary.

2.4 The areas of attractive landscape and/or building character, and access to the coast, mean

that many parts of both HMAs are popular with incoming households, particularly those

moving to retire or those anticipating future retirement. There are therefore areas of high

house prices and housing pressures, whilst in other areas, less attractive or with less

favourable local economic circumstances, prices are a little less.

2.5 In order for the present study to address development viability across the combined

Councils’ area it will need to deal with the variety of built form and density that is currently

to be found.

Identifying a range of sites

2.6 It was decided at an early stage that the study should consider a combination of actual and

notional sites in order to provide the most useful guidance across the two housing market

areas. In discussion with the steering group, it was decided that a total of 19 sites would be

required, comprising a total of twelve actual sites, and seven notional sites, the notional

sites being developments identical to one of the actual sites, but theoretically transposed to

an alternative location.


Page 8

2.7 The site selection process involved a typology with nine categories of site, giving a

minimum of eighteen sites (nine actual, nine notional) in total to cover the two HMAs. In

practice twelve ‘actual’ sites were chosen, doubling up actual sites in three of the

categories. Two of these pairings were split across the two HMAs, removing the need for

the corresponding notional, but the third was not, requiring an additional notional in the

other HMA.

2.8 The typology categories were developed by the Councils in discussion, before the study

formally commenced. They were designed to cover the range of development

circumstances that required testing, and accordingly focused on larger and smaller centres,

where viability was anticipated to be more marginal than in the villages and rural areas,

where prices tend to be higher. The twelve ‘actual’ sites were selected in discussion from a

larger initial shortlist of sites. The typology is set out below.

Table 2.1 Site selection typology

No Description No of dwgs

1 Large greenfield site in town 75+

2 Large previously developed site in town 75+

3 Medium greenfield site in town 25-74

4 Medium previously developed site in town 25-74

5 Medium greenfield site in small market town 25-74

6 Medium previously developed site in small market town 25-74

7 Small greenfield site 4-15

8 Small previously developed site 4-15

9 Very small site 1-4

Source: Strategic Housing Viability Study

2.9 The twelve actual sites chosen to represent this typology are set out below, with the nine

notionals added for completeness. The twelve range in size from two to circa 350

dwellings, although in reflecting the local development situation ten of the twelve contain

fewer than 60 dwellings. All the sites were envisaged as wholly residential.


Page 9

Table 2.2 Site selection typology

S Somerset HMA Taunton HMA Ref

no Location No

dwgs Location

No

dwgs LA

1 1A - Deanesley Way,

Wincanton 212 (1N) (212)

2 (2N) (350) 2A Gerber Factory, Bridgwater 350 SDC

3 3A – Touches, Chard 24 (3N) (24)

4A - 2 Priory Ave Taunton 24 TDBC 4 (4N) (24/48)

4B - Clanville Grange Minehead 48 WSC

5 5A - St Michael’s Gdns South

Petherton 55 5B - Haddons Field Stogursey 59 WSC

6 (6N) (32) 6A - Kings Yard Bishops Lydeard 32 TDBC

7 (7N) (11) 7A - Dabinett Cl Norton Fitzwarren 11 TDBC

8 (8N) (10) 8A - Opposite rail station Bridgwater 10 SDC

9 9A - Ilchester Rd Yeovil 2 9B - Pittacre House Bridgwater 2 SDC


2.10 Appropriate shadow locations for the nine ‘notional’ sites were selected. These were as

follows:

Table 2.3 Notional sites – locations

South Somerset HMA Taunton HMA

1N North Taunton

2N Eastern Yeovil

3N Bridgwater

4N Chard

6N Castle Cary

7N Langport

8N Yeovil


2.11 Site 4N could of course be based on two alternative models, sites 4A or 4B; after

discussion it was agreed that site 4B (Clanville Grange Minehead) was the preferred

model.

The actual sites

2.12 Summary details of the twelve actual sites identified by the Councils are set out in the table

below. The sites were at various stages in the planning process, though a clear majority,

eight, had reached construction stage; three of these were now completed. Three were

subject to planning applications which were to some degree resolved to permit, whilst for

one, the largest site, an application was imminently awaited.


Page 10

2.13 Information available from the various planning applications was clearly important in

considering the appropriate development forms to use in our appraisals. However we would

normally also take into account other recent schemes currently being developed, in

formulating development assumptions.

2.14 The table below shows both total site area, and for those sites including an open space or

similar non-residential component, the net residential area. The overall density using this

latter measure, is 46.1 dwellings per ha; two sites are at densities significantly above this

figure. One site with a density below 30 dw/ha, comprises bungalows on a particularly

awkwardly shaped and accessed plot. The rest are broadly within the range 30-50 dw/ha.

2.15 The sites accommodate just over 800 dwellings in total.

Table 2.4 Actual site details

Area ha Density Site

no Site

gross net Dw net

(dw/ha)

Planning status

1A Deanesley Way, Wincanton 7.23 4.83 212 43.9 Permission rescinded,

application

2A Gerber Factory, Bridgwater 6.00 NA 330 55.0 Application imminent

3A Touches, Chard 0.60 NA 24 40.0 Under construction

4A 2 Priory Ave Taunton 0.23 NA 24 104.3 Completed all occupied

4B Clanville Grange Minehead 1.33 0.89 48 53.9 Completed

5A St Michael’s Gdns S Petherton 1.70 NA 55 32.4 Under construction

5B Haddons Field Stogursey 3.23 1.95 59 30.3 Under construction

6A Kings Yard Bishops Lydeard 0.66 NA 32 48.5 Outline approved, reserved

matters minded to approve

7A Dabinett Cl N Fitzwarren 0.33 NA 11 33.3 Completed all occupied

8A Opp rail station Bridgwater 0.14 NA 10 71.4 Appln - minded to approve

9A Ilchester Rd Yeovil 0.10 NA 2 20.0 Under construction

9B Pittacre House Bridgwater 0.04 NA 2 50.0 Under construction

Total 21.6 17.5 809 46.1


2.16 The sites were chosen so as to test development viability fully, in a variety of situations

across the area. Reflecting the chosen selection typology they include both urban and more

suburban locations and a mixture of greenfield and previously developed land. The

previously developed uses include manufacturing (2A), garage (4A), car parking (4B),

repair of HGVs & machinery (6A), and unused residential garden land (9A/9B). The site at

8A is vacant land whose previous use was not fully clear.


Page 11

Development assumptions

2.17 The Strategic Housing Land Viability Assessment has not considered within its site

typology strategic housing urban extension sites (typically in excess of 500 dwellings). Past

experience in South Somerset indicates that for the South Somerset sub-regional Housing

Market Area such sites would merit specific consideration in relation to abnormal promotion

costs that are usually incurred in the light of their size, complexity and nature.

2.18 In arriving at appropriate assumptions for residential development on each site, the

development form in an approved planning application would always be an important

consideration. All but one of the sites are in fact subject to an application which has been

approved or is likely to be approved subject to specific matters, (though it is possible that

one or two of the applications are now relatively historic and that an application today might

look slightly different, to reflect emerging market patterns).

2.19 For the one site without an application, 2A Gerber Factory, we have considered the

Development Brief and also a proposed accommodation schedule which was provided in

anticipation of the formal application.

2.20 In general, the details accord with our experience from a wide variety of development

situations in other parts of the country. In recent years, as development proposals have

engaged with the various implications of PPG3, but aided by rising land values, a common

development format has emerged for significant sized sites located within urban areas and

increasingly also in smaller centres.

2.21 This format provides for a majority of houses (with perhaps 15-30% flats) in a mixture of

two storey and two and a half to three storey form, with some rectangular emphasis to the

layout. It generates a floorspace density of around 15,000-15,500 sq ft per acre (3,550 sq

m/ha) on a substantial or sensibly shaped smaller site. Typical dwelling density would be

40-45 dwellings per ha.

2.22 Alongside this, of course, in appropriate, more urban locations - and indeed sometimes

elsewhere - there have been large numbers of higher density schemes providing largely or

wholly apartments, in blocks of three storeys and often rather higher. These provide

floorspace density from around 30,000 sq ft per acre (6,900 sq m/ha) upwards, at densities

of 100 dw/ha plus.

2.23 A development form which is somewhat more intensified or urban than the baseline, with

more flats or a stronger emphasis otherwise on three storey units might produce densities

of around 19,000 or so sq ft per acre (4,350 sq m/ha).


Page 12

2.24 On the other hand, of course, there are situations where, for planning reasons, in rural or

edge of settlement locations perhaps, schemes with densities below the baseline density

will come forward. Typically this situation might give a density of 12,500 sq ft per acre

(2,875 sq m/ha).Very small or awkwardly shaped sites might also make it difficult to

achieve fully the baseline density figure.

2.25 As suggested, the built form details for the twelve sites broadly fit with these observations,

as the table below indicates.

Table 2.5 Typology of development form

Category Ref Location net sq

ft/acre

net

sq m/ha

Dwgs

per ha

Rural/town 5B Stogursey 11,700 2,670 30

edge 5A South Petherton 12,200 2,800 32

9A Ilchester Rd Yeovil 12,650 2,900 20

Base 7A Norton Fitzwarren 14,700 3,375 33

9B Pittacre Ho B’water 14,800 3,400 50

3A Chard 14,850 3,410 40

Urban 4B Minehead 16,700 3,840 54

1A Wincanton 17,750 4,075 44

2A Gerber B’water 18,550 4,260 55

6A Bishops Lydeard 21,250 4,880 48

8A Station B’water 21,950 5,040 71

High 4A Taunton 38,700 8,900 104


2.26 The table shows three sites in the baseline category. There are three in the lower density

more rural group, and five in the higher density more urban group. Two of these are only a

little above the baseline:

• The Wincanton scheme is perhaps borderline, a broadly baseline mix which

benefits from a linear form designed to address the sloping nature of this large,

edge of town site.

• At Clanville Grange, the very steeply sloping site constrains the achievement of a

density to fully match the type mix.

2.27 There is one site, comprising wholly flats or coach houses, in the higher density category.

The Ilchester Rd site, being very small, awkwardly shaped and comprising two bungalows

might otherwise have been expected to make the baseline density.

2.28 The table is also felt to demonstrate quite well the comparatively loose relationship

between floorspace and dwelling density, reflecting variations in the average dwelling size.

3. Af fordable hous ing and other developer contr ibut ions

Page 13

3. Affordable housing and other developer

contributions

Introduction

3.1 This Section considers the assumptions used to test a range of affordable housing

scenarios for the individual sites, and similarly the developer contributions assumed for

each site.

Affordable housing assumptions

3.2 We undertook appraisals for a number of development scenarios which involved varying

proportions of affordable housing, and tenure split. The assumptions in respect of

proportions, and the financial terms on which they are to be provided, are considered

below.

3.3 The approach to seeking affordable housing will inevitably vary in detail between individual

Councils, reflecting its historical evolution, local choices and circumstances, and so on.

However, in order to reduce the appraisal work (and results) to a manageable task, a single

common approach was assumed to apply across the whole of the study area, and for all

sites. The use of a common approach is consistent with the overview perspective provided

in a SHMA. The differences in approach are not very great, and it is not felt that the use of

a common approach will undermine the validity of the appraisal results.

(i) Affordable proportions

3.4 Following discussions with the Councils we tested the following options1:

• NO affordable housing

• 15% affordable

• 30% affordable

• 45% affordable

1 Note that following the testing of these options, the Taunton & South Somerset Housing Market Partnership requested

that the Draft Regional Spatial Strategy proposed delivery of 35% affordable housing was subsequently tested; the

results are set out at Appendix 3.


Page 14

3.5 The four Councils currently operate policies seeking varying affordable housing

proportions, some site specific, but all lying broadly between 20% and 35%. However

higher proportions might be proposed in emerging Local Development Framework

Documents, though this will be subject to the ongoing SHMA work and more specifically will

be informed by the results of the present study.

(ii) Tenure split

3.6 We understand that all the Councils currently seek a balance of social rented and

intermediate housing. After discussion and consideration, all the affordable target options

were tested with two tenure split scenarios; the first a 60/40 split between social rented and

intermediate housing, and the second at 80/20.

3.7 In principle intermediate tenure could constitute a wide range of different housing

propositions, reflecting variations in individual Councils’ current policies and approaches.

However the Strategic Housing Market Assessment, proceeding a little in advance of the

viability study, has provided guidance on appropriate outgoings for affordable intermediate

housing and it would be sensible to follow these. They are set out in Tables 9.5 to 9.8 of the

SHMA Report, but for convenience are summarised below.

Table 3.1 Table of target outgoings for intermediate housing

Weekly outgoings £ as at May 2008

South Somerset Sedgemoor West Somerset Taunton Deane

1 bed 71 75 76 76

2 bed 95 86 95 96

3 bed 106 104 113 116

4 bed 118 125 132 132

Source: Taunton and South Somerset SHMA Report

3.8 After consideration, it was decided to consider two options; firstly intermediate rent housing

set to achieve the guidance outgoings for each Council area, and secondly shared

ownership on a corresponding basis.

(iii) Size profile

3.9 In practice the four Councils would be expected to seek a range of preferred bedroom

profiles for affordable housing provision, and the emerging SHMA will provide further

guidance. It was not practical in a study of this nature to address the requirements in detail,

with a limited number of sites in each District.


Page 15

3.10 Instead, it was agreed that we should assume that the mix of affordable housing on each

site should broadly follow the market housing, achieving an average dwelling size (i.e. net

sq ft) in line with that of the market housing. This assumption also ensures that as the

affordable housing proportion varies between the options being tested, the floorspace

density remains constant - a desirable aim if the appraisals are to constitute a realistic

development scenario, consistently, across the options.

(iv) Financial terms

3.11 The financial terms on which a developer would make affordable dwellings he has

constructed available to an RSL will depend critically on the availability of public subsidy, as

acknowledged in PPS3 s29 (quoted above at 1.7). Where the availability of grant support is

expected to be quite limited it is common for appraisals to be prepared assuming zero

availability for Social Housing Grant (SHG) such an approach assumes that such grant as

is available, is to be used to support particular initiatives, strategic aims, and sites with

particular problems - or to support a more stringent mix where this was justified by local

considerations.

3.12 The zero grant assumption has become a common starting point or default position for

exercises of this kind, though it is by no means a universal one. It has the further

advantage that grant requirements can more easily be calculated from a zero grant starting

point than one which already assumes some level of grant. After discussion this approach

was the one adopted for the study.

3.13 It was necessary to seek advice from the Councils’ partner RSLs about the terms on which

properties of various sizes, would be purchased from the developer in order to achieve the

‘zero grant’ scenario. We sought information from ten Associations in respect of social

rented housing, and intermediate housing. As discussed above prices were sought on two

bases: intermediate rented housing to match the SHMA target outgoings guidance; and for

25% and 50% shared ownership, provided at rent levels of 2% on the unsold equity. To

assist with this, indicative guideline Open Market Values (OMVs) were provided for each

dwelling size.

3.14 Four of the RSLs (Knightstone, Magna, Raglan and South Somerset Homes) provided

figures in time for inclusion in our work. Not all RSLs were able to provide figures for every

option for every Council area; nevertheless a reasonable degree of coverage was

achieved. The figures show some variations in estimated ‘offer prices’ for affordable

dwellings on the basis described above, though they are not particularly great. Such

variations could, in practice, result from a number of factors, including the individual

organisation’s assumed level of contribution to the development from reserves. Given the

pattern of the RSL data it was felt reasonable to take an average from the figures provided

in each case.


Page 16

3.15 The question of which of the alternative bases for intermediate housing to use was

considered. Information had been provided for intermediate rent designed to meet the

SHMA guidance outgoings, and for shared ownership at 25% & 50% share, with rent

limited to 2%.

3.16 From the information provided it appeared that the 25% shared ownership option would

achieve the target outgoings for the smaller dwellings, but exceed it slightly for the larger

units. However we had more reliable data for shared ownership than for intermediate rent,

where only two RSLs provided responses. Even so, the purchase price ‘offer’ was not

greatly different between the options; the intermediate rent price was slightly higher for the

smaller units and a little lower for the larger units. Accordingly we took an average for the

two, halfway for the smaller units, but for the larger units, weighted somewhat more

towards the lower intermediate offer.

3.17 This process led to estimated for overall £ per sq ft prices for flats and houses in the four

Council areas under zero SHG as shown in Table 3.2. The figures for social rented homes

vary between Districts whilst those for intermediate housing apply throughout.

Table 3.2 Selling prices: zero grant basis

£ per sq ft (sq m)

Sedgemoor South

Somerset

Taunton

Deane

West

Somerset

Social rented Flat 73 75 75 77

House 65.5 68 68 70

Flat (785) (807) (807) (829)

House (705) (732) (732) (753)

Intermediate rent Flat 106 106 106 106

House 96 96 96 96

Flat (1,141) (1,141) (1,141) (1,141)

House (1,033) (1,033) (1,033) (1,033)

Source: data from RSLs


Page 17

Other developer contributions

3.18 Aside from affordable housing, developer contributions could potentially be sought by the

District and County Councils under a number of headings and these need to be taken into

account. As with affordable housing, each District has in practice its own policies, protocol

and arrangements for determining the nature and hence cost of any developer

contributions - although the County elements should in principle be common. The four

individual approaches are also evolving, over time and with the emerging option of a

Community Infrastructure Levy. What was actually sought or secured on the ‘actual’ sites in

the past is therefore, though helpful, not a completely sound guide to what contributions

should be assumed if the sites were to be developed in say a few months from the present

time.

3.19 In fact, carrying out the detailed assessment required to assess impact and determine the

appropriate contribution for each of the sites was beyond the scope of the study.

Furthermore, since the ‘notional’ sites had only broad indicative locations this would not in

any case deliver meaningful results for them. We obtained varying amounts of information

from each Council on what they would seek currently from the site. The information we

received was incorporated into a ‘modelling’ approach to arrive at a view of the total £ per

dwelling cost of contributions. In doing this we relied, in part only, on the firm’s considerable

experience over a number of years from assessing developer contributions requirements

for Councils in respect of major residential projects.

3.20 The results are set out below. The main areas where contributions arise are Open space &

Recreation for the District, and for the County, Education & Transport where an appropriate

impact would arise. As dwellings numbers decline and thresholds come into play,

contributions for the latter drop out, reducing the overall total £ per dwelling figures

appreciably. The figures are designed to be broadly consistent across the Housing Market

Area, with the figures for South Somerset, in a separate HMA from the other three, set

higher to reflect the contributions now to be sought from a newly emerging Planning

Obligations Calculator produced by the Council.


Page 18

Table 3.3 Developer contributions base scenario

Size group Ref Location No

dwgs

£ per

dwelling

100 dwgs + 2A Gerber Bridgwater 330 £8,000

2N (Yeovil East) 330 £9,500

1A Wincanton 212 £4,500

1N (North Taunton) 212 £8,000

50-99 dwgs 5B Stogursey 59 £6,000

5A South Petherton 55 £6,300

25-49 dwgs 4B Minehead 44 £4,500

4N (Chard) 44 £6,000

6A Bishops Lydeard 32 £3,300

6N (Castle Cary) 32 £5,500

10-24 dwgs 4A Taunton 24 £3,000

3A Chard 24 £4,500

3N (Bridgwater) 24 £3,000

7A Norton Fitzwarren 11 £3,000

7N (Langport) 11 £4,500

8A Station Bridgwater 10 £2,000

8N (Yeovil) 10 £4,000

Under 10 dwgs 9B Pittacre Ho Bridgwater 2 £2,000

9A Yeovil 2 £4,000


3.21 The figures set out above should not be regarded as in any sense definitive. They are

simply a way of arriving at a plausible £ per dwelling scenario, using a combination of

known information and judgement. The figures cannot be assumed to constitute the

contributions that would arise in practice. These will depend on the current (or historic)

policies and approach of each Council, and indeed on the outcome of the negotiation

process.

3.22 Proposals to reflect the emerging Community Infrastructure Levy initiative are at various

stages across the four Councils, and indeed detailed proposals for a Taunton Deane

Infrastructure Tariff have been published. Looking at the figures in the table, it is clear that

generally speaking tariff proposals are likely to place an appreciably heavier burden on

viability, particularly for the smaller sites since they will apply universally. Nevertheless we

were asked to prepare appraisals with alternative contributions options, with figures at

£13,000 and £20,000 per dwelling, in lieu of the S106 costs identified in Table 3.3.

4. Local market condi t ions

Page 19

4. Local market conditions

Introduction

4.1 This Section sets out an assessment of the local housing market in the four Districts,

providing a basis for the assumptions on house prices and costs to be used in financial

appraisals for the 19 sites tested in the study.

4.2 As well as house prices, however, land values are also considered. They are required in

order to form a view of likely alternative use values for all of the sites, and it is such values

that will represent a minimum viability threshold when appraisals are prepared for the range

of affordable housing scenarios.

4.3 Before looking at the results from the market assessments, there are some general points

arising from the nature of the exercise.

Issues to consider

4.4 It is necessary to assess property market conditions in the study area in order to provide a

reasonable guide as to likely values to use in evaluating different development proposals.

4.5 Although development schemes do have similarities, every scheme is unique to some

degree, even schemes on neighbouring sites. While market conditions in general will

broadly reflect a combination of national economic circumstances and local supply/demand

factors, even within a town there will be particular localities, and ultimately site specific

factors, that generate different values and costs. There are indeed quite significant value

variations in different parts of the study area.

4.6 Property market forces are in a constant state of flux and assessments of viability can

change over relatively short periods of time, in response to broader economic fluctuations

such as the impact of changes in interest rates on the costs of borrowing. Equally

significant, sub-area market conditions are often changed by local factors.

4.7 Most crucially, as previously discussed at 1.11 onwards, we have now clearly entered a

period of downwards price adjustment. This resulted from external financial issues which

severely constrained the supply of mortgage finance, although the resulting price falls have

adversely affected the attractiveness of house purchase.


Page 20

The residential market

4.8 The housing market across the four Districts, to some extent, reflects national trends but

there are local factors that underpin the market including;

• A predominantly rural area containing many attractive settlements and individual

buildings of great character, popular with incoming households.

• A considerable length of coastline, providing a variety of opportunities and

environments, but also meaning that several larger settlements in particular are

either in need of, or undergoing regeneration in response to the reduction in holiday

and water related activity.

• Major employment centres at Taunton and Yeovil, generating housing demand in

the immediately adjoining rural areas

• A number of attractive smaller centres

• Rolling topography, some more dramatic, over much of the two Market Areas,

creating tourist potential and interest, including part of a National Park (Exmoor) and

three Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) (Mendips, Quantock and

Blackdown Hills)

• A flatter area of low lying historic fenland to the north and centred on Bridgwater,

with consequent flooding issues

• Good transportation - westward into the peninsula and north east to Bristol and the

Midlands, or towards London – for localities close to the M5 motorway and to some

degree the A303. Comparative remoteness in and around Exmoor.

4.9 We analysed various sources of market information but the most relevant are the prices of

units on new developments. A list setting out details of some relevant new developments in

the area, as at July 2008, is provided in Appendix 1.

4.10 Analysis of these, and other schemes in the study area, shows that prices for newbuild

homes vary quite widely across the area, ranging between approximately £160 and £300

per square foot (£1,720 - £3,225 per square metre). This is the range for individual

properties; averaged over the complete scheme the degree of variation will of course be

somewhat less than this. However it is clear that the price per sq ft will vary considerably

between the 19 sites in the study. (As in other parts of the country, the smaller units and

apartments in particular show a price premium per square foot compared to larger houses).

4.11 Land Registry data confirms that there are significant variations in house prices across the

area. Table 4.1 shows average prices for the four Council areas. It suggests that, on

average, prices are appreciably higher in West Somerset than in the other three areas.

These are all broadly similar, except that prices for detached homes are at something of a

premium in South Somerset & Taunton Deane, whilst Taunton Deane also shows a

premium for flats compared to the other two.


Page 21

4.12 Although the Land Registry data covers both second-hand and newbuild prices, the former

will predominate. The average prices in the table are compared to a corresponding England

& Wales figure and expressed as indices.

Table 4.1 Average house prices by Council area Q4 2007

Ave price (£k & % index) Area

Detached Semi Terrace Flat

Sedgemoor £k £301.3 £183.0 £154.2 £126.0

Index 97% 97% 96% 92%

South Somerset £k £347.1 £180.8 £156.9 £120.2

Index 111% 96% 98% 87%

Taunton Deane £k £350.6 £189.1 £153.2 £147.6

Index 113% 100% 96% 107%

West Somerset £k £419.7 £215.1 £159.0 £158.9

Index 135% 114% 99% 116%

Source: Land Registry data.

Index compares LA’s figure to the median LA value across England & Wales for house type.

4.13 However it is also clear that within a Council area there can be considerable variations in

price, larger than those between Councils. Land Registry house price data at postcode

sector level helps to illuminate these variations. Because the number of sales in individual

postcode areas in a single quarter can be quite small, we looked at information for two

separate quarters (Q2 2007 & Q4 2007). The data has been expressed as an index – as a

percentage of the nationwide average postcode price level - and standardised, to allow for

variations in type mix.


Page 22

Fig 4.1 Postcode price indices

Source: Land Registry data.

4.14 Appendix 2 provides a worked example of the index calculation, and sets out the resulting

price index figures for the two quarters examined. It can be seen that variations between

the two quarters’ indices are in many cases relatively slight. They are greater for rural areas

and town centres, which are mostly numerically smaller and more diverse, than for urban

areas generally, where postcode sectors are larger numerically and can often be more

uniform.

4.15 The figures show quite clearly that the lowest prices, between about 80% and 95% of

national average, are concentrated in the main towns – Bridgwater, Yeovil and Taunton - or

in Burnham/Highbridge, and Chard. (Yeovil and Bridgwater are wholly in this group, except

for the west of Bridgwater; Taunton however has several higher priced sectors). The

highest prices relate closely to the areas of attractive landscape – Exmoor, the Quantocks,

Mendips & Blackdown Hills.

4.16 The majority of the postcodes, including most rural areas but also some of the smaller

towns, have prices above the national average. In the most expensive areas prices are as

much as 50% higher than the national average. Among the locations for our sites

Stogursey, Bishops Lydeard, South Petherton and Minehead all have prices well above

average.


Page 23

4.17 Looking at the map in Figure 4.1, it is clear that areas of higher and lower prices are quite

well distributed across the area as a whole. Three of the four districts contain a good

mixture of higher, middle, and lower prices; it is because West Somerset has no significant

lower priced urban areas that its overall average price is higher than the other three.

Price assumptions for financial appraisals

4.18 It is necessary to form a view about the appropriate prices for the 19 individual schemes to

be appraised in the study. The information suggests that there will be significant variations

in selling prices across the area. However on the whole the sites are mostly in towns, or

otherwise locations of low to medium price level. This is a sensible approach as the areas

of highest prices have mainly been avoided.

4.19 It is also clear that we must allow for differences between apartments and houses,

particularly in locations where flats are going to be attractive. Finally, in drawing on the

newbuild price data we have to bear in mind that the prices at which homes are offered can

sometimes include appreciable discounts, such as deposit paid for first time purchasers, or

stamp duty. Discounts can be particularly significant at the very end of the scheme’s life

when only one or two units are left unsold; however such ‘bargains’ cannot form a basis for

selling prices across the whole scheme .

4.20 Taking these points into consideration we arrived at a set of sale prices for flats and for

houses on each of the 19 sites. The two were then combined on the basis of the

proportions of flats and houses in each scheme, to produce a single composite average

price. The resulting figures are set out in Table 4.2 below.

Table 4.2 Price bands

Price £ per Price £ per Site/location

Sq ft Sq m Site/location

Sq ft Sq m

1A Wincanton 207 2,230 1N Taunton N 200 2,147

2A Bridgwater W 206 2,217 2N Yeovil E 190 2,039

3A Chard 190 2,044 3N Bridgwater N 195 2,098

4A Taunton C 225 2,421 4B Minehead 238 2,559

4N Chard 196 2,113 191 2,044

5A S Petherton 230 2,475 5B Stogursey 216 2,322

6A Bishops Lydeard 241 2,589 6N Castle Cary 211 2,269

7A Norton Fitzwarren 190 2,044 7N Langport 210 2,260

8A Bridgwater E 195 2,098 8N Yeovil 185 1,991

9A Yeovil NE 240 2,582 9B Bridgwater E 185 1,991



Page 24

4.21 The figures cover a range from £185 per sq ft in Yeovil, to approx £240 in Minehead &

Bishops Lydeard. This is somewhat less than the spread of prices we saw in the Land

Registry data for second-hand prices, but partly reflects the sites’ concentration in the lower

to medium priced locations. It should be emphasised that the figures are intended to be

relatively realistic selling prices, and should not include major discounts.

4.22 It is necessary to consider whether the presence of affordable housing would have a

discernible impact on sales prices. In fact affordable housing will be present on many of the

sites whose selling prices have informed our analysis. Our view is that in any case any

impact can and should be minimised through an appropriate quality design solution.

Land values

4.23 In considering land values we have not only looked at the evidence of transactions in the

market but have also considered how developers source land. Developers do buy land that

has the benefit of planning consent and is ready for development (and the requirements for

S106 contributions and affordable housing are known and reflected in the price) but much

land that is also brought forward that has been promoted through the planning system –

historically often over many years and at significant expense to the developer or land

owner. There is an allowance for this cost in the Fees heading (see 5.19) but it would

certainly not cover every case which has been brought to our attention. Depending on

where a site is in the planning process we must also recognise that it may have developed

an amount of ‘Hope Value’ – at least in the eyes of the owner.

4.24 The availability and cost of land is at the core of the viability of any development of new

houses. The fact that a developer has over paid for a site will not excuse them from

providing affordable housing – and likewise the fact that they have underpaid will not

require them to provide more. It has been recognised by stakeholders (including builders

and developers) that in the current development and planning regime the cost of meeting

S106 requirements and delivering an amount of affordable housing is a factor in

development appraisals and does impact on land values.

4.25 The land price element of a viability appraisal has caused much debate. This study does

not try to set land values – that will always be a private matter between buyers and sellers

and is not a matter for the planning authority. This study does not attempt to predict when

a landowner may sell the land, if at all, as all land owners have very different

circumstances. It may be for example that in circumstances such as at present, in the

current economic climate, some landowners (particularly the long term holders of land such

as farmers and estate owners) will decide not to sell land for the time being. That being

said, the value of land can only be assessed for a study of this type by reference to the

prevailing planning framework. The provision of affordable housing and other requirements

under S106 are a reality of planning, and do impact on the value of land.


Page 25

4.26 In our consideration around what a landowner may or may not accept the promoters of land

raised the ‘cost’ of taxation. The sale of land is subject to Capital Gains Tax. We have

wrestled with how to deal with this however the circumstances of individual owners is so

very different that we have not made specific reference to it. We do however acknowledge

that promoters of strategic land are likely to have substantial tax bills following very large

sales of land and farmers and long term landowners lesser bills.

4.27 We firmly believe that the notion of the open market value of land with planning consent for

housing, but no requirement for affordable housing or any of the other factors that may be

introduced under S106 has no direct relevance; if landowners have an expectation of

receiving values that do not reflect the provision of affordable housing and other legitimate

contributions, that view should be regarded as naïve and misguided.

4.28 We have considered general figures from the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) relating to

residential land values. Land values vary dramatically depending upon the development

characteristics (size and nature of the site, density permitted etc.) and any affordable or

other development contribution.

4.29 The VOA figures for residential land published in the Property Market Report cover the

South West Region as a whole, and major towns like Taunton and Exeter.

4.30 These values can only provide broad guidance because it is possible that they incorporate,

to some degree, allowances for developer contributions and/or affordable housing

requirements. They can therefore be only indicative, and it may be that values for ‘oven

ready’ land with no affordable provision or other contribution, or servicing requirement, are

in fact a little higher. We would highlight that these figures are somewhat historic and do

not truly reflect the current downturn.

Table 4.3 Residential Land Values

Land Value £m per acre (hectare) Area

Small sites Bulk sites Land for apartments

South West Region £1.31m

(£3.25m)

£1.14m

(£2.80m)

£1.50m

(£3.71m)

Taunton £1.21m

(£3.00m)

£1.13m

(£2.75m)

£1.42m

(£3.50m)

Exeter £1.62m

(£4.00m)

£1.21m

(£3.00m)

£1.62m

(£4.00m)

Bristol £1.50m

(£3.70m)

£1.21m

(£3.00m)

£1.62m

(£4.00m)

Source: VOA Property Market Report Jan 2008


Page 26

4.31 Values in Taunton are fairly close to the average for the region, though the value premium

for flatted schemes is smaller; by comparison, the major cities show a substantial premium

for apartment land – and also for small sites. These values will take no real account of the

changes to the national housing market since the beginning of the year. It is also difficult to

assess how much provision is made in the reported values, for affordable housing or for

other developer contributions. It is therefore necessary to seek information about values

from residential land currently on sale in the Borough.

4.32 An examination of small land plots currently available – in mostly rural locations - points in

the main to values in the range of about £800-1,250k per acre (£1,975-2,965k per ha) for

oven ready land. This does suggest that the VOA figures might be a little high, and are not

particularly heavily discounted.

Current and alternative use values

4.33 In order to assess development viability the appropriate starting point must be an analysis

is of current and alternative use values. Current use values refer to the value of the land in

its current use, for example, as agricultural land. Alternative use values refer to any

potential use for the site. For example, a brownfield site may have an alternative use as

industrial land.

4.34 We would recognise that for some greenfield sites and occasionally otherwise, depending

on where a site is in the planning process it may have developed an amount of ‘Hope

Value’ – at least in the eyes of the owner. This is a matter which must be taken into

account in due course. However current and alternative use value has to be the starting

point.

4.35 To assess viability, the value of the land for the particular residential scheme adopted

needs to be compared to the alternative use value, to determine if there is another use

which would derive more revenue for the landowner. If the assessed value does not exceed

the alternative use value, then the development is not viable.

4.36 For the purpose of the present study, it is necessary to take a comparatively simplistic

approach to determining the alternative use value. In practice a wide range of

considerations could influence the precise value that should apply in each case, and at the

end of extensive analysis the outcome might still be contentious.

4.37 Our ‘model’ approach is outlined below for the twelve actual sites (but would apply to the

corresponding notionals):

i) For five sites previously in agricultural use, then agricultural land represents the

existing use value.


Page 27

ii) Where the development is on former industrial or similar land, then the alternative

use value is considered to be industrial. An average value of industrial land for the

area is therefore adopted as the alternative use value for three sites.

iii) One site was previously in use as a public car park convenient for the main retail

centre at Minehead (site 4B).

iv) The remaining sites are on unused garden land, or land otherwise adjoining a

residential use. Whilst such land is going to have previously developed status, it is

unlikely that an alternative use other than residential would be available. In practice

the value is a matter for individual negotiation.

4.38 The VOA’s typical industrial land values for the region and nearby towns are set out in the

table below.

Table 4.4 Industrial Land Values

Land Value per acre (hectare) Area

Low High Typical

South West Region £120k (£300k) £565k (£1,400k) £1,119k(£305k)

Yeovil £190k (£475k) £375k (£925k) £285k (£700k)

Exeter £285k (£700k) £385k (£950k) £345k (£850k)

Bristol £310k (£770k) £461k (£1,140k) £385k (£955k)

Source: VOA Property Market Report July 2007

4.39 The South West Region as a whole shows a considerable range of values. However the

region includes some major centres together with other places which are relatively remote,

and where values are accordingly quite low. The figures from Yeovil point to typical land

values for industrial and warehousing land, of around £285k per acre. Figures for the big

centres such as Exeter and Bristol are somewhat higher. In practice it is likely that whilst

values of £285K might be obtained in Yeovil and possibly Taunton and Bridgwater, with

reasonable access to the motorway network, values would be somewhat lower in the

smaller towns and the rural hinterland.

4.40 We have found very limited evidence of values in the area, and in the absence of such

information we would accept the £285k figure for the three major settlements.

4.41 Outside these settlements the value is assumed to fall away quite appreciably. We have

assumed a figure of £175k for the sites in Castle Cary and Bishops Lydeard, and suspect

that a figure for Minehead would be lower still, perhaps £150 per acre.

4.42 Agricultural values have risen lately, after a long period of stability. They are around £15-

25k per hectare depending upon the specific use. A benchmark of £10k per acre (£25k per

ha) is assumed to apply here.


Page 28

4.43 Three sites are constructed on former garden land or similar. Such land does have

previously developed status, although in the vast majority of cases it is unlikely that an

alternative use other than residential would be acceptable. For the purpose of the present

exercise we will assume a value of £100k per acre (£250k per ha) as an appropriate

threshold figure for this category.

4.44 One site does not fall fully into the categories described above; the Clanville Grange site at

Minehead was constructed on a former public car park adjoining a retail centre. It is

reasonable to suggest that it might have a value somewhat higher than the industrial

benchmark, and we have assumed a figure of £300k per acre.

4.45 The value basis for each individual site that results from the foregoing analysis is

summarised in the table below.

Table 4.5 Alternative Use Value bases

Agricultural Industrial Garden land Unique

1A, 1N 2A, 2N 8A, 8N 4B, 4N

3A, 3N 4A 9A

5A 6A, 6N 9N

5B

7A, 7N


4.46 It was noted earlier that some of the brownfield sites may face ‘abnormal costs’ if they are

to be redeveloped for residential use. Some of those costs, but not necessarily all, might

also arise if the site were redeveloped for industrial use. The alternative use value would

need to be reduced to allow for those costs that would still arise in that situation.

4.47 When considering land values it is interesting to consider the prices being received by land

owners in relation to Rural Exception Sites. Policies exist whereby planning consent can be

granted for schemes of 100% affordable housing on land that would not normally be

granted planning consent for housing. There are examples of land owners “gifting” land for

such purposes but on the whole they expect some form of payment. A year ago prices for

such sites varied between £5,000 to £15,000 per unit - £100k to £200k per acre perhaps.

More recently these prices have dropped markedly, and are now very much around the

bottom of this range. Several of the land promoters on the Housing Partnership argued

that this level of value could be used as a base value for land in the viability appraisal.

Whilst this view is understandable any land price which was normally conditional upon the

availability of Social Housing Grant does not, in our opinion, provide sound evidence of a

‘market price’ for affordable housing land.


Page 29

4.48 The costs arising from development/redevelopment of the 19 sites are considered in the

next Section, along with the other financial and technical assumptions required to prepare

financial appraisals for each of the sites.


Page 30

5. Assumpt ions for v iab i l i ty analys is

Page 31

5. Assumptions for viability analysis

Introduction

5.1 This Section considers the costs and other assumptions required to produce financial

appraisals for the 12 actual and seven notional sites.

Development costs

(i) Construction costs

5.2 Drawing upon our own experience, and taking into account published Building Cost

Information Service (BCIS) data, we have developed a set of base per sq ft construction

costs for different built forms of residential development. The costs are specific to different

built forms (flats v houses; number of storeys). Reflecting the practice with BCIS, these

costs include prelims, but do not allow for externals, which are considered immediately

below, or contingency. Floor area is measured as gross internal area.

5.3 On the basis of these cost figures, it is possible to draw up appropriate cost levels for

constructing market housing in Somerset at a base date of Q2 2008.

5.4 The question arises as to what extent the Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) should

impact on build costs in the study. Whilst from April 2008 the Code’s Level 3 will be a

requirement for all homes commissioned by RSLs, that would not necessarily be the case

for affordable homes built by developers for disposal to an RSL. However, guidance

emerging from Government after the study commenced has indicated that Level 3 will

apply to all newbuild housing (i.e. will be incorporated in Building Regulations) from 2010,

with higher levels intended to be triggered from 2013 onwards. On this basis it seems

appropriate for the present study to assume that Level 3 applies to both market and

affordable housing on the sites being appraised.

5.5 Guidance on the impact of Level 3 is available from a Report commissioned by the Housing

Corporation & English Partnerships (A Code For Sustainable Development, 2007) in

respect of the impact of Level 3 on construction costs. This Report estimates (Table S2) the

increase in costs arising for different house types under various scenarios. On average,

current build costs would need to increase by 4.2% to achieve Level 3.

5.6 Adjusting the calculated cost figures by this 4.2% premium, we drew up appropriate cost

levels for constructing market housing for the various built forms in the study, taking into

account the mix of house types on each. These are set out in the table below.


Page 32

Table 5.1 Construction costs: market housing

Build cost £ per Build cost £ per Site/location

sq ft sq m Site/location

sq ft sq m

1A Wincanton 84.67 911 1N Taunton N 84.67 911

2A Bridgwater W 87.72 944 2N Yeovil E 87.72 944

3A Chard 81.43 876 3N Bridgwater N 81.43 876

4A Taunton C 99.02 1,065 4B Minehead 94.17 1,013

4N Chard 94.17 1,013 78.80 2,044

5A S Petherton 81.84 881 5B Stogursey 82.85 892

6A Bishops Lydeard 85.70 922 6N Castle Cary 85.70 922

7A Norton Fitzwarren 81.43 876 7N Langport 81.43 876

8A Bridgwater E 85.09 916 8N Yeovil 85.09 916

9A Yeovil NE 81.43 876 9B Bridgwater E 81.43 876

Source: Fordham Research derived from analysis of BCIS cost data

5.7 Since the mid-1990s, planning guidance on affordable housing has been based on a view

that construction costs were appreciably higher for smaller sites, with the consequence

that, as site size declined, an unchanging affordable percentage requirement would

eventually render the development uneconomic. Hence the need for a ‘site size threshold’,

below which the requirement would not be sought.

5.8 It is not clear to us that this view is completely justified. Whilst, other things held equal,

build costs would increase for smaller sites, other things are not normally equal, and there

are other factors which may offset the increase. The nature of the development will change.

The nature of the developer will also change, as small local firms with lower central

overheads replace the regional and national house builders. Furthermore, very small sites

may be able to secure a ‘non estate’ price premium, which we have not allowed for.

5.9 Even so, five of the sites (four actual and one notional) in our study are of 11 dwellings or

less, and it is necessary to make some allowance for the economics of the smallest sites in

preparing financial appraisals. Cost premiums have therefore been estimated for these very

small sites, and are shown below.

Table 5.2 Cost adjustments for small sites

Site size 11 dwgs 10 dwgs 2 dwgs

Build cost premium (+4%) (+5%) (+20%)

Source: Fordham Research


Page 33

5.10 The procurement route for affordable housing is assumed to be through construction by the

developer, and disposal to an RSL on completion. In the past, when considering the build

cost of affordable housing provided through this route, we have taken the view that it

should be possible to make a small saving on the market housing cost figure, on the basis

that one might expect the affordable housing to be built to a slightly different specification

than market housing. However standards for RSL properties have been tightened and with

the adoption of Design & Quality Standards it is no longer appropriate to assume a reduced

build cost.

5.11 Taking all the above into account, we arrived at build costs for all - market and affordable –

housing constructed to CSH Level 3, which after rounding were as set out in the table

below.

Table 5.3 Construction costs adjusted and rounded: all housing

Build cost £ per Build cost £ per Site/location

sq ft sq m Site/location

sq ft sq m

1A Wincanton 84.50 911 1N Taunton N 84.50 911

2A Bridgwater W 87.50 944 2N Yeovil E 87.50 944

3A Chard 81.50 876 3N Bridgwater N 81.50 876

4A Taunton C 99.00 1,065 4B Minehead 94.00 1,013

4N Chard 94.00 1,013

5A S Petherton 82.00 881 5B Stogursey 83.00 892

6A Bishops Lydeard 85.50 922 6N Castle Cary 85.50 922

7A Norton Fitzwarren 84.50 911 7N Langport 84.50 911

8A Bridgwater E 89.50 961 8N Yeovil 89.50 961

9A Yeovil NE 97.50 1,051 9B Bridgwater E 97.50 1,051

Source: Fordham Research derived from analysis of BCIS cost data

(ii) Other normal development costs

5.12 In addition to the per sq ft build cost figures described above, allowance needs to be made

for a range of infrastructure costs – roads, drainage and services within the site; parking,

footpaths, landscaping and other external costs; off site costs for drainage and other

services, and so on. Many of these items will depend on individual site circumstances, and

can only properly be estimated following a detailed assessment of each site. This is not

practical within the present study, and would require at least a design/layout for each site.

5.13 Nevertheless, it is possible to generalise. Drawing on experience from individual schemes it

is possible to determine an allowance related to total build costs. This is normally lower for

higher density than for lower density schemes, since there is a smaller area of external

works, and services can be used more efficiently. Large greenfield sites are also more

likely to require substantial expenditure on bringing mains services to the site.


Page 34

5.14 In the light of these considerations we have developed a scale of allowances ranging from

20% of build costs for the largest greenfield type site, the major urban extension at

Wincanton, down to 10% for the smallest two dwelling sites. The table below sets out the

individual site assumptions.

Table 5.3 Development cost allowances

Site/location % of build costs Site/location % of build costs

1A Wincanton 20% 1N Taunton N 20%

2A Bridgwater W 17.5% 2N Yeovil E 17.5%

3A Chard 13% 3N Bridgwater N 13%

4A Taunton C 11% 4B Minehead 12%

4N Chard 12%

5A S Petherton 16% 5B Stogursey 16%

6A Bishops Lydeard 13% 6N Castle Cary 13%

7A Norton Fitzwarren 12% 7N Langport 12%

8A Bridgwater E 10% 8N Yeovil 10%

9A Yeovil NE 10% 9B Bridgwater E 10%


(iii) Abnormal development costs

5.15 In some cases where the site involves redevelopment of land which was previously

developed, there is the potential for abnormal costs to be incurred. Abnormal development

costs might include demolition of substantial existing structures; piling or flood prevention

measures at waterside locations; remediation of any land contamination; remodelling of

land levels, and so on.

5.16 The majority of the sites are on previously developed land. On several sites, based upon

the information made available to us, and also the site visits, it appears that exceptional or

abnormal development costs would need to be taken into account in preparing appraisals.

As pointed out in the previous Section (4.44) some abnormal costs would also arise in the

event of the site’s redevelopment with an alternative use.

5.17 The schedule below sets out the abnormal costs considered to apply in each case where

they arise.


Page 35

Table 5.5 Abnormal development costs

Residential Industrial No Site Item

Cost £k Cost £k £k per acre

1A Wincanton Sloping ground £250k n/app -

2A Gerber Possible contamination,

large scale demolition £250k £150k £10k

4A County Garage Previous garage uses £150k £50k £90k

4B Clanville Grange Steep slope £200k n/app -

6A Bishops Lydeard Contamination £75k £50k £30k


5.18 The table also shows where applicable the adjustment needed to ensure that an alternative

land value reflects the costs incurred in developing an alternative use.

(iii) Fees

5.19 We have assumed professional fees amount to 10% of build costs. This would include all

the costs associated with submitting a planning consent, preparing working drawings and

supervising the build – but not necessarily all of the historic costs of promoting sites

through the local plan process, in every case. Fees on infrastructure works use a lower

figure of 8%.

(iv) Contingency

5.20 For previously undeveloped and otherwise straightforward sites, we would normally allow a

contingency of 2.5%, with a higher figure of 5% on more risky types of development,

previously developed land and central locations. We used 2.5% on the undeveloped sites

5% where the land was previously developed and an intermediate rate on the Bridgwater

site whose previous use was unclear.

Financial and other appraisal assumptions

(i) VAT

5.21 For simplicity it has been assumed throughout that either VAT does not arise, or its effect

can be ignored.

(ii) Interest rate

5.22 Our appraisals assume 7.5% pa (Minimum Lending Rate April 2008 plus 2.5%) for interest

on both outgoings and receipts. The latter would in practice only arise for a short period at

the end of the scheme.


Page 36

(iii) Developers profit

5.23 We normally assume that the developer requires a return of 20% on Total Costs (or 16.7%

of the Net Development Value) to reflect the risk of undertaking the development. That

assumes that the costs are estimates of costs, as they are indeed here intended to be,

rather than contract prices which would include a profit element.

5.24 However, where a guaranteed sale applies, the developer’s profit margin ought to be

reduced, in order to reflect the reduction in risk. The affordable units will be sold at an

agreed price and programme. With a range of affordable provision being tested, it was felt

appropriate to reflect the resulting variations in risk with variations in the developer’s profit.

Consequently a sliding scale of profit margins was used, as shown below. It should be

noted that residential developers commonly use a more conservative profit margin of 15%

on income, which equates to about 17.5% on costs.

Table 5.6 Profit margins

% affordable Profit % on costs

0% 20%

15% 19.25%

30% 18.5%

45% 17.75%


(iv) Void

5.25 On a scheme comprising mainly individual houses, one would normally assume only a

nominal void period, as the housing would not be progressed if there was no demand. In

the case of apartments in large blocks, this flexibility is reduced. Whilst these may provide

scope for early marketing, the ability to tailor construction pace to market demand is more

limited. For the purpose of the present study a three month void period is assumed for all

sites.

(v) Phasing and timetable

5.26 The appraisals are assumed to have been prepared using prices and costs at a base date

of May 2008, with an immediate start on site. A pre-construction period of six months is

assumed for most sites but it is extended to nine months to allow adequately for site

clearance and preparation work on the Gerber Foods site. Dwellings are built over a 12

month period.

5.27 The phasing programme for an individual site will reflect market take-up, and would in

practice be carefully estimated taking into account the site characteristics and, in particular,

size and the expected level of market demand. We have developed a suite of modelled

assumptions to reflect site size and development type, as set out in Table 5.7 below.


Page 37

Table 5.7 Market pace assumptions

Site No of dwgs Ceiling level of

completions per qtr

2A Gerber site Bridgwater 320 14

1A Deanesly Way Wincanton 212 12

5B Stogursey 59 10

5A South Petherton 55 10

4B Clanville Gr Minehead 44 8

6A Kings Yd Bishops Lydeard 32 7

4A County Garage Taunton 24 12

4B Touches Chard 24 5

7A Dabinetts Cl Norton Fitzwarren 11 3

8A opp rail station Bridgwater 10 3

9A Ilchester Rd Yeovil 2 2

9B Pittacre Ho Bridgwater 2 2


Site acquisition and disposal costs

(i) Site holding costs and receipts

5.28 Each site is assumed to proceed immediately and so, other than interest on the site cost

during construction, there is no allowance for holding costs, or indeed income, arising from

ownership of the site.

(ii) Acquisition costs

5.29 Acquisition costs include stamp duty at 4% on site values of £0.5 million and above

(reduced below this level), together with an allowance of 2.75% for acquisition agents’ and

legal fees.

(iii) Disposal costs

5.30 For the market housing, sales/promotion and legal fees are assumed to amount to some

3.5% of receipts, i.e. allowing for a relatively modest amount of discounting and

promotional activity. For disposals of affordable housing these figures can be reduced

significantly as sales costs for this housing should not normally arise: we have assumed

total allowances of 0.5% for social rented housing.


Page 38

Alternative use value comparison

5.31 In the previous chapter we identified alternative use values to be used as benchmarks in

determining viability for each site. As we saw above, these values would need to be

adjusted in some cases to allow for abnormal costs that would arise if the alternative use

were implemented. The values in Chapter 4 are adjusted to net off these abnormals in the

table below.

Table 5.8 Alternative use value figures

Alternative use value £k per acre

No Site Item Gross

Abnormal

cost adj

Net of

abnormals

1A Wincanton Agricultural £10k - £10k

1N Taunton North Agricultural £10k - £10k

2A Bridgwater W Industrial £285k £10k £275k

2N Yeovil E Industrial £285k £10k £275k

3A Chard Agricultural £10k - £10k

3N Bridgwater E Agricultural £10k - £10k

4A Taunton C Industrial £285k £90k £195k

4B Minehead Unique £300k - £300k

4N Chard Unique £300k £300k

5A S Petherton Agricultural £10k - £10k

5B Stogursey Agricultural £10k - £10k

6A Bishops Lydeard Industrial £175k £30k £145k

6N Castle Cary Industrial £175k £30k £145k

7A Norton Fitzwarren Agricultural £10k - £10k

7N Langport Agricultural £10k - £10k

8A Bridgwater E Garden land £100k - £100k

8N Yeovil Garden land £100k - £100k

9A Yeovil NE Garden land £100k - £100k

9B Bridgwater E Garden land £100k - £100k


6. Resul ts o f v iab i l i ty analys is

Page 39

6. Results of viability analysis

Introduction

6.1 This Section considers the results of financial appraisals carried out for the identified sites.

Financial appraisal approach and assumptions

6.2 Using the assumptions set out in Section 5, we prepared financial appraisals for each of the

identified sites, using a bespoke spreadsheet-based financial analysis package.

6.3 The appraisals use the residual valuation approach – that is, they are designed to assess

the value of the site after taking into account the costs of development, the likely income

from sales and/or rents, and an appropriate amount of developer’s profit. The resulting

valuation is commonly expressed in £s per hectare (or acre) and is known as the ‘residual

value’. In order for the proposed development to be described as viable, it is necessary for

this value to exceed the value from a valid alternative use. We have already seen that, for a

greenfield site, where the only alternative use is likely to be agricultural, this figure may be

very modest. However, today an increasing proportion of sites that come forward will have

been previously developed, and therefore may have a more substantial existing or

competing alternative use value.

6.4 As outlined in Section 3, our appraisals considered three options for the amount and type of

affordable housing provision - assuming this is a mix of social rented and intermediate

housing with a split of 60/40 or alternatively, 80/20 - plus a zero affordable option.

6.5 Several developer members of the Partnership proposed an alternative model for dealing

with the situation where the total burden of planning gain put the viability of a particular site

in question. This model was based upon a formula that allocated the available value

between the landowner/developer and the total burden of Planning Gain.

6.6 Following a meeting of a Partnership sub-group to discuss this approach and consideration

of a subsequent paper prepared by the developers it was not possible to reach agreement

on the proposed approach.

Appraisal results:

6.7 We produced financial appraisals based on the stated build, abnormal, and infrastructure

costs, and financial assumptions for the various options (six affordable options, plus all-

market).


Page 40

6.8 Detailed appraisal printouts for all the sites are provided as Appendix 4 to this report. To

keep to a manageable document, only the 15% option has been provided.

6.9 The resulting residual land values for the four (3 + 1) options at 60/40 are set out in Table

6.1.

Table 6.1 Appraisal results for four affordable options at 60/40

Zero grant

Residual value £k per acre for affordable option: No Site

No aff 15% 30% 45%

1A Wincanton 544 358 171 (-20)

1N Taunton 470 284 118 (-62)

2A Gerber Bridgwater 372 189 5 (-189)

2N Yeovil E 205 48 (-114) (-279)

3A Chard 485 338 191 40

3N Bridgwater N 534 378 222 62

4A Taunton 578 89 (-424) (-946)

4B Minehead 576 348 119 (-121)

4N Chard 97 (-73) (-246) (-422)

5A South Petherton 775 583 388 192

5B Stogursey 613 458 300 140

6A Bishops Lydeard 1,231 922 607 292

6N Castle Cary 780 530 279 20

7A Norton Fitzwarren 473 325 180 27

7N Langport 644 474 301 119

8A opp station Bridgwater 674 438 199 (-87)

8N Yeovil 475 267 47 (-172)

9A Yeovil 704 508 310 110

9B Pittacre Ho Bridgwater 255 105 (-47) (-202)


6.10 Table 6.1 shows that with no requirement for affordable housing the sites deliver a wide

range of residual land values, ranging from around £100k per acre (£250k per ha) to £1.23

m per ha (£3.04 m per ha).

6.11 After adjusting for additional development costs and our planning gain assumptions, values

are mostly somewhat below what the VOA figures and other sources indicate for ‘oven

ready’ land in Taunton, and a little below what was suggested by small sites actually on the

market. This confirms that our appraisal assumptions are, taken as a whole, unlikely to be

unduly optimistic, although our figures will take more account of the current market situation

than other historic sources can.


Page 41

6.12 Table 6.1 confirms that, as increasing amounts of affordable housing are introduced, the

land value falls away. In each case the impact is progressive, but at a broadly linear rate. At

the maximum affordable contribution, 45%, about half of the schemes still deliver a positive

land value, although in most cases it is quite a low figure.

6.13 However, it is clear that land value falls away more quickly for some schemes, than for

others. It is the most densely developed sites – site 4A County Garage, and to a slightly

lesser extent sites 6A and 8A - where affordable housing has the greatest negative impact

upon land value. This is because the land value is the primary source of any developer

subsidy. With the high density schemes, land value is a much lower proportion of the total

value of the development, and is therefore used up more quickly. To put it another way,

broadly the same amount of land value would be available to subsidise affordable units on

a scheme of 120 flats on one hectare, as on 35 houses occupying the same land. Clearly,

that sum will ‘buy’ a higher percentage of the houses, than of the flats.

6.14 In order to draw out the implications of these results for the Councils’ proposed affordable

housing policies, as has already been suggested, it will be necessary to consider values

from alternative uses for each. This step follows below.

Alternative use benchmarks

6.15 The results from Table 6.1 would need to be compared with the alternative use values set

out in Table 5.8 in order to form a view about the likely viability of the affordable options for

each site.

6.16 However it does not automatically follow that if the residual value produces a surplus over

the alternative use value benchmark, the site is viable. The surplus needs to be sufficiently

large both (a) to provide an incentive to the landowner to release the site and (b) to cover

any other costs necessary to bring the site forward for development. We therefore have to

consider how large such a ‘cushion’ should be for each of our sites.

6.17 The point has been made to us in local discussion that in some cases the total size of the

cushion required to cover both elements, and particularly (b), may really be quite large. Our

attention was drawn to the exceptionally long gestation period for the South Somerset

Local Plan. Examples were provided to show that some potential greenfield allocations in

particular had involved years of promotion, consultancy work, successive option payments,

and so on, as well as a risk that this expenditure could ultimately prove abortive. Even

without this added difficulty, the costs of site assembly, or on brownfield sites, the costs of

relocating an employer, could all be considerable.


Page 42

6.18 Whilst this information was noted, it did not provide a basis for deriving an appropriate

allowance for each site to apply in a strategic study like the present one from the

information available. Each site’s history is unique. It is possible to argue that some sites

are pursued against the grain of policy.

6.19 The changes made to the planning system in the move to LDFs, the involvement of

stakeholders in exercises like the present one, the Strategic Housing Land Availability

Assessments (SHLAAs) and the SHMA, are all designed to ensure greater flexibility and

shorter Plan preparation periods, and to avoid the pursuit at length of inappropriate site

proposals. The costs under (b) of sites coming forward from now on should not therefore be

based on the costs incurred in the past.

6.20 Even if these points did not apply, we would suggest that the professional fee assumptions

in Chapter 5 are somewhat generous, say, for a site with outline residential permission.

They would in fact allow for a degree of preliminary consultancy work of the kind

envisaged, and particularly on larger sites. The extent of this ‘allowance’ might equate to

£30-35k per acre typically, and even more on higher density sites.

6.21 After consideration appropriate figures were determined for the size of a combined cushion

to provide an incentive to the landowner and to allow for expenses in bringing the site

forward. The figures are set out below and combined with the net alternative use values

from Table 5.8 to show the resulting benchmark thresholds for viability.

6.22 A group of land promoters and developers, who formed part of the Housing Market

Partnership which worked on this report, were not able to agree that the size of the

proposed combined cushion would be sufficient to ensure adequate supply of land for

development to meet the assumptions made elsewhere in the SHMA. The Housing Market

Partnership was not able to reach agreement on the quantum of the combined cushion

proposed in this report. The Partnership has approved this report on the basis that this

difference of opinion remains unresolved


Page 43

Table 6.2 Viability cushion & threshold values

Ref Site no of

dwgs

Cushion

£ per acre

Threshold

£ per acre

Greenfield

1A Deanesley Way Wincanton 212 £115k £125k

5A St Michael’s Gdns S Petherton 55 £90k £100k

5B Paddons Field Stogursey 59 £90k £100k

3A Touches Chard 24 £75k £85k

7A Dabinett Cl Norton Fitzwarren 11 £65k £75k

Garden land

8A Opp rail station Bridgwater 10 £60k £160k

9A Ilchester Rd Yeovil 2 £40k £140k

Brownfield

2A Gerber Factory Bridgwater 330 £90k £365k

4A Priory Ave Taunton 24 £75k £270k

4B Clanville Grange Minehead 48 £75k £375k

6A Kings Yard Bishops Lydeard 32 £75k £220k


6.23 It must be emphasised that these figures are simply a view of what it is reasonable to

assume as a minimum residual value for the purposes of assessing viability. The figures do

not represent what a landowner or promoter might actually receive. This will quite often be

rather more: at any given affordable target some sites will be generate a higher value, and

it is not unreasonable to expect at least some of the surplus to benefit the landowner/

promoter, rather than passing to the developer.

6.24 Table 6.3 below shows the results of comparing the figures in the two previous tables

(Table 6.1 appraisals results and 6.2 viability benchmark values).


Page 44

Table 6.3 Appraisal outcomes – 60/40

Value £k per acre

No Site Alt use value/

threshold 15% 30% 45%

1A Wincanton 10/125 358

VIABLE

171

VIABLE

(-20)

NOT VIABLE

1N Taunton 10/125 284

VIABLE

118

MARGINAL

(-62)

NOT VIABLE

2A Gerber Bridgwater 275/365 189

NOT VIABLE

5

NOT VIABLE

(-189)

NOT VIABLE-

2N Yeovil E 275/365 48

NOT VIABLE

(-114)

NOT VIABLE

(-279)

NOT VIABLE

3A Chard 10/85 338

VIABLE

191

VIABLE

40

MARGINAL

3N Bridgwater N 10/85 378

VIABLE

222

VIABLE

62

MARGINAL

4A Taunton 185/260 89

NOT VIABLE

(-424)

NOT VIABLE

(-946)

NOT VIABLE

4B Minehead 300/375 348

MARGINAL

119

NOT VIABLE

(-121)

NOT VIABLE

4N Chard 300/375 (-73)

NOT VIABLE

(-246)

NOT VIABLE

(-422)

NOT VIABLE

5A South Petherton 10/100 583

VIABLE

388

VIABLE

192

VIABLE

5B Stogursey 10/100 458

VIABLE

300

VIABLE

140

VIABLE

6A Bishops Lydeard 145/220 922

VIABLE

607

VIABLE

292

VIABLE-

6N Castle Cary 145/220 530

VIABLE

279

VIABLE

20

NOT VIABLE

7A Norton Fitzwarren 10/75 325

VIABLE

180

VIABLE

27

MARGINAL

7N Langport 10/75 474

VIABLE

301

VIABLE

119

VIABLE

8A Opp station Bridgwater 100/160 438

VIABLE

199

VIABLE

(-44)

NOT VIABLE

8N Yeovil 100/160 267

VIABLE

47

NOT VIABLE

(-172)

NOT VIABLE

9A Yeovil 100/140 508

VIABLE

310

VIABLE

110

MARGINAL

9B Pittacre Ho Bridgwater 100/140 105

MARGINAL

(-47)

NOT VIABLE

(-202)

NOT VIABLE



Page 45

Comparison results

6.25 The results of the zero option have been omitted for simplicity. With zero affordable

housing, one site is in fact not viable – a notional development using a built form from a

relatively high priced area. Residential development as 100% market housing is of course a

relatively profitable development option, and the sites should not be proposed for

development otherwise. In this situation we may have done better with an alternative built

form; Clanville Grange would have been quite a difficult site.

6.26 Turning to the various levels of affordable contribution, at 15% 14 of the 19 sites are viable.

One further site produces a surplus over the alternative use value benchmark, but not to

the full value of the required cushion; in these circumstances we would describe viability as

marginal. Four sites are unviable.

6.27 Increasing to 30%, the marginal site becomes unviable, and two others become unviable.

However 12 out of the 19 are viable. Moving to 45%, four more sites become unviable, and

a further four sites become marginal, leaving only four sites viable.

6.28 A corresponding table has been produced with the 80/20 tenure split. The higher social

rented numbers reduce the land value, by increasing amounts as the affordable proportion

increases. At 15%, the impact is to reduce land value typically by about £10k per acre,

which will have a relatively minor impact; however, by 45% the difference is three times as

much.


Page 46

Table 6.4 Appraisal outcomes – 80/20

Value £k per acre




VIABLE

152

VIABLE

(-50)

NOT VIABLE

1N Taunton 10/125 286

VIABLE

99

MARGINAL

(-93)

NOT VIABLE


NOT VIABLE

(-16)

NOT VIABLE

(-220)

NOT VIABLE-

2N Yeovil E 275/365 39

NOT VIABLE

(-133)

NOT VIABLE

-(-309)

NOT VIABLE

3A Chard 10/85 333

VIABLE

174

VIABLE

14

MARGINAL


VIABLE

204

VIABLE

34

MARGINAL

4A Taunton 185/260 63

NOT VIABLE

(-476)

NOT VIABLE

(-1,021)

NOT VIABLE

4B Minehead 300/375 339

MARGINAL

103

NOT VIABLE

(-149)

NOT VIABLE

4N Chard 300/375 (-83)

NOT VIABLE

(-267)

NOT VIABLE

(-452)

NOT VIABLE


VIABLE

373

VIABLE

169

VIABLE


VIABLE

288

VIABLE

122

VIABLE


VIABLE

582

VIABLE

255

VIABLE-


VIABLE

254

VIABLE

(-18)

NOT VIABLE


VIABLE

163

VIABLE

1

NOT VIABLE


VIABLE

285

VIABLE

94

VIABLE

8A opp station Bridgwater 100/160 424

VIABLE

171

VIABLE

(-87)

NOT VIABLE

8N Yeovil 100/160 250

VIABLE

23

NOT VIABLE

(-210)

NOT VIABLE

9A Yeovil 100/140 501

VIABLE

295

VIABLE

87

NOT VIABLE

9B Pittacre Ho Bridgwater 100/140 95

NOT VIABLE

(-67)

NOT VIABLE

(-231)

NOT VIABLE



Page 47

6.29 The material impact of the switch to 80/20 is really very slight. At 15% one site marginal at

60/40 becomes unviable; at 30% there is no change; at 45% two marginals become

unviable. However it is possible that if other percentage options had been tested, more

movement than this would occur.

6.30 We address the implications of these results for future policy in the final Section of this

document. However before doing so we provide alternative appraisals allowing the

introduction of a Community Infrastructure Levy at £13,000 and £20,000 per dwelling.

Community Infrastructure Levy

6.31 Alternative appraisals were prepared assuming Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) based

developer contributions at £13k and £20k per dwelling across the board, rather than the

site by site contributions set out in Table 3.3 and used in the base appraisals discussed

above. Tables setting out the results as in Table 6.3 for the base appraisals are provided in

Appendix 3.

6.32 The contributions figures increase by between £3.5k/£10.5k respectively per dwelling (site

2N) and £11k/£18k (sites 8A and 9B), and hence bear especially heavily on the smaller

sites. As might be expected, the impact on viability is quite considerable. The results are

summarised in the table below.

Table 6.5 CIL appraisal summary

No of sites viable with affordable %

15% 30% 45%

Base appraisals

Viable 13 11 4

Marginal 2 1 4

Not viable 4 7 11

CIL £13k

Viable 11 6 1

Marginal 1 3 2

Not viable 7 10 16

CIL £20k

Viable 10 5 0

Marginal 1 0 1

Not viable 8 14 18



Page 48

6.33 With no affordable housing and a £13k CIL, three sites are unviable and two marginal. If

the CIL increased to £20k, seven of the sites would become unviable (none marginal). It is

clear this level of contribution would place a considerable burden on viability.

6.34 Any proposals for a Community Infrastructure Levy remain un-quantified at this stage. For

the purpose of comparison, a tariff with a figure of £17.5k (indexed) already operates in

Milton Keynes. The £20k option tested here is equivalent to the quoted broad additional

cost of moving to Level 6 of the Code for Sustainable Dwellings. The impact of Level 6 will

be quite considerable, unless the additional costs can be recovered through significantly

enhanced sales values.

7. Impl icat ions of resu l ts

Page 49

7. Implications of results

Our approach

7.1 The purpose of the Viability Study was to assess the impact of alternative affordable

housing requirements upon development viability. In order to provide appropriate guidance,

we have produced financial appraisals in respect of residential developments on a range of

sites, in this case through a combination of ‘actual’ and ‘notional’ sites selected in

discussions between the four Councils. Our approach has involved the use of ‘model’

developments for the sites, to a greater or lesser extent, in conjunction with a bespoke

financial appraisal package, to arrive at residual valuations for each site under a series of

affordable housing options.

7.2 In order to prepare financial appraisals, whether for a general study like this, or on behalf of

a landowner or developer proposing a specific development, it is necessary to make quite a

considerable number of assumptions. We believe that in general the assumptions we have

made are fair and reasonable. They reflect considerable experience drawn from a variety of

development situations and are designed to reflect the circumstances of each site which,

over a substantial area like the study area, combining a substantial urban area with a

predominantly rural hinterland, are going to be diverse. The appraisal results would

produce open market land values which compared to other information about values in the

area, are if anything somewhat lower. This strongly suggests that the package of

development assumptions is not, taken as a whole, unduly optimistic.

7.3 The relatively low land values emerging also reflect two other factors which we will need to

take into account when reflecting on the appraisal results:

• The assumption of Level 3 of the Sustainability Code for both market and affordable

homes, without any offsetting uplift in values.

• The onset of what was, as the study got under way, recognised to be a dramatic

market downturn.

7.4 A key set of assumptions are those in respect of the range of developer contributions,

financial and in kind, that would be required from each of the developments. The

assumptions needed to be, firstly, consistent across the whole area, so as to provide a

strategic view at HMA level. Secondly, they had to be defensible; appraisals must not

underestimate the true contributions burden.


Page 50

7.5 The financial appraisals produce a series of residual values showing the value generated

for each site, under various affordable scenarios. In an exercise of this nature, the figures

have to be interpreted in order to draw conclusions for LDF policies. We have suggested a

basis for interpretation which draws on indicative alternative use values. Again, as a broad

brush approach, we believe this to be reasonable; producing detailed assessments and

valuations for each site would involve resources well beyond the scope of the current

exercise, and we suspect would probably still leave room for disputation.

7.6 There are considerable variations in house prices in different parts of the study area. Many

of the chosen sites are, it appears, in lower to medium priced areas, though not all of them.

We feel, again, that we have covered the ‘worst case’, by fully including locations in which

viability is (other things equal) likely to be worst. The range of sites includes both smaller

and larger sites, straightforward and complex development situations, greenfield sites and

previously developed land.

7.7 In estimating the values which developers would be likely to achieve from affordable

housing, we have drawn on information provided by locally active RSLs. Although we

received responses from only four RSLs these showed a degree of consensus and we

think that a fuller response would be unlikely to affect our values significantly.

7.8 Our study forms an element of the ongoing work of a Strategic Housing Market

Assessment for the area covered by the four Councils and, being prepared alongside that

work to some extent, could not take full account of the end results of that study. We have

taken a strategic approach, rather than seeking to reflect specific variations in the policy

detail, the arrangements and procedures which individual Councils use in negotiating

affordable housing (and other S106 matters) site by site, which at this time may in any case

be generally subject to review.

Implications of appraisal results

7.9 The viability study tested affordable target proportions up to a maximum of 40%, reflecting

the highest proportion which is currently being considered within the study area. The

Strategic Housing Market Assessment has established that the levels of identified housing

need would justify affordable targets well in excess of 40%, across the whole study area.

7.10 The results from the appraisals suggest that under zero grant conditions, a proportion of

30% could reasonably be sought in many parts of the study area. Indeed several sites

would be viable at 45%, whether with a tenure split of 60/40 or one of 80/20, in that they

deliver a residual value comfortably in excess of the site’s value in an alternative use.

Bearing in mind that the sites have focussed to some degree on the towns, which are on

the whole the lower to medium priced locations, that is a satisfactory outcome.

7. Impl icat ions of resu l ts

Page 51

7.11 There are of course parts of the two housing market areas where house prices are

significantly below average, and where consequently at the present price level a target of

much over 30% would not be sensible.

7.12 Viability varies from site to site for other reasons than price variations. For instance, we are

aware that on higher density schemes of mainly or wholly flats, it is more difficult to deliver

high proportions of affordable housing whilst achieving a viable development. The appraisal

results display this pattern. It comes about primarily because the affordable housing

subsidy comes from land value, and there is proportionately much less land value available

on such higher density schemes than on a more suburban density development.

7.13 Viability is also crucially dependent on the alternative use value. Where there is a valid

alternative use for a previously developed site as industrial/warehousing, or some other

commercial activity, the value in that use sets the bar rather higher than for a greenfield or

otherwise undeveloped site. Whilst undeveloped sites, more especially the larger ones, will

face higher development costs, the appraisals suggest that it is somewhat easier to

achieve viability on these sites. Small rural sites, without major infrastructure requirements,

do very well because the ‘bar’ is so low (and because present S106 requirements are light),

indicating that these sorts of site could carry a very low size threshold fairly comfortably.

7.14 In considering the implications for an individual Council’s affordable housing policy of

studies like the present one, we must recognise the complexity and diversity of the

development process in reality. There will always be sites and development proposals

which, because of exceptional circumstances – abnormal development costs associated

with the site; particularly onerous development contribution requirements; an exceptionally

high alternative user value; low market prices in a particular locality, and so on - cannot

deliver a full affordable housing requirement and remain viable.

7.15 The appraisals assume that all dwellings, market and affordable, will be built to Level 3.

Given that Level 3 is to be a national requirement from 2010, it seems a sensible

assumption to be making at this point. However Level 3 imposes additional build costs

which we have assumed cannot be recovered from enhanced values.

7.16 Furthermore, it is the Government’s intention that Level 4 would apply from 2013 and Level

6, from 2016. With what is currently known about technology, the additional costs of these

further changes are going to be more considerable. They may well push developers to

focus rather more on premium and niche products where the additional costs can be,

wholly or at least partially, recovered in enhanced prices, though with the present

regulatory framework it is difficult to see how that could apply to the affordable elements.

Whatever happens, the impact on viability following the changes is a matter for concern.


Page 52

7.17 A further issue which emerged as the appraisal work was nearing completion was clear

evidence of a serious market downturn. Whilst commentators in recent years have

repeatedly argued that the imbalance between prices and affordability suggested a

significant downwards adjustment in price levels was imminent, until now no such

adjustment has been forthcoming. However at the time of writing (July 2008) it has become

apparent that nationally, a shortage of mortgage supply and general lack of confidence are

impacting quite seriously on sales, and hence on prices. The price downturn is in our view

reflected in our appraisal results.

7.18 Viability is likely to continue to deteriorate in the short term. On the other hand, the view is

widely held that the supply of homes in total is falling short of demand, so that upward

movement in prices is likely to resume sooner rather than later. However, realistically no

study such as this can provide more than a snapshot. It cannot predict what is going to

happen, and the appropriate course is to revisit the figures at regular intervals to index and

update them. The unfolding situation will have to be borne in mind in formulating policy

targets, whilst recognising that any new targets informed by the present study are likely to

remain in place for a considerable period of time.

Individual Council areas: guidance

7.19 Implications for individual Councils’ policies are examined in the main SHMA study report,

which brings together the evidence of need and demand with the viability work and other

evidence, to develop suggestions for affordable housing policy and practice.

Appendices

Page 53

Appendices


Page 54

Appendix 1 . Newbui ld schemes

Page 55

Appendix 1. Newbuild schemes

A1.1 The schedule overleaf provides details of a number of current newbuild developments in

the study area.


Page 56

Table A1.1 Newbuild schemes

Site/location Builder no of

dwgs Range of dwgs

Prices

currently

available

Taunton Area

Urban Retreat Pollard Way Gadd 57 2 bed flats, 2 3 & 4 bed

houses

£149-

£220k

Old Cider Works

Norton Fitzwarren Barratt 50 +

2 bed flats 3 & 4 bed

houses

£148-

£206k

The Grove Woodstock Rd Gadd 4 3 & 4 bed houses £272-

£293k

Aspect Corporation St Gadd 50 studio & 1 bed flats £89k

Firepool Lock Gadd 104 1 2 & 3 bed flats 4 & 5

bed houses £125k

Regency Mews Strongvox 23 1 3 & 4 bed houses £188-

£425k

Trevelyan Court Wiltson St na 2 bed flat £179k

One Twenty Two East Reach Strongvox na 2 bed flat £156k

Stogumber Gadd 9 3 & 5 bed houses £275k-

£540k

Trinity, Trinity St Bouge na studio & 1 bed flats £99-£125k

Brendon Court Greatworth 12 1 & 2 bed flats £117k

East Eleven Summerfield 11 1 & 2 bed flats £119k

Hunts Court Corporation St CS Williams 7 1 & 2 bed flats £125k

Bridgwater Area

Festival Barratt na 1 & 2 bed flats 2 3 & 4

bed houses £98-£140k

Stockmoor Parade N Petherton Barratt na 2 bed flats 3 & 4 bed

houses

£132-

£299k

Rio Barratt na 2 bed flats £98k

The Gates Bloor Homes na 2 3 4 & 5 bed houses £139-

£345k

Yeovil

Mosaic Gleeson na 1 2 3 & 4 bed homes £215-

£220k

Wyndham Court McCarthy &

Stone 69 1 & 2 bed retirement

£129-

£149k

Ilchester Rd Pearce 2 3 bed bungalows £319-

£345k

Appendix 1 . Newbui ld schemes

Page 57

Other South Somerset

Glebelands Court S Petherton Persimmon 2 3 & 4 bed houses £165-289k

Hardings Court S Petherton ? 4 bed houses £425-

£439k

The Gables Chard Morrish 24 2 & 3 bed houses £145-

£189k

Furndale Park Chard Persimmon 67 1 2 3 & 4 bed houses £144-

£199k

Balsam Gardens Wincanton Bloor 15 3 4 & 5 bed houses £159-

£384k

Minehead area

Clanville Grange Barratt 48 1 & 2 bed flats 3 bed

houses

£155-

£209k

Premier Court Alcombe 14 2 3 & 4 bed houses £185-

£210k



Page 58

Appendix 2 . House pr ice var ia t ions

Page 59

Appendix 2. House price variations

A2.1 The indices in the table which follows compare prices in each postcode sector in the four

Districts with an England & Wales ‘average’ figure – actually the median postcode value.

The indices are standardised, to eliminate the effect of variations in type mix; separate

indices for each house type are combined with weightings based on the mix of overall

sales.

Table A2.1 Price variations by postcode sector

Postcode

sector LAs Areas covered Q4 2007 Q2 2007

TA6 4 S Bridgwater N & E 80% 74%

TA6 5 S Bridgwater SE 82% 82%

TA20 1 SS Chard 87% 88%

BA21 4 SS Yeovil N Central 92% 84%

BA20 1 SS Yeovil Central 86% 94%

TA1 2 TD Taunton E 89% 92%

TA6 3 S Bridgwater Central 90% 91%

BA21 3 SS Yeovil NW 91% 92%

BA21 5 SS Yeovil NE 88% 96%

TA8 1 S Burnham South 92% 92%

TA6 6 S Petherton 94% 90%

TA9 3 S Highbridge 95% 90%

BA20 2 SS Yeovil SW 90% 96%

TA20 2 SS Tatworth 105% 82%

TA2 7 TD Taunton N Central 101% 87%

TA8 2 S Berrow, Bream 95% 95%

TA2 6 TD Norton Fitzwarren 95% 96%

TA7 8 S Woolavington 99% 94%

TA21 9 TD Ford Street 88% 105%

TA18 8 SS Crewkerne NE, Chinnocks 104% 90%

TA18 7 SS Crewkerne 106% 89%

TA4 4 WS Williton, Crowcombe 105% 90%

TA23 0 WS Watchet, Washford 101% 95%

BA9 9 SS Wincanton, Cucklington 87% 110%

TA21 8 TD Wellington 101% 98%

TA6 7 S Bridgwater W, Wembdon 103% 104%

BA22 8 SS Ilchester, Tintinhull 96% 114%

TA12 6 SS Martock 109% 102%


Page 60

Table A2.1 (cont) Price variations by postcode sector

Postcode


BS25 1 S Shipham (+Winscombe) 94% 119%

TA7 0 S Westonzoyland 105% 109%

TA1 4 TD Taunton SW 98% 116%

TA10 9 SS Ham, Langport 102% 113%

BA7 7 SS Castle Cary 121% 96%

TA19 9 SS Horton, Puckington 109% 111%

TA2 8 TD Kingston St Mary 111% 109%

TA11 6 SS Somerton W, Dundon 108% 113%

TA16 5 SS Merriott 111% 111%

BS27 3 S Cheddar 105% 120%

TA24 8 WS Porlock 111% 114%

TA4 2 TD/WS Wivelscombe, Upton 117% 108%

BA10 0 SS Bruton, Cole 111% 115%

TA1 5 TD Taunton W 112% 116%

TA15 6 SS Montacute 122%

TA21 0 TD Thorne St Margaret 111% 118%

TA20 4 SS Chaffcombe, Cricket St Thomas 121% 109%

TA24 5 WS Minehead 117% 113%

BA8 0 SS Henstridge, Cheriton 123% 108%

TA1 1 TD Taunton Central 123% 108%

TA24 6 WS Dunster, Blue Anchor 123% 111%

TA7 9 S Edington 117% 116%

TA5 2 S Cannington 129% 106%

TA24 7 WS Simonsbath, Edgcott 96% 139%

TA4 1 TD Milverton 115% 120%

TA13 5 SS South Petherton 112% 125%

DT9 5 SS Milborne Port (+Alveston) 118% 120%

BA22 9 SS Hardingtons, Stoford 121% 118%

TA19 0 SS Ilminster, Cudworth 115% 129%

TA10 0 SS Drayton, Hambridge 124% 124%

TA1 3 TD Taunton S Central 129% 123%

BA22 7 SS Sparkford, Gilhampton 115% 138%

TA9 4 S Brent 114% 138%

TA14 6 SS Chiselborough 121% 134%

TA4 3 TD/WS Bishops Lydeard, Stogumber 127% 136%

DT9 4 SS Charlton Horethorne (+Sherborne N) 133% 131%

TA3 5 TD Creeches 130% 134%

TA11 7 SS Somerton E, Charlton 155% 113%

TA3 7 TD Blagdon 160% 115%

TA22 9 WS Dulverton 163% 113%

TA20 3 SS Buckland St Mary 106% 171%

TA5 1 S Nether Stowey, Stogursey 120% 158%

BA9 8 SS Wincanton W, Yarlington, Penselwood 167% 115%

BS26 2 S Allerton 144% 139%

Appendix 2 . House pr ice var ia t ions

Page 61

Table A2.1 (cont) Price variations by postcode sector

Postcode


TA3 6 SS/TD Curry Mallet, Curry 123% 172%

BS24 0 S Lympsham 157% 144%

BS28 4 S Wedmore 156% 146%

Source: Analysis of Land Registry data

1. Where a postcode sector includes areas inside and outside the Borough, the areas outside are

shown in brackets, as (+ Winscombe)

2. Data has been mix adjusted to remove differences in house type mix between postcode sectors;

individual indices have been calculated for each house type, and combined using weights

reflecting the nation-wide type mix. A worked example is provided below.

Table A2.2 Worked example for TA6 4 at Q4 2007

Land Registry data Q4 2007

Detached Semi Terraced Flat Total

England & Wales – median price £300,742 £186,364 £159,070 £151,707

England & Wales - no of sales 52,027 71,522 80,184 52,426 256,159

TA6 4 – ave price £275,875 £154,544 £126,315 £98,207

TA6 4 price as % E & W median

value 91.7% 82.9% 79.4% 64.7%

[ (52027 x 91.7%)+(71522 x 82.9%)+(80184 x

79.4%)+(52426 x 64.7%) ] / 256,159

Weighted average index for TA6 4 =

= 79.9%



Page 62

Appendix 3 . Addi t ional appra isa ls : 35% ta rget

Page 63

Appendix 3. Additional appraisals : 35%

target

A3.1 The Tables overleaf add the results from appraisals for a 35% affordable requirement tot eh

figures set out in Table 6.2


Page 64

Table A3.1 Appraisal outcomes – 60/40 (AUGMENTED)

Value £k per acre

No Site Alt use

value/

threshold

15% 30%

35% 45%


VIABLE

171

VIABLE

107

MARGINAL

(-20)

NOT VIABLE

1N Taunton 10/125 284

VIABLE

118

MARGINAL

58

NOT VIABLE

(-62)

NOT VIABLE

2A Gerber

Bridgwater 275/365

189

NOT VIABLE

5

NOT VIABLE

(-59)

NOT VIABLE

(-189)

NOT VIABLE-

2N Yeovil E 275/365 48

NOT VIABLE

(-114)

NOT VIABLE

(-169)

NOT VIABLE

(-279)

NOT VIABLE

3A Chard 10/85 338

VIABLE

191

VIABLE

143

VIABLE

40

MARGINAL


VIABLE

222

VIABLE

169

VIABLE

62

MARGINAL

4A Taunton 185/260 89

NOT VIABLE

(-424)

NOT VIABLE

(-597)

NOT VIABLE

(-946)

NOT VIABLE

4B Minehead 300/375 348

MARGINAL

119

NOT VIABLE

40

NOT VIABLE

(-121)

NOT VIABLE

4N Chard 300/375 (-73)

NOT VIABLE

(-246)

NOT VIABLE

(-306)

NOT VIABLE

(-422)

NOT VIABLE

5A South

Petherton 10/100

583

VIABLE

388

VIABLE

323

VIABLE 192

VIABLE


VIABLE

300

VIABLE

246

VIABLE

140

VIABLE

6A Bishops

Lydeard 145/220

922

VIABLE

607

VIABLE

500

VIABLE 292

VIABLE-


VIABLE

279

VIABLE

192

MARGINAL

20

NOT VIABLE

7A Norton

Fitzwarren 10/75

325

VIABLE

180

VIABLE

128

VIABLE 27

MARGINAL


VIABLE

301

VIABLE

241

VIABLE

119

VIABLE

8A Opp station

Bridgwater 100/160

438

VIABLE

199

VIABLE

120

MARGINAL (-44)

NOT VIABLE

8N Yeovil 100/160 267

VIABLE

47

NOT VIABLE

(-24)

NOT VIABLE

(-172)

NOT VIABLE

9A Yeovil 100/140 508

VIABLE

310

VIABLE

244

VIABLE

110

MARGINAL

9B Pittacre Ho

Bridgwater 100/140

105

MARGINAL

(-47)

NOT VIABLE

(-99)

NOT VIABLE (-202)

NOT VIABLE


Appendix 4 . Var iant appra isa ls : communi ty in f ras t ruc ture levy

Page 65

Appendix 4. Variant appraisals : community

infrastructure levy

A4.1 The tables overleaf provide the results from variant appraisals which assume developer

contributions are paid at a flat rate levy of £13,000 and alternatively £20,000 per dwelling,

on every site.


Page 66

Table A4.1 Appraisal outcomes with CIL @ £13k – 60/40 tenure split

Value £k per acre




VIABLE

53

MARGINAL

(-143)

NOT VIABLE

1N Taunton 10/125 176

VIABLE

(-1)

NOT VIABLE

(-186)

NOT VIABLE


NOT VIABLE

(-77)

NOT VIABLE

(-270)

NOT VIABLE-

2N Yeovil E 275/365 (-31)

NOT VIABLE

(-195)

NOT VIABLE

-(-361)

NOT VIABLE

3A Chard 10/85 220

VIABLE

73

MARGINAL

(-84)

NOT VIABLE


VIABLE

104

VIABLE

(-62)

NOT VIABLE

4A Taunton 185/260 (-304)

NOT VIABLE

(-817)

NOT VIABLE

(-1,336)

NOT VIABLE

4B Minehead 300/375 190

NOT VIABLE

(-44)

NOT VIABLE

(-287)

NOT VIABLE

4N Chard 300/375 (-211)

NOT VIABLE

(-383)

NOT VIABLE

(-558)

NOT VIABLE


VIABLE

312

VIABLE

118

VIABLE


VIABLE

226

VIABLE

67

MARGINAL


VIABLE

443

VIABLE

128

NOT VIABLE-


VIABLE

153

MARGINAL

(--112)

NOT VIABLE


VIABLE

59

NOT VIABLE

(-96)

NOT VIABLE


VIABLE

199

VIABLE

16

MARGINAL

8A opp station

Bridgwater 100/160

154

MARGINAL

(-87)

NOT VIABLE

(-332)

NOT VIABLE

8N Yeovil 100/160 32

NOT VIABLE

(-187)

NOT VIABLE

(-407)

NOT VIABLE

9A Yeovil 100/140 440

VIABLE

243

VIABLE

42

NOT VIABLE

9B Pittacre Ho

Bridgwater 100/140

(-104)

NOT VIABLE

(-256)

NOT VIABLE

(-411)

NOT VIABLE


Appendix 4 . Var iant appra isa ls : communi ty in f ras t ruc ture levy

Page 67

Table A3.2 Appraisal outcomes with CIL @ £20k – 60/40 tenure split

Value £k per acre




VIABLE

(-47)

NOT VIABLE

(-243)

NOT VIABLE

1N Taunton 10/125 80

MARGINAL

(-101)

NOT VIABLE

(-286)

NOT VIABLE


NOT VIABLE

(-190)

NOT VIABLE

(-384)

NOT VIABLE-

2N Yeovil E 275/365 (-145)

NOT VIABLE

(-309)

NOT VIABLE

(-475)

NOT VIABLE

3A Chard 10/85 125

VIABLE

(-30)

NOT VIABLE

(-186)

NOT VIABLE


VIABLE

1

NOT VIABLE

(-164)

NOT VIABLE

4A Taunton 185/260 (-580)

NOT VIABLE

(-1,093)

NOT VIABLE

(-1,612)

NOT VIABLE

4B Minehead 300/375 58

NOT VIABLE

(-182)

NOT VIABLE

(-424)

NOT VIABLE

4N Chard 300/375 (-347)

NOT VIABLE

(-521)

NOT VIABLE

(-695)

NOT VIABLE


VIABLE

235

VIABLE

39

MARGINAL


VIABLE

152

VIABLE

(-8)

NOT VIABLE


VIABLE

323

VIABLE

4

NOT VIABLE-


VIABLE

30

NOT VIABLE

(-238)

NOT VIABLE


VIABLE

(-27)

NOT VIABLE

(-183)

NOT VIABLE


VIABLE

113

VIABLE

(-70)

NOT VIABLE

8A opp station

Bridgwater 100/160

(-30)

NOT VIABLE

(-271)

NOT VIABLE

(-516)

NOT VIABLE

8N Yeovil 100/160 (-150)

NOT VIABLE

(-371)

NOT VIABLE

(-591)

NOT VIABLE

9A Yeovil 100/140 388

VIABLE

191

VIABLE

(-12)

NOT VIABLE

9B Pittacre Ho

Bridgwater 100/140

(-237)

NOT VIABLE

(-389)

NOT VIABLE

(-544)

NOT VIABLE



Page 68

Appendix 5 . F inanc ia l appra isa l summar ies

Page 69

Appendix 5. Financial appraisal summaries

A4.1 The development viability summaries contained in the following pages set out the

assumptions and outputs of the viability appraisals for a 30% affordable ‘zero grant’

scenario.


Page 70


Page 71

SITE 1A: Deanesly Way Wincanton


Page 72

Input assumptions

Scenario & option

Afford

able

15%

= 9

% s

ocia

l re

nte

d &

6%

inte

rmedia

te

South Somerset & Taunton HMAs

Dwellings

Site details

ave

flo

or

sp

ace

bu

ildsa

les

Site

1A Deanesley Way

Dwellings

gro

ss

ne

tco

st

va

lue

Location

Wincanton

sq

ft

sq f

tpe

r sq

ft

pe

r sq f

t

Are

a ha

4.8

3M

ark

et housin

g180.2

85.0

0%

1,0

17

1,0

00

84.5

0207.0

0

acre

s11.9

30.0

%

No d

wgs

212

Afford

able

soc rent

19.1

9.0

0%

1,0

17

1,0

00

84.5

069.0

0

Density d

w/h

a43.9

0.0

%

Afford

able

sh o

ship

12.7

6.0

0%

1,0

17

1,0

00

84.5

098.0

0

0.0

%

Aff o

ther A

0.0

0.0

0%

00

0.0

00.0

0

0.0

%

Aff o

ther B

0.0

0.0

0%

00

0.0

00.0

0

£k

Contingency

Tota

l212.0

100.0

0%

215,6

04

212,0

00

£18,2

18,5

38

£39,8

64,4

80

allo

wance

2.5

0%

455

Flo

ors

pace d

ensity

=17,7

63

net sq ft per acre

Development costs

sta

ndard

% b

uild

20.0

0%

3,7

35

Other costs

Pla

nnin

g414

£ p

er dw

elli

ng

Surv

ey

200

£ p

er dw

elli

ng

plu

s a

bnorm

als

1.1

%200

Mark

eting

0£ p

er dw

elli

ng

Tota

l21%

Design fees

on b

uild

costs

10.0

%1,8

67

Interest

% p

er annum

7.5

0%

on d

ev c

osts

0%

Notes

Planning gain

£ p

er dw

elli

ng

4,5

00

954


Page 73

Land

Iterate to achieve 20.0% profit

Afford

able

No a

fford

able

Afford

able

No a

fford

able

Land p

urc

hase p

rice

£4,278,534

6,495,000

RV

per acre

£358,488

544,201

£885,825

£1,344,720

Dev p

rofit

£6,435,678

7,314,249

Tota

l costs

£33,430,452

36,571,401

profit as % of costs

19.25%

20.00%

Hectare

Programme

Ye

ar

1Y

ear

2Y

ea

r 3

Ye

ar

4Y

ea

r 5

Ye

ar

6

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

TO

TA

LS

Units

Ma

rke

t ho

usin

g1.7

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

180.2

started

Affo

rda

ble

so

c r

en

t0.2

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

19.1

Aff

ord

ab

le s

h o

sh

ip0.1

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

12.7

Aff

oth

er

A0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Aff

oth

er

B0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

TO

TA

L0

02

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

00

00

212.0

Units

Ma

rke

t ho

usin

g0

02

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

00

180

'built'

+2Q

Affo

rda

ble

so

c r

en

t0

00

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

10

019

Aff

ord

ab

le s

h o

sh

ip0

00

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

10

013

Aff

oth

er

A0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Aff

oth

er

B0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Units

Ma

rke

t ho

usin

g0

02

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

0180

completed

+3Q

Affo

rda

ble

so

c r

en

t0

00

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

10

19

Aff

ord

ab

le s

h o

sh

ip0

00

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

10

13

Aff

oth

er

A0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Aff

oth

er

B0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Units

Ma

rke

t ho

usin

g0

02

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

180

purchased

+4Q

Affo

rda

ble

so

c r

en

t0

00

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

119

Aff

ord

ab

le s

h o

sh

ip0

00

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

113

Aff

oth

er

A0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Aff

oth

er

B0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

SITE 1A LAND COST & PHASING


Page 74

Ye

ar

1Y

ear

2Y

ear

3Y

ear

4Y

ear

5Y

ear

6

rate

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

TO

TA

LS

INCOME

Housing sales

Mark

et h

ou

sin

g0

00

00

0352

2,4

63

2,4

63

2,4

63

2,4

63

2,4

63

2,4

63

2,4

63

2,4

63

2,4

63

2,4

63

2,4

63

2,4

63

2,4

63

2,4

63

2,4

63

00

37,3

01

Affo

rda

ble

so

c r

ent

00

00

00

12

87

87

87

87

87

87

87

87

87

87

87

87

87

87

87

00

1,3

17

Affo

rda

ble

sh

oship

00

00

00

12

82

82

82

82

82

82

82

82

82

82

82

82

82

82

82

00

1,2

47

Aff o

the

r A

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Aff o

the

r B

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Sa

les fee

s0

00

00

0-1

2-8

7-8

7-8

7-8

7-8

7-8

7-8

7-8

7-8

7-8

7-8

7-8

7-8

7-8

7-8

70

0-1

,325

Total income

00

00

00

376

2,633

2,633

2,633

2,633

2,633

2,633

2,633

2,633

2,633

2,633

2,633

2,633

2,633

2,633

2,633

00

39,864

COSTS

Land

Land

acqu

isitio

n4,2

79

4,2

79

Sta

mp d

uty

171

171

Pu

rch

ase fe

es

118

118

Total

4,567

Build costs

Mark

et h

ou

sin

g0

00

0146

1,0

23

1,0

23

1,0

23

1,0

23

1,0

23

1,0

23

1,0

23

1,0

23

1,0

23

1,0

23

1,0

23

1,0

23

1,0

23

1,0

23

1,0

23

00

00

15,4

86

Affo

rda

ble

so

c r

ent

00

00

15

108

108

108

108

108

108

108

108

108

108

108

108

108

108

108

00

00

1,6

40

Affo

rda

ble

sh

oship

00

00

10

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

00

00

1,0

93

Aff o

the

r A

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Aff o

the

r B

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Bu

ild c

ontin

ge

ncy

2.5

%0

00

04

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

00

00

455

Total

18,674

Dev costs

Up

fron

t1

0.0

%467

467

467

467

1,8

67

Bu

ild r

ela

ted

10.0

%0

018

123

123

123

123

123

123

123

123

123

123

123

123

123

123

123

00

00

00

1,8

67

Ab

norm

als

1%

100

100

200

Total

3,935

Fees

Fe

es o

n b

uild

co

sts

10.0

%0

00

018

123

123

123

123

123

123

123

123

123

123

123

123

123

123

123

00

00

1,8

67

Fe

es o

n d

ev c

osts

0.0

%0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Total

1,867

PG

Pla

nn

ing

ga

in9

63

63

63

63

63

63

63

63

63

63

63

63

63

63

63

00

00

00

954

Total

954

Other

Pla

nn

ing

£41

429

29

29

88

Su

rve

y£20

042

42

Mark

eting

£0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Total

130

Sales fees

b/forw

ard

fro

m a

bove

00

00

00

12

87

87

87

87

87

87

87

87

87

87

87

87

87

87

87

00

1,325

Total costs

5,206

596

523

653

380

1,543

1,555

1,630

1,630

1,630

1,630

1,630

1,630

1,630

1,630

1,630

1,630

1,630

1,444

1,444

87

87

00

31,452

Net profit/loss from quarter

-5,206

-596

-523

-653

-380

-1,543

-1,179

1,002

1,002

1,002

1,002

1,002

1,002

1,002

1,002

1,002

1,002

1,002

1,189

1,189

2,545

2,545

00

8,412

Profit/loss bf from last quarter

0-5

,303

-6,0

10

-6,6

55

-7,4

45

-7,9

72

-9,6

93

-11,0

76

-10,2

63

-9,4

34

-8,5

90

-7,7

30

-6,8

53

-5,9

61

-5,0

51

-4,1

25

-3,1

81

-2,2

20

-1,2

40

-52

1,1

57

3,7

72

6,4

36

6,4

36

Cumulative profit/loss

-5,2

06

-5,8

99

-6,5

33

-7,3

08

-7,8

25

-9,5

15

-10,8

72

-10,0

74

-9,2

60

-8,4

32

-7,5

87

-6,7

27

-5,8

51

-4,9

58

-4,0

49

-3,1

23

-2,1

79

-1,2

17

-52

1,1

36

3,7

03

6,3

17

6,4

36

6,4

36

Interest

Ch

arg

ed a

t7

.50

%7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

To

tal

-98

-111

-122

-137

-147

-178

-204

-189

-174

-158

-142

-126

-110

-93

-76

-59

-41

-23

-121

69

118

00

-1,978

Cumulative developer profit

-5,303

-6,010

-6,655

-7,445

-7,972

-9,693

-11,076

-10,263

-9,434

-8,590

-7,730

-6,853

-5,961

-5,051

-4,125

-3,181

-2,220

-1,240

-52

1,157

3,772

6,436

6,436

6,436

6,434

carried forward to RV calc

SITE 1A CASH FLOW AFFORDABLE


Page 75

SITE 1N: notional site Taunton


Page 76

Input assumptions

Scenario & option

Afford

able

15%

= 9

% s

ocia

l re

nte

d &

6%

inte

rmedia

te


Dwellings

Site details

ave

flo

or

sp

ace

bu

ildsa

les

Site

1N notional as 1A

Dwellings

gro

ss

ne

tco

st

va

lue

Location

Taunton

sq

ft

sq f

tpe

r sq

ft

pe

r sq f

t

Are

a ha

4.8

3M

ark

et housin

g180.2

85.0

0%

1,0

17

1,0

00

84.5

0200.0

0

acre

s11.9

30.0

%

No d

wgs

212

Afford

able

soc rent

19.1

9.0

0%

1,0

17

1,0

00

84.5

069.0

0

Density d

w/h

a43.9

0.0

%

Afford

able

sh o

ship

12.7

6.0

0%

1,0

17

1,0

00

84.5

098.0

0

0.0

%

Aff o

ther A

0.0

0.0

0%

00

0.0

00.0

0

0.0

%

Aff o

ther B

0.0

0.0

0%

00

0.0

00.0

0

£k

Contingency

Tota

l212.0

100.0

0%

215,6

04

212,0

00

£18,2

18,5

38

£38,6

03,0

80

allo

wance

2.5

0%

455

Flo

ors

pace d

ensity

=17,7

63

net sq ft per acre

Development costs

sta

ndard

% b

uild

20.0

0%

3,7

35

Other costs

Pla

nnin

g414

£ p

er dw

elli

ng

Surv

ey

200

£ p

er dw

elli

ng

plu

s a

bnorm

als

1.1

%200

Mark

eting

0£ p

er dw

elli

ng

Tota

l21%

Design fees

on b

uild

costs

10.0

%1,8

67

Interest

% p

er annum

7.5

0%

on d

ev c

osts

0%

Notes

Planning gain

£ p

er dw

elli

ng

4,5

00

954


Page 77

SITE 1N LAND COST & PHASING

Programme

Ye

ar

1Y

ear

2Y

ea

r 3

Ye

ar

4Y

ea

r 5

Ye

ar

6

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

TO

TA

LS

Units

Ma

rke

t ho

usin

g1.7

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

180.2

started

Affo

rda

ble

so

c r

en

t0.2

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

19.1

Aff

ord

ab

le s

h o

sh

ip0.1

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

12.7

Aff

oth

er

A0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Aff

oth

er

B0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

TO

TA

L0

02

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

00

00

212.0

Units

Ma

rke

t ho

usin

g0

02

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

00

180

'built'

+2Q

Affo

rda

ble

so

c r

en

t0

00

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

10

019

Aff

ord

ab

le s

h o

sh

ip0

00

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

10

013

Aff

oth

er

A0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Aff

oth

er

B0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Units

Ma

rke

t ho

usin

g0

02

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

0180

completed

+3Q

Affo

rda

ble

so

c r

en

t0

00

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

10

19

Aff

ord

ab

le s

h o

sh

ip0

00

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

10

13

Aff

oth

er

A0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Aff

oth

er

B0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Units

Ma

rke

t ho

usin

g0

02

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

180

purchased

+4Q

Affo

rda

ble

so

c r

en

t0

00

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

119

Aff

ord

ab

le s

h o

sh

ip0

00

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

113

Aff

oth

er

A0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Aff

oth

er

B0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Land


Afford

able

No a

fford

able

Afford

able

No a

fford

able

Land p

urc

hase p

rice

£3,394,391

5,603,416

RV

per acre

£284,408

469,497

£702,773

£1,160,127

Dev p

rofit

£6,437,044

7,077,171

Tota

l costs

£32,167,686

35,324,479


20.01%

20.03%

Hectare


Page 78

SITE 1N CASH FLOW AFFORDABLE

Ye

ar

1Y

ea

r 2

Yea

r 3

Yea

r 4

Yea

r 5

Yea

r 6

rate

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

TO

TA

LS

INCOME

Housing sales

Ma

rke

t ho

usin

g0

00

00

0340

2,3

80

2,3

80

2,3

80

2,3

80

2,3

80

2,3

80

2,3

80

2,3

80

2,3

80

2,3

80

2,3

80

2,3

80

2,3

80

2,3

80

2,3

80

36,0

40

Aff

ord

able

soc r

en

t0

00

00

012

87

87

87

87

87

87

87

87

87

87

87

87

87

87

87

1,3

17

Aff

ord

able

sh o

ship

00

00

00

12

82

82

82

82

82

82

82

82

82

82

82

82

82

82

82

1,2

47

Aff

oth

er

A0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Aff

oth

er

B0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Sa

les f

ee

s0

00

00

0-1

2-8

5-8

5-8

5-8

5-8

5-8

5-8

5-8

5-8

5-8

5-8

5-8

5-8

5-8

5-8

5-1

,280

Total income

00

00

00

364

2,549

2,549

2,549

2,549

2,549

2,549

2,549

2,549

2,549

2,549

2,549

2,549

2,549

2,549

2,549

38,603

COSTS

Land

La

nd a

cqu

isitio

n3,3

94

3,3

94

Sta

mp

du

ty136

136

Pu

rcha

se

fe

es

93

93

Total

3,624

Build costs

Ma

rke

t ho

usin

g0

00

0146

1,0

23

1,0

23

1,0

23

1,0

23

1,0

23

1,0

23

1,0

23

1,0

23

1,0

23

1,0

23

1,0

23

1,0

23

1,0

23

1,0

23

1,0

23

00

15,4

86

Aff

ord

able

soc r

en

t0

00

015

108

108

108

108

108

108

108

108

108

108

108

108

108

108

108

00

1,6

40

Aff

ord

able

sh o

ship

00

00

10

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

00

1,0

93

Aff

oth

er

A0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Aff

oth

er

B0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Bu

ild c

ontin

ge

ncy

2.5

%0

00

04

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

00

455

Total

18,674

Dev costs

Up

fron

t1

0.0

%467

467

467

467

1,8

67

Bu

ild r

ela

ted

10.0

%0

018

123

123

123

123

123

123

123

123

123

123

123

123

123

123

123

00

00

1,8

67

Ab

norm

als

1%

100

100

200

Total

3,935

Fees

Fe

es o

n b

uild

co

sts

10.0

%0

00

018

123

123

123

123

123

123

123

123

123

123

123

123

123

123

123

00

1,8

67

Fe

es o

n d

ev c

osts

0.0

%0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Total

1,867

PG

Pla

nn

ing g

ain

963

63

63

63

63

63

63

63

63

63

63

63

63

63

63

00

00

954

Total

954

Other

Pla

nn

ing

£4

14

29

29

29

88

Su

rvey

£2

00

42

42

Ma

rke

tin

g£

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Total

130

Sales fees

b/f

orw

ard

fro

m a

bo

ve

00

00

00

12

85

85

85

85

85

85

85

85

85

85

85

85

85

85

85

1,280

Total costs

4,262

596

523

653

380

1,543

1,555

1,627

1,627

1,627

1,627

1,627

1,627

1,627

1,627

1,627

1,627

1,627

1,441

1,441

85

85

30,464


-4,262

-596

-523

-653

-380

-1,543

-1,191

922

922

922

922

922

922

922

922

922

922

922

1,108

1,108

2,465

2,465

8,139


0-4

,342

-5,0

30

-5,6

57

-6,4

28

-6,9

36

-8,6

38

-10,0

13

-9,2

61

-8,4

96

-7,7

16

-6,9

21

-6,1

12

-5,2

87

-4,4

47

-3,5

91

-2,7

19

-1,8

31

-926

186

1,3

18

3,8

54


-4,2

62

-4,9

38

-5,5

53

-6,3

10

-6,8

09

-8,4

79

-9,8

29

-9,0

91

-8,3

39

-7,5

74

-6,7

94

-5,9

99

-5,1

90

-4,3

65

-3,5

25

-2,6

69

-1,7

97

-909

182

1,2

94

3,7

83

6,3

18

Interest

Ch

arg

ed

at

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

To

tal

-80

-93

-104

-118

-128

-159

-184

-170

-156

-142

-127

-112

-97

-82

-66

-50

-34

-17

324

71

118

-1,704


-4,342

-5,030

-5,657

-6,428

-6,936

-8,638

-10,013

-9,261

-8,496

-7,716

-6,921

-6,112

-5,287

-4,447

-3,591

-2,719

-1,831

-926

186

1,318

3,854

6,437

6,435



Page 79

SITE 2A: Gerber Factory Bridgwater


Page 80

Input assumptions

Scenario & option

Afford

able

15%

= 9

% s

ocia

l re

nte

d &

6%

inte

rmedia

te


Dwellings

Site details

ave

flo

or

sp

ace

bu

ildsa

les

Site

2A Gerber Factory

Dwellings

gro

ss

ne

tco

st

va

lue

Location

Bridgwater West

sq

ft

sq f

tpe

r sq

ft

pe

r sq f

t

Are

a ha

6.0

0M

ark

et housin

g272.0

85.0

0%

889

860

87.5

0206.0

0

acre

s14.8

30.0

%

No d

wgs

320

Afford

able

soc rent

28.8

9.0

0%

889

860

87.5

068.0

0

Density d

w/h

a53.3

0.0

%

Afford

able

sh o

ship

19.2

6.0

0%

889

860

87.5

099.0

0

0.0

%

Aff o

ther A

0.0

0.0

0%

00

0.0

00.0

0

0.0

%

Aff o

ther B

0.0

0.0

0%

00

0.0

00.0

0

£k

Contingency

Tota

l320.0

100.0

0%

284,4

80

275,2

00

£24,8

92,0

00

£51,5

06,4

32

allo

wance

5.0

0%

1,2

45

Flo

ors

pace d

ensity

=18,5

62

net sq ft per acre

Development costs

sta

ndard

% b

uild

17.5

0%

4,5

74

Other costs

Pla

nnin

g441

£ p

er dw

elli

ng

Surv

ey

500

£ p

er dw

elli

ng

plu

s a

bnorm

als

1.3

%340

Mark

eting

0£ p

er dw

elli

ng

Tota

l19%

Design fees

on b

uild

costs

10.0

%2,6

14

Interest

% p

er annum

7.5

0%

on d

ev c

osts

0%

Notes

Planning gain

£ p

er dw

elli

ng

8,0

00

2,5

60


Page 81


Programme

Ye

ar

1Y

ea

r 2

Ye

ar

3Y

ea

r 4

Ye

ar

5Y

ea

r 6

Ye

ar

7Y

ear

8

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

TO

TA

LS

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ousin

g0.0

10.2

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

0.0

0.0

272.0

started

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0.0

1.1

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

0.0

0.0

28.8

Aff

ord

ab

le s

h o

sh

ip0.0

0.7

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.0

0.0

19.2

Aff

oth

er

A0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Aff

oth

er

B0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

TO

TA

L0

00

12

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

00

320.0

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ousin

g0

00

10

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

00

272

'built'

+2Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0

00

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

10

029

Aff

ord

ab

le s

h o

sh

ip0

00

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

10

019

Aff

oth

er

A0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Aff

oth

er

B0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ousin

g0

00

10

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

0272

completed

+3Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0

00

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

10

29

Aff

ord

ab

le s

h o

sh

ip0

00

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

10

19

Aff

oth

er

A0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Aff

oth

er

B0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ousin

g0

00

10

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

272

purchased

+4Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0

00

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

129

Aff

ord

ab

le s

h o

sh

ip0

00

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

119

Aff

oth

er

A0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Aff

oth

er

B0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Land


Afford

able

No a

fford

able

Afford

able

No a

fford

able

Land p

urc

hase p

rice

£2,799,152

5,509,196

RV

per acre

£188,800

371,590

£466,525

£918,199

Dev p

rofit

£8,323,413

9,449,258

Tota

l costs

£43,185,269

47,244,192


19.27%

20.00%

Hectare


Page 82


Ye

ar

1Y

ear

2Y

ear

3Y

ear

4Y

ear

5Y

ear

6Y

ea

r 7

Year

8

rate

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

TO

TA

LS

INCOME

Housing sales

Ma

rke

t hou

sin

g0

00

00

00

1,8

07

2,1

08

2,1

08

2,1

08

2,1

08

2,1

08

2,1

08

2,1

08

2,1

08

2,1

08

2,1

08

2,1

08

2,1

08

2,1

08

2,1

08

2,1

08

2,1

08

2,1

08

2,1

08

2,1

08

2,1

08

2,1

08

2,1

08

48,1

88

Afford

able

soc r

ent

00

00

00

063

74

74

74

74

74

74

74

74

74

74

74

74

74

74

74

74

74

74

74

74

74

74

1,6

84

Afford

able

sh o

ship

00

00

00

061

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

1,6

35

Aff o

the

r A

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Aff o

the

r B

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Sale

s fee

s0

00

00

00

-64

-75

-75

-75

-75

-75

-75

-75

-75

-75

-75

-75

-75

-75

-75

-75

-75

-75

-75

-75

-75

-75

-75

-1,7

11

Total income

00

00

00

01,931

2,253

2,253

2,253

2,253

2,253

2,253

2,253

2,253

2,253

2,253

2,253

2,253

2,253

2,253

2,253

2,253

2,253

2,253

2,253

2,253

2,253

2,253

51,506

COSTS

Land

Land a

cqu

isitio

n2,7

99

2,7

99

Sta

mp d

uty

112

112

Purc

hase

fees

77

77

Total

2,988

Build costs

Ma

rke

t hou

sin

g0

00

00

793

926

926

926

926

926

926

926

926

926

926

926

926

926

926

926

926

926

926

926

926

926

926

00

21,1

58

Afford

able

soc r

ent

00

00

084

98

98

98

98

98

98

98

98

98

98

98

98

98

98

98

98

98

98

98

98

98

98

00

2,2

40

Afford

able

sh o

ship

00

00

056

65

65

65

65

65

65

65

65

65

65

65

65

65

65

65

65

65

65

65

65

65

65

00

1,4

94

Aff o

the

r A

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Aff o

the

r B

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Build

continge

ncy

5.0

%0

00

00

47

54

54

54

54

54

54

54

54

54

54

54

54

54

54

54

54

54

54

54

54

54

54

00

1,2

45

Total

26,137

Dev costs

Up

fro

nt

8.8

%572

572

572

572

2,2

87

Build

rela

ted

8.8

%0

00

86

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

00

00

2,2

87

Abnorm

als

1%

170

170

340

Total

4,914

Fees

Fee

s o

n b

uild

co

sts

10.0

%0

00

00

98

114

114

114

114

114

114

114

114

114

114

114

114

114

114

114

114

114

114

114

114

114

114

00

2,6

14

Fee

s o

n d

ev c

osts

0.0

%0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Total

2,614

PG

Pla

nn

ing g

ain

096

112

112

112

112

112

112

112

112

112

112

112

112

112

112

112

112

112

112

112

112

112

112

00

00

2,5

60

Total

2,560

Other

Pla

nn

ing

£4

41

47

47

47

141

Surv

ey

£5

00

160

160

Ma

rke

tin

g£0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0Total

301

Sales fees

b/forw

ard

fro

m a

bove

00

00

00

064

75

75

75

75

75

75

75

75

75

75

75

75

75

75

75

75

75

75

75

75

75

75

1,711

Total costs

3,937

789

619

753

212

1,290

1,470

1,534

1,545

1,545

1,545

1,545

1,545

1,545

1,545

1,545

1,545

1,545

1,545

1,545

1,545

1,545

1,545

1,545

1,545

1,545

1,333

1,333

75

75

41,224


-3,937

-789

-619

-753

-212

-1,290

-1,470

397

709

709

709

709

709

709

709

709

709

709

709

709

709

709

709

709

709

709

921

921

2,179

2,179

10,282


0-4

,011

-4,8

89

-5,6

11

-6,4

84

-6,8

21

-8,2

64

-9,9

16

-9,6

97

-9,1

57

-8,6

06

-8,0

46

-7,4

74

-6,8

93

-6,3

00

-5,6

96

-5,0

81

-4,4

54

-3,8

15

-3,1

65

-2,5

02

-1,8

27

-1,1

39

-439

275

1,0

02

1,7

43

2,7

14

3,7

03

5,9

92


-3,9

37

-4,7

99

-5,5

08

-6,3

65

-6,6

96

-8,1

12

-9,7

33

-9,5

18

-8,9

88

-8,4

48

-7,8

98

-7,3

37

-6,7

66

-6,1

84

-5,5

91

-4,9

87

-4,3

72

-3,7

45

-3,1

07

-2,4

56

-1,7

94

-1,1

18

-431

270

984

1,7

11

2,6

64

3,6

35

5,8

81

8,1

70

Interest

Ch

arg

ed a

t7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

Tota

l-7

4-9

0-1

03

-119

-126

-152

-183

-178

-169

-158

-148

-138

-127

-116

-105

-94

-82

-70

-58

-46

-34

-21

-85

18

32

50

68

110

153

-1,961


-4,011

-4,889

-5,611

-6,484

-6,821

-8,264

-9,916

-9,697

-9,157

-8,606

-8,046

-7,474

-6,893

-6,300

-5,696

-5,081

-4,454

-3,815

-3,165

-2,502

-1,827

-1,139

-439

275

1,002

1,743

2,714

3,703

5,992

8,323

8,321



Page 83

SITE 2N notional site Yeovil


Page 84

Input assumptions

Scenario & option

Afford

able

15%

= 9

% s

ocia

l re

nte

d &

6%

inte

rmedia

te


Dwellings

Site details

ave

flo

or

sp

ace

bu

ildsa

les

Site

2N notional as 2A

Dwellings

gro

ss

ne

tco

st

va

lue

Location

Yeovil East

sq

ft

sq f

tpe

r sq

ft

pe

r sq f

t

Are

a ha

6.0

0M

ark

et housin

g272.0

85.0

0%

889

860

87.5

0190.0

0

acre

s14.8

30.0

%

No d

wgs

320

Afford

able

soc rent

28.8

9.0

0%

889

860

87.5

070.0

0

Density d

w/h

a53.3

0.0

%

Afford

able

sh o

ship

19.2

6.0

0%

889

860

87.5

099.0

0

0.0

%

Aff o

ther A

0.0

0.0

0%

00

0.0

00.0

0

0.0

%

Aff o

ther B

0.0

0.0

0%

00

0.0

00.0

0

£k

Contingency

Tota

l320.0

100.0

0%

284,4

80

275,2

00

£24,8

92,0

00

£47,8

13,2

48

allo

wance

5.0

0%

1,2

45

Flo

ors

pace d

ensity

=18,5

62

net sq ft per acre

Development costs

sta

ndard

% b

uild

17.5

0%

4,5

74

Other costs

Pla

nnin

g441

£ p

er dw

elli

ng

Surv

ey

500

£ p

er dw

elli

ng

plu

s a

bnorm

als

1.3

%340

Mark

eting

0£ p

er dw

elli

ng

Tota

l19%

Design fees

on b

uild

costs

10.0

%2,6

14

Interest

% p

er annum

7.5

0%

on d

ev c

osts

0%

Notes

Planning gain

£ p

er dw

elli

ng

8,0

00

2,5

60


Page 85


Programme

Ye

ar

1Y

ea

r 2

Ye

ar

3Y

ea

r 4

Ye

ar

5Y

ea

r 6

Ye

ar

7

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

TO

TA

LS

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0.0

10.2

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

11.9

0.0

0.0

272.0

started

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

ent

0.0

1.1

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

0.0

0.0

28.8

Affo

rda

ble

sh

osh

ip0.0

0.7

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.0

0.0

19.2

Aff

oth

er

A0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Aff

oth

er

B0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

TO

TA

L0

00

12

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

00

320.0

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0

00

10

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

272

'built'

+2Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

ent

00

01

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

29

Affo

rda

ble

sh

osh

ip0

00

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

119

Aff

oth

er

A0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Aff

oth

er

B0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0

00

10

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

272

completed

+3Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

ent

00

01

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

129

Affo

rda

ble

sh

osh

ip0

00

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

19

Aff

oth

er

A0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Aff

oth

er

B0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0

00

10

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

272

purchased

+4Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

ent

00

01

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

29

Affo

rda

ble

sh

osh

ip0

00

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

119

Aff

oth

er

A0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Aff

oth

er

B0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Land


Afford

able

No a

fford

able

Afford

able

No a

fford

able

Land p

urc

hase p

rice

£718,000

3,038,236

RV

per acre

£48,428

204,926

£119,667

£506,373

Dev p

rofit

£7,722,425

8,711,315

Tota

l costs

£40,093,073

43,578,935


19.26%

19.99%

Hectare


Page 86


Ye

ar

1Y

ear

2Y

ear

3Y

ear

4Y

ear

5Y

ear

6Y

ea

r 7

Year

8

rate

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

TO

TA

LS

INCOME

Housing sales

Ma

rke

t hou

sin

g0

00

00

00

1,6

67

1,9

44

1,9

44

1,9

44

1,9

44

1,9

44

1,9

44

1,9

44

1,9

44

1,9

44

1,9

44

1,9

44

1,9

44

1,9

44

1,9

44

1,9

44

1,9

44

1,9

44

1,9

44

1,9

44

1,9

44

1,9

44

1,9

44

44,4

45

Afford

able

soc r

ent

00

00

00

065

76

76

76

76

76

76

76

76

76

76

76

76

76

76

76

76

76

76

76

76

76

76

1,7

34

Afford

able

sh o

ship

00

00

00

061

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

1,6

35

Aff o

the

r A

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Aff o

the

r B

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Sale

s fee

s0

00

00

00

-59

-69

-69

-69

-69

-69

-69

-69

-69

-69

-69

-69

-69

-69

-69

-69

-69

-69

-69

-69

-69

-69

-69

-1,5

81

Total income

00

00

00

01,793

2,092

2,092

2,092

2,092

2,092

2,092

2,092

2,092

2,092

2,092

2,092

2,092

2,092

2,092

2,092

2,092

2,092

2,092

2,092

2,092

2,092

2,092

47,813

COSTS

Land

Land a

cqu

isitio

n718

718

Sta

mp d

uty

29

29

Purc

hase

fees

20

20

Total

766

Build costs

Ma

rke

t hou

sin

g0

00

00

793

926

926

926

926

926

926

926

926

926

926

926

926

926

926

926

926

926

926

926

926

926

926

00

21,1

58

Afford

able

soc r

ent

00

00

084

98

98

98

98

98

98

98

98

98

98

98

98

98

98

98

98

98

98

98

98

98

98

00

2,2

40

Afford

able

sh o

ship

00

00

056

65

65

65

65

65

65

65

65

65

65

65

65

65

65

65

65

65

65

65

65

65

65

00

1,4

94

Aff o

the

r A

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Aff o

the

r B

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Build

continge

ncy

5.0

%0

00

00

47

54

54

54

54

54

54

54

54

54

54

54

54

54

54

54

54

54

54

54

54

54

54

00

1,2

45

Total

26,137

Dev costs

Up

fro

nt

8.8

%572

572

572

572

2,2

87

Build

rela

ted

8.8

%0

00

86

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

00

00

2,2

87

Abnorm

als

1%

170

170

340

Total

4,914

Fees

Fee

s o

n b

uild

co

sts

10.0

%0

00

00

98

114

114

114

114

114

114

114

114

114

114

114

114

114

114

114

114

114

114

114

114

114

114

00

2,6

14

Fee

s o

n d

ev c

osts

0.0

%0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Total

2,614

PG

Pla

nn

ing g

ain

096

112

112

112

112

112

112

112

112

112

112

112

112

112

112

112

112

112

112

112

112

112

112

00

00

2,5

60

Total

2,560

Other

Pla

nn

ing

£4

41

47

47

47

141

Surv

ey

£5

00

160

160

Ma

rke

tin

g£0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0Total

301

Sales fees

b/forw

ard

fro

m a

bove

00

00

00

059

69

69

69

69

69

69

69

69

69

69

69

69

69

69

69

69

69

69

69

69

69

69

1,581

Total costs

1,715

789

619

753

212

1,290

1,470

1,529

1,539

1,539

1,539

1,539

1,539

1,539

1,539

1,539

1,539

1,539

1,539

1,539

1,539

1,539

1,539

1,539

1,539

1,539

1,327

1,327

69

69

38,872


-1,715

-789

-619

-753

-212

-1,290

-1,470

264

553

553

553

553

553

553

553

553

553

553

553

553

553

553

553

553

553

553

765

765

2,023

2,023

8,941


0-1

,747

-2,5

83

-3,2

62

-4,0

91

-4,3

83

-5,7

80

-7,3

86

-7,2

55

-6,8

28

-6,3

93

-5,9

50

-5,4

98

-5,0

38

-4,5

69

-4,0

91

-3,6

05

-3,1

09

-2,6

04

-2,0

90

-1,5

66

-1,0

32

-488

66

631

1,2

06

1,7

92

2,6

04

3,4

33

5,5

58


-1,7

15

-2,5

36

-3,2

02

-4,0

16

-4,3

03

-5,6

74

-7,2

50

-7,1

22

-6,7

03

-6,2

75

-5,8

40

-5,3

97

-4,9

45

-4,4

85

-4,0

16

-3,5

39

-3,0

52

-2,5

56

-2,0

51

-1,5

37

-1,0

13

-479

65

619

1,1

83

1,7

58

2,5

56

3,3

69

5,4

55

7,5

80

Interest

Ch

arg

ed a

t7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

Tota

l-3

2-4

8-6

0-7

5-8

1-1

06

-136

-134

-126

-118

-110

-101

-93

-84

-75

-66

-57

-48

-38

-29

-19

-91

12

22

33

48

63

102

142

-1,221


-1,747

-2,583

-3,262

-4,091

-4,383

-5,780

-7,386

-7,255

-6,828

-6,393

-5,950

-5,498

-5,038

-4,569

-4,091

-3,605

-3,109

-2,604

-2,090

-1,566

-1,032

-488

66

631

1,206

1,792

2,604

3,433

5,558

7,722

7,720



Page 87

SITE 3A: Touches Chard


Page 88

Input assumptions

Scenario & option

Afford

able

15%

= 9

% s

ocia

l re

nte

d &

6%

inte

rmedia

te

Site details

Dwellings

ave f

loo

r sp

ace

bu

ildsa

les

Site

3A Touches

no

of

%g

ross

ne

tco

st

va

lue

Location

Chard

dw

gs

sq

ft

sq

ft

pe

r sq

ft

pe

r sq

ft

Are

a ha

0.6

01.2

6M

ark

et housin

g20.4

085%

917

917

81.5

0190.0

018,7

07

acre

s1.4

80.0

%

No d

wgs

24

0.1

3A

fford

able

soc rent

2.1

69.0

%917

917

81.5

068.0

01,9

81

Density d

w/h

a40.0

0.0

%

0.0

9A

ff s

h o

ship

1.4

46.0

%917

917

81.5

096.0

01,3

20

Tota

l24.0

100%

22,0

08

22,0

08

£1,7

93,6

52

£3,8

15,7

47

22,0

08

net:

gro

ss=

10

0%

Flo

ors

pace d

ensity

=14,8

44

net sq ft per acre

£k

Contingency

18706.8

allo

wance

2.5

0%

45

0

1980.7

2 0

1320.4

8

22008

Development costs

Other costs

sta

ndard

% b

uild

13.0

%239

Pla

nnin

g415

£ p

er dw

elli

ng

Surv

ey

200

£ p

er dw

elli

ng

plu

s a

bnorm

als

0.0

%0

Mark

eting

0£ p

er dw

elli

ng

Tota

l13%

Interest

Design fees

% p

er annum

7.5

0%

-155

on b

uild

costs

10.0

%184

on d

ev c

osts

0%

Notes

Planning gain

£ p

er dw

elling

4,5

00

108



Page 89


Programme

Ye

ar

1Y

ea

r 2

Ye

ar

3Y

ea

r 4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

TO

TA

LS

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g3.4

4.3

4.3

4.3

4.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

20.4

started

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0.4

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.2

Aff

sh

osh

ip0.2

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.4

TO

TA

L0

04

55

55

00

00

024.0

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0

03

44

44

00

00

00

020

'built'

+2Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0

00

00

00

00

00

00

02

Aff

sh

osh

ip0

00

00

00

00

00

00

01

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0

03

44

44

00

00

00

20

completed

+3Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0

00

00

00

00

00

00

2

Aff

sh

osh

ip0

00

00

00

00

00

00

1

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0

03

44

44

00

00

020

purchased

+4Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0

00

00

00

00

00

02

Aff

sh

osh

ip0

00

00

00

00

00

01

Land


Afford

able

No a

fford

able

Land p

urc

hase p

rice

£501,000

719,617

RV

per acre

£337,920

485,375

RV

per hecta

re£

835,000

1,199,362

Dev p

rofit

£616,622

696,949

Tota

l costs

£3,200,025

3,485,471


19.27%

20.00%


Page 90


Year

1Y

ear

2Y

ear

3Y

ear

4

rate

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

TO

TA

LS

INCOME

Housing sales

Mark

et h

ousin

g0

00

00

0592

740

740

740

740

00

00

03,5

54

Afford

able

soc r

ent

00

00

00

22

28

28

28

28

00

00

0135

Aff s

h o

ship

00

00

00

21

26

26

26

26

00

00

0127

0

Sa

les fees

00

00

00

-21

-26

-26

-26

-26

00

00

0-1

26

Total income

00

00

00

636

795

795

795

795

00

00

03,816

COSTS

Land

La

nd a

cquis

itio

n501

501

Sta

mp

du

ty20

20

Pu

rch

ase fees

14

14

Total

535

Build costs

Mark

et h

ousin

g0

00

0254

318

318

318

318

00

00

00

01,5

25

Afford

able

soc r

ent

00

00

27

34

34

34

34

00

00

00

0161

Aff s

h o

ship

00

00

18

22

22

22

22

00

00

00

0108

Bu

ild c

on

ting

ency

2.5

%0

00

07

99

99

00

00

00

045

Total

1,838

Dev costs

Upfr

ont

6.5

%30

30

30

30

120

Bu

ild r

ela

ted

6.5

%0

020

25

25

25

25

00

00

00

0120

Ab

norm

als

0%

00

0

Total

239

Fees

Fees o

n b

uild

costs

10

.0%

00

00

31

38

38

38

38

00

00

00

0184

Fees o

n d

ev c

osts

0.0

%0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Total

184

PG

Pla

nnin

g g

ain

18

23

23

23

23

00

00

00

00

0108

Total

108

Other

Pla

nnin

g£41

53

33

10

Su

rve

y£20

05

5

Mark

eting

£0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Total

15

Sales fees

b/fo

rward

fro

m a

bove

00

00

00

21

26

26

26

26

00

00

0126

Total costs

573

33

71

77

384

469

490

448

448

26

26

00

00

03,045


-573

-33

-71

-77

-384

-469

146

347

347

769

769

00

00

0770


0-5

83

-628

-712

-804

-1,2

11

-1,7

11

-1,5

94

-1,2

70

-940

-175

605

605

605

617

617


-573

-617

-699

-790

-1,1

89

-1,6

80

-1,5

65

-1,2

47

-923

-171

594

605

605

605

617

617

Interest

Charg

ed a

t7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

7.5

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

Tota

l-1

1-1

2-1

3-1

5-2

2-3

1-2

9-2

3-1

7-3

11

00

11

00

-155


-583

-628

-712

-804

-1,211

-1,711

-1,594

-1,270

-940

-175

605

605

605

617

617

617

616



Page 91

SITE 3N notional site Bridgwater


Page 92

Input assumptions

Scenario & option

Afford

able

15%

= 9

% s

ocia

l re

nte

d &

6%

inte

rmedia

te

Site details

Dwellings

ave f

loo

r sp

ace

bu

ildsa

les

Site

3N notional as 3A

no

of

%g

ross

ne

tco

st

va

lue

Location

Bridgwater N

dw

gs

sq

ft

sq

ft

pe

r sq

ft

pe

r sq

ft

Are

a ha

0.6

01.2

6M

ark

et housin

g20.4

085%

917

917

81.5

0195.0

018,7

07

acre

s1.4

80.0

%

No d

wgs

24

0.1

3A

fford

able

soc rent

2.1

69.0

%917

917

81.5

066.0

01,9

81

Density d

w/h

a40.0

0.0

%

0.0

9A

ff s

h o

ship

1.4

46.0

%917

917

81.5

096.0

01,3

20

Tota

l24.0

100%

22,0

08

22,0

08

£1,7

93,6

52

£3,9

05,3

20

22,0

08

net:

gro

ss=

10

0%

Flo

ors

pace d

ensity

=14,8

44

net sq ft per acre

£k

Contingency

18706.8

allo

wance

2.5

0%

45

0

1980.7

2 0

1320.4

8

22008

Development costs

Other costs

sta

ndard

% b

uild

13.0

%239

Pla

nnin

g415

£ p

er dw

elli

ng

Surv

ey

200

£ p

er dw

elli

ng

plu

s a

bnorm

als

0.0

%0

Mark

eting

0£ p

er dw

elli

ng

Tota

l13%

Interest

Design fees

% p

er annum

7.5

0%

-164

on b

uild

costs

10.0

%184

on d

ev c

osts

0%

Notes

Planning gain

£ p

er dw

elling

4,5

00

108



Page 93


Programme

Ye

ar

1Y

ea

r 2

Ye

ar

3Y

ea

r 4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

TO

TA

LS

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g3.4

4.3

4.3

4.3

4.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

20.4

started

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0.4

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.2

Aff

sh

osh

ip0.2

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.4

TO

TA

L0

04

55

55

00

00

024.0

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0

03

44

44

00

00

00

020

'built'

+2Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0

00

00

00

00

00

00

02

Aff

sh

osh

ip0

00

00

00

00

00

00

01

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0

03

44

44

00

00

00

20

completed

+3Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0

00

00

00

00

00

00

2

Aff

sh

osh

ip0

00

00

00

00

00

00

1

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0

03

44

44

00

00

020

purchased

+4Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0

00

00

00

00

00

02

Aff

sh

osh

ip0

00

00

00

00

00

01

Land


Afford

able

No a

fford

able

Land p

urc

hase p

rice

£560,124

790,031

RV

per acre

£377,798

532,868

RV

per hecta

re£

933,540

1,316,718

Dev p

rofit

£630,610

717,253

Tota

l costs

£3,275,609

3,575,207


19.25%

20.06%


Page 94

Year

1Y

ear

2Y

ear

3Y

ear

4

rate

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

TO

TA

LS

INCOME

Housing sales

Mark

et h

ousin

g0

00

00

0608

760

760

760

760

00

00

03,6

48

Afford

able

soc r

ent

00

00

00

22

27

27

27

27

00

00

0131

Aff s

h o

ship

00

00

00

21

26

26

26

26

00

00

0127

0

Sa

les fees

00

00

00

-22

-27

-27

-27

-27

00

00

0-1

30

Total income

00

00

00

651

814

814

814

814

00

00

03,905

COSTS

Land

La

nd a

cquis

itio

n560

560

Sta

mp

du

ty22

22

Pu

rch

ase fees

15

15

Total

598

Build costs

Mark

et h

ousin

g0

00

0254

318

318

318

318

00

00

00

01,5

25

Afford

able

soc r

ent

00

00

27

34

34

34

34

00

00

00

0161

Aff s

h o

ship

00

00

18

22

22

22

22

00

00

00

0108

Bu

ild c

on

ting

ency

2.5

%0

00

07

99

99

00

00

00

045

Total

1,838

Dev costs

Upfr

ont

6.5

%30

30

30

30

120

Bu

ild r

ela

ted

6.5

%0

020

25

25

25

25

00

00

00

0120

Ab

norm

als

0%

00

0

Total

239

Fees

Fees o

n b

uild

costs

10

.0%

00

00

31

38

38

38

38

00

00

00

0184

Fees o

n d

ev c

osts

0.0

%0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Total

184

PG

Pla

nnin

g g

ain

18

23

23

23

23

00

00

00

00

0108

Total

108

Other

Pla

nnin

g£41

53

33

10

Su

rve

y£20

05

5

Mark

eting

£0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Total

15

Sales fees

b/fo

rward

fro

m a

bove

00

00

00

22

27

27

27

27

00

00

0130

Total costs

636

33

71

77

384

469

490

448

448

27

27

00

00

03,112


-636

-33

-71

-77

-384

-469

161

365

365

787

787

00

00

0794


0-6

48

-694

-779

-872

-1,2

80

-1,7

82

-1,6

51

-1,3

10

-963

-179

619

619

619

631

631


-636

-681

-765

-856

-1,2

57

-1,7

49

-1,6

21

-1,2

86

-945

-176

607

619

619

619

631

631

Interest

Charg

ed a

t7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

7.5

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

Tota

l-1

2-1

3-1

4-1

6-2

4-3

3-3

0-2

4-1

8-3

11

00

12

00

-164


-648

-694

-779

-872

-1,280

-1,782

-1,651

-1,310

-963

-179

619

619

619

631

631

631

630




Page 95

SITE 4A: Priory Ave Taunton


Page 96

Input assumptions

Scenario & option

Afford

able

15%

= 9

% s

ocia

l re

nte

d &

6%

inte

rmedia

te

Site details

Dwellings

ave f

loo

r sp

ace

bu

ildsa

les

Site

4A County Garage

no

of

%g

ross

ne

tco

st

va

lue

Location

Taunton

dw

gs

sq

ft

sq

ft

pe

r sq

ft

pe

r sq

ft

Are

a ha

0.2

30.4

8M

ark

et housin

g20.4

085%

1,0

42

917

99.0

0225.0

021,2

57

acre

s0.5

70.0

%

No d

wgs

24

0.0

5A

fford

able

soc rent

2.1

69.0

%1,0

42

917

99.0

075.0

02,2

51

Density d

w/h

a104.3

0.0

%

0.0

3A

ff s

h o

ship

1.4

46.0

%1,0

42

917

99.0

0106.0

01,5

00

Tota

l24.0

100%

25,0

08

22,0

08

£2,4

75,7

92

£4,4

97,5

55

25,0

08

net:

gro

ss=

88

%

Flo

ors

pace d

ensity

=38,7

24

net sq ft per acre

£k

Contingency

18706.8

allo

wance

5.0

0%

124

0

1980.7

2 0

1320.4

8

22008

Development costs

Other costs

sta

ndard

% b

uild

11.0

%286

Pla

nnin

g415

£ p

er dw

elli

ng

Surv

ey

500

£ p

er dw

elli

ng

plu

s a

bnorm

als

7.0

%182

Mark

eting

0£ p

er dw

elli

ng

Tota

l18%

Interest

Design fees

% p

er annum

7.5

0%

-149

on b

uild

costs

10.0

%260

on d

ev c

osts

0%

Notes

Planning gain

£ p

er dw

elling

3,0

00

72



Page 97


Programme

Ye

ar

1Y

ea

r 2

Ye

ar

3Y

ea

r 4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

TO

TA

LS

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g10.2

10.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

20.4

started

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t1.1

1.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.2

Aff

sh

osh

ip0.7

0.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.4

TO

TA

L0

012

12

00

00

00

00

24.0

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0

010

10

00

00

00

00

00

20

'built'

+2Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0

01

10

00

00

00

00

02

Aff

sh

osh

ip0

01

10

00

00

00

00

01

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0

010

10

00

00

00

00

020

completed

+3Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0

01

10

00

00

00

00

2

Aff

sh

osh

ip0

01

10

00

00

00

00

1

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0

010

10

00

00

00

00

20

purchased

+4Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0

01

10

00

00

00

02

Aff

sh

osh

ip0

01

10

00

00

00

01

Land


Afford

able

No a

fford

able

Land p

urc

hase p

rice

£50,514

339,580

RV

per acre

£88,882

597,505

RV

per hecta

re£

219,626

1,476,435

Dev p

rofit

£725,880

823,847

Tota

l costs

£3,772,275

4,128,553


19.24%

19.95%


Page 98


Year

1Y

ear

2Y

ear

3Y

ear

4

rate

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

TO

TA

LS

INCOME

Housing sales

Mark

et h

ousin

g0

00

00

02,1

05

2,1

05

00

00

00

00

4,2

09

Afford

able

soc r

ent

00

00

00

74

74

00

00

00

00

149

Aff s

h o

ship

00

00

00

70

70

00

00

00

00

140

0

Sa

les fees

00

00

00

-75

-75

00

00

00

00

-149

Total income

00

00

00

2,249

2,249

00

00

00

00

4,498

COSTS

Land

La

nd a

cquis

itio

n51

51

Sta

mp

du

ty0

0

Pu

rch

ase fees

11

Total

52

Build costs

Mark

et h

ousin

g0

00

01,0

52

1,0

52

00

00

00

00

00

2,1

04

Afford

able

soc r

ent

00

00

111

111

00

00

00

00

00

223

Aff s

h o

ship

00

00

74

74

00

00

00

00

00

149

Bu

ild c

on

ting

ency

5.0

%0

00

062

62

00

00

00

00

00

124

Total

2,600

Dev costs

Upfr

ont

5.5

%36

36

36

36

143

Bu

ild r

ela

ted

5.5

%0

071

71

00

00

00

00

00

143

Ab

norm

als

7%

91

91

182

Total

468

Fees

Fees o

n b

uild

costs

10

.0%

00

00

130

130

00

00

00

00

00

260

Fees o

n d

ev c

osts

0.0

%0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Total

260

PG

Pla

nnin

g g

ain

36

36

00

00

00

00

00

00

72

Total

72

Other

Pla

nnin

g£41

53

33

10

Su

rve

y£50

012

12

Mark

eting

£0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Total

22

Sales fees

b/fo

rward

fro

m a

bove

00

00

00

75

75

00

00

00

00

149

Total costs

194

130

147

143

1,430

1,430

75

75

00

00

00

00

3,623


-194

-130

-147

-143

-1,430

-1,430

2,174

2,174

00

00

00

00

875


0-1

98

-334

-489

-644

-2,1

13

-3,6

09

-1,4

62

726

726

726

726

726

726

726

726


-194

-328

-480

-632

-2,0

74

-3,5

42

-1,4

35

712

726

726

726

726

726

726

726

726

Interest

Charg

ed a

t7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

Tota

l-4

-6-9

-12

-39

-66

-27

13

00

00

00

00

-149


-198

-334

-489

-644

-2,113

-3,609

-1,462

726

726

726

726

726

726

726

726

726

725



Page 99

SITE 4B: Clanville Grange Minehead


Page 100

Input assumptions

Scenario & option

Afford

able

15%

= 9

% s

ocia

l re

nte

d &

6%

inte

rmedia

te

Site details

Dwellings

ave f

loo

r sp

ace

bu

ildsa

les

Site

4B Clanville Grange

no

of

%g

ross

ne

tco

st

va

lue

Location

Minehead

dw

gs

sq

ft

sq

ft

pe

r sq

ft

pe

r sq

ft

Are

a ha

0.8

91.8

7M

ark

et housin

g40.8

085%

839

766

94.0

0238.0

034,2

31

acre

s2.2

00.0

%

No d

wgs

48

0.2

0A

fford

able

soc rent

4.3

29.0

%839

766

94.0

075.0

03,6

24

Density d

w/h

a53.9

0.0

%

0.1

3A

ff s

h o

ship

2.8

86.0

%839

766

94.0

0102.0

02,4

16

Tota

l48.0

100%

40,2

72

36,7

68

£3,7

85,5

68

£7,9

11,3

71

40,2

72

net:

gro

ss=

91

%

Flo

ors

pace d

ensity

=16,7

19

net sq ft per acre

£k

Contingency

31252.8

allo

wance

5.0

0%

189

0

3309.1

2 0

2206.0

8

36768

Development costs

Other costs

sta

ndard

% b

uild

12.0

%477

Pla

nnin

g415

£ p

er dw

elli

ng

Surv

ey

500

£ p

er dw

elli

ng

plu

s a

bnorm

als

3.2

%125

Mark

eting

0£ p

er dw

elli

ng

Tota

l15%

Interest

Design fees

% p

er annum

7.5

0%

-319

on b

uild

costs

10.0

%397

on d

ev c

osts

0%

Notes

Planning gain

£ p

er dw

elling

4,5

00

216



Page 101

SITE 4B LAND COST & PHASING

Programme

Ye

ar

1Y

ea

r 2

Ye

ar

3Y

ea

r 4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

TO

TA

LS

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g6.8

6.8

6.8

6.8

6.8

6.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

40.8

started

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0.7

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

4.3

Aff

sh

osh

ip0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.9

TO

TA

L0

08

88

88

80

00

048.0

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0

07

77

77

70

00

00

041

'built'

+2Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0

01

11

11

10

00

00

04

Aff

sh

osh

ip0

00

00

00

00

00

00

03

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0

07

77

77

70

00

00

41

completed

+3Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0

01

11

11

10

00

00

4

Aff

sh

osh

ip0

00

00

00

00

00

00

3

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0

07

77

77

70

00

041

purchased

+4Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0

01

11

11

10

00

04

Aff

sh

osh

ip0

00

00

00

00

00

03

Land


Afford

able

No a

fford

able

Land p

urc

hase p

rice

£765,555

1,267,489

RV

per acre

£348,108

576,344

RV

per hecta

re£

860,174

1,424,145

Dev p

rofit

£1,277,897

1,459,209

Tota

l costs

£6,634,373

7,292,475


19.26%

20.01%


Page 102

SITE 4B CASH FLOW AFFORDABLE

Year

1Y

ear

2Y

ear

3Y

ear

4

rate

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

TO

TA

LS

INCOME

Housing sales

Mark

et h

ousin

g0

00

00

01,2

40

1,2

40

1,2

40

1,2

40

1,2

40

1,2

40

00

00

7,4

38

Afford

able

soc r

ent

00

00

00

41

41

41

41

41

41

00

00

248

Aff s

h o

ship

00

00

00

38

38

38

38

38

38

00

00

225

0

Sa

les fees

00

00

00

-44

-44

-44

-44

-44

-44

00

00

-264

Total income

00

00

00

1,319

1,319

1,319

1,319

1,319

1,319

00

00

7,911

COSTS

Land

La

nd a

cquis

itio

n766

766

Sta

mp

du

ty31

31

Pu

rch

ase fees

21

21

Total

817

Build costs

Mark

et h

ousin

g0

00

0536

536

536

536

536

536

00

00

00

3,2

18

Afford

able

soc r

ent

00

00

57

57

57

57

57

57

00

00

00

341

Aff s

h o

ship

00

00

38

38

38

38

38

38

00

00

00

227

Bu

ild c

on

ting

ency

5.0

%0

00

032

32

32

32

32

32

00

00

00

189

Total

3,975

Dev costs

Upfr

ont

6.0

%60

60

60

60

238

Bu

ild r

ela

ted

6.0

%0

040

40

40

40

40

40

00

00

00

238

Ab

norm

als

3%

63

63

125

Total

602

Fees

Fees o

n b

uild

costs

10

.0%

00

00

66

66

66

66

66

66

00

00

00

397

Fees o

n d

ev c

osts

0.0

%0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Total

397

PG

Pla

nnin

g g

ain

36

36

36

36

36

36

00

00

00

00

216

Total

216

Other

Pla

nnin

g£41

57

77

20

Su

rve

y£50

024

24

Mark

eting

£0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Total

44

Sales fees

b/fo

rward

fro

m a

bove

00

00

00

44

44

44

44

44

44

00

00

264

Total costs

970

129

142

135

804

804

848

848

773

773

44

44

00

00

6,315


-970

-129

-142

-135

-804

-804

470

470

546

546

1,275

1,275

00

00

1,596


0-9

88

-1,1

38

-1,3

04

-1,4

66

-2,3

13

-3,1

76

-2,7

57

-2,3

29

-1,8

17

-1,2

95

-20

1,2

78

1,2

78

1,2

78

1,2

78


-970

-1,1

17

-1,2

80

-1,4

39

-2,2

71

-3,1

18

-2,7

06

-2,2

86

-1,7

83

-1,2

71

-20

1,2

54

1,2

78

1,2

78

1,2

78

1,2

78

Interest

Charg

ed a

t7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

Tota

l-1

8-2

1-2

4-2

7-4

3-5

8-5

1-4

3-3

3-2

40

24

00

00

-319


-988

-1,138

-1,304

-1,466

-2,313

-3,176

-2,757

-2,329

-1,817

-1,295

-20

1,278

1,278

1,278

1,278

1,278

1,277



Page 103

SITE 4N: notional site Chard


Page 104

Input assumptions

Scenario & option

Afford

able

15%

= 9

% s

ocia

l re

nte

d &

6%

inte

rmedia

te

Site details

Dwellings

ave f

loo

r sp

ace

bu

ildsa

les

Site

4N notional as 4B

no

of

%g

ross

ne

tco

st

va

lue

Location

Chard

dw

gs

sq

ft

sq

ft

pe

r sq

ft

pe

r sq

ft

Are

a ha

0.8

91.8

7M

ark

et housin

g40.8

085%

839

766

94.0

0196.0

034,2

31

acre

s2.2

00.0

%

No d

wgs

48

0.2

0A

fford

able

soc rent

4.3

29.0

%839

766

94.0

073.0

03,6

24

Density d

w/h

a53.9

0.0

%

0.1

3A

ff s

h o

ship

2.8

86.0

%839

766

94.0

0102.0

02,4

16

Tota

l48.0

100%

40,2

72

36,7

68

£3,7

85,5

68

£6,5

92,1

35

40,2

72

net:

gro

ss=

91

%

Flo

ors

pace d

ensity

=16,7

19

net sq ft per acre

£k

Contingency

31252.8

allo

wance

5.0

0%

189

0

3309.1

2 0

2206.0

8

36768

Development costs

Other costs

sta

ndard

% b

uild

12.0

%477

Pla

nnin

g415

£ p

er dw

elli

ng

Surv

ey

500

£ p

er dw

elli

ng

plu

s a

bnorm

als

3.2

%125

Mark

eting

0£ p

er dw

elli

ng

Tota

l15%

Interest

Design fees

% p

er annum

7.5

0%

-171

on b

uild

costs

10.0

%397

on d

ev c

osts

0%

Notes

Planning gain

£ p

er dw

elling

6,0

00

288



Page 105


Programme

Ye

ar

1Y

ea

r 2

Ye

ar

3Y

ea

r 4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

TO

TA

LS

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g6.8

6.8

6.8

6.8

6.8

6.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

40.8

started

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0.7

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

4.3

Aff

sh

osh

ip0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.9

TO

TA

L0

08

88

88

80

00

048.0

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0

07

77

77

70

00

00

041

'built'

+2Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0

01

11

11

10

00

00

04

Aff

sh

osh

ip0

00

00

00

00

00

00

03

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0

07

77

77

70

00

00

41

completed

+3Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0

01

11

11

10

00

00

4

Aff

sh

osh

ip0

00

00

00

00

00

00

3

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0

07

77

77

70

00

041

purchased

+4Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0

01

11

11

10

00

04

Aff

sh

osh

ip0

00

00

00

00

00

03

Land


Afford

able

No a

fford

able

Land p

urc

hase p

rice

£-161,000

214,676

RV

per acre

£-73,209

97,616

RV

per hecta

re£

-180,899

241,209

Dev p

rofit

£1,063,655

1,200,549

Tota

l costs

£5,529,379

6,006,879


19.24%

19.99%


Page 106


Year

1Y

ear

2Y

ear

3Y

ear

4

rate

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

TO

TA

LS

INCOME

Housing sales

Mark

et h

ousin

g0

00

00

01,0

21

1,0

21

1,0

21

1,0

21

1,0

21

1,0

21

00

00

6,1

26

Afford

able

soc r

ent

00

00

00

40

40

40

40

40

40

00

00

242

Aff s

h o

ship

00

00

00

38

38

38

38

38

38

00

00

225

0

Sa

les fees

00

00

00

-36

-36

-36

-36

-36

-36

00

00

-218

Total income

00

00

00

1,099

1,099

1,099

1,099

1,099

1,099

00

00

6,592

COSTS

Land

La

nd a

cquis

itio

n-1

61

-161

Sta

mp

du

ty0

0

Pu

rch

ase fees

-4-4

Total

-165

Build costs

Mark

et h

ousin

g0

00

0536

536

536

536

536

536

00

00

00

3,2

18

Afford

able

soc r

ent

00

00

57

57

57

57

57

57

00

00

00

341

Aff s

h o

ship

00

00

38

38

38

38

38

38

00

00

00

227

Bu

ild c

on

ting

ency

5.0

%0

00

032

32

32

32

32

32

00

00

00

189

Total

3,975

Dev costs

Upfr

ont

6.0

%60

60

60

60

238

Bu

ild r

ela

ted

6.0

%0

040

40

40

40

40

40

00

00

00

238

Ab

norm

als

3%

63

63

125

Total

602

Fees

Fees o

n b

uild

costs

10

.0%

00

00

66

66

66

66

66

66

00

00

00

397

Fees o

n d

ev c

osts

0.0

%0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Total

397

PG

Pla

nnin

g g

ain

48

48

48

48

48

48

00

00

00

00

288

Total

288

Other

Pla

nnin

g£41

57

77

20

Su

rve

y£50

024

24

Mark

eting

£0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Total

44

Sales fees

b/fo

rward

fro

m a

bove

00

00

00

36

36

36

36

36

36

00

00

218

Total costs

-13

129

154

147

816

816

853

853

765

765

36

36

00

00

5,359


13

-129

-154

-147

-816

-816

246

246

334

334

1,062

1,062

00

00

1,233


013

-118

-277

-432

-1,2

72

-2,1

28

-1,9

17

-1,7

02

-1,3

94

-1,0

80

-18

1,0

64

1,0

64

1,0

64

1,0

64


13

-116

-272

-425

-1,2

49

-2,0

89

-1,8

82

-1,6

71

-1,3

69

-1,0

61

-18

1,0

44

1,0

64

1,0

64

1,0

64

1,0

64

Interest

Charg

ed a

t7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

Tota

l0

-2-5

-8-2

3-3

9-3

5-3

1-2

6-2

00

20

00

00

-171


13

-118

-277

-432

-1,272

-2,128

-1,917

-1,702

-1,394

-1,080

-18

1,064

1,064

1,064

1,064

1,064

1,063



Page 107

SITE 5A: St Michaels Gardens South

Petherton


Page 108

Input assumptions

Scenario & option

Afford

able

15%

= 9

% s

ocia

l re

nte

d &

6%

inte

rmedia

te

Site details

Dwellings

ave f

loo

r sp

ace

bu

ildsa

les

Site

5A St Michael's Gardens

no

of

%g

ross

ne

tco

st

va

lue

Location

South Petherton

dw

gs

sq

ft

sq

ft

pe

r sq

ft

pe

r sq

ft

Are

a ha

1.7

03.5

7M

ark

et housin

g46.7

585%

1,0

87

1,0

87

82.0

0230.0

050,8

17

acre

s4.2

00.0

%

No d

wgs

55

0.3

8A

fford

able

soc rent

4.9

59.0

%1,0

87

1,0

87

82.0

068.0

05,3

81

Density d

w/h

a32.4

0.0

%

0.2

5A

ff s

h o

ship

3.3

06.0

%1,0

87

1,0

87

82.0

096.0

03,5

87

Tota

l55.0

100%

59,7

85

59,7

85

£4,9

02,3

70

£12,3

98,2

13

59,7

85

net:

gro

ss=

10

0%

Flo

ors

pace d

ensity

=14,2

32

net sq ft per acre

£k

Contingency

50817.2

5

allo

wance

2.5

0%

123

0

5380.6

5 0

3587.1

59785

Development costs

Other costs

sta

ndard

% b

uild

16.0

%804

Pla

nnin

g181

£ p

er dw

elli

ng

Surv

ey

200

£ p

er dw

elli

ng

plu

s a

bnorm

als

0.0

%0

Mark

eting

0£ p

er dw

elli

ng

Tota

l16%

Interest

Design fees

% p

er annum

7.5

0%

-668

on b

uild

costs

10.0

%502

on d

ev c

osts

0%

Notes

Planning gain

£ p

er dw

elling

6,3

00

347



Page 109


Programme

Ye

ar

1Y

ea

r 2

Ye

ar

3Y

ea

r 4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

TO

TA

LS

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g4.3

8.5

8.5

8.5

8.5

8.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

46.8

started

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0.5

0.9

0.9

0.9

0.9

0.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

5.0

Aff

sh

osh

ip0.3

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

3.3

TO

TA

L0

05

10

10

10

10

10

00

00

55.0

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0

04

99

99

90

00

00

047

'built'

+2Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0

00

11

11

10

00

00

05

Aff

sh

osh

ip0

00

11

11

10

00

00

03

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0

04

99

99

90

00

00

47

completed

+3Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0

00

11

11

10

00

00

5

Aff

sh

osh

ip0

00

11

11

10

00

00

3

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0

04

99

99

90

00

047

purchased

+4Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0

00

11

11

10

00

05

Aff

sh

osh

ip0

00

11

11

10

00

03

Land


Afford

able

No a

fford

able

Land p

urc

hase p

rice

£2,450,631

3,252,424

RV

per acre

£583,386

774,258

RV

per hecta

re£

1,441,547

1,913,190

Dev p

rofit

£2,001,612

2,298,558

Tota

l costs

£10,397,501

11,452,892


19.25%

20.07%


Page 110


Year

1Y

ear

2Y

ear

3Y

ear

4

rate

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

TO

TA

LS

INCOME

Housing sales

Mark

et h

ousin

g0

00

00

01,0

63

2,1

25

2,1

25

2,1

25

2,1

25

2,1

25

00

00

11,6

88

Afford

able

soc r

ent

00

00

00

33

67

67

67

67

67

00

00

366

Aff s

h o

ship

00

00

00

31

63

63

63

63

63

00

00

344

0

Sa

les fees

00

00

00

-38

-75

-75

-75

-75

-75

00

00

-414

Total income

00

00

00

1,127

2,254

2,254

2,254

2,254

2,254

00

00

12,398

COSTS

Land

La

nd a

cquis

itio

n2,4

51

2,4

51

Sta

mp

du

ty98

98

Pu

rch

ase fees

67

67

Total

2,616

Build costs

Mark

et h

ousin

g0

00

0379

758

758

758

758

758

00

00

00

4,1

67

Afford

able

soc r

ent

00

00

40

80

80

80

80

80

00

00

00

441

Aff s

h o

ship

00

00

27

53

53

53

53

53

00

00

00

294

Bu

ild c

on

ting

ency

2.5

%0

00

011

22

22

22

22

22

00

00

00

123

Total

5,025

Dev costs

Upfr

ont

8.0

%100

100

100

100

402

Bu

ild r

ela

ted

8.0

%0

037

73

73

73

73

73

00

00

00

402

Ab

norm

als

0%

00

0

Total

804

Fees

Fees o

n b

uild

costs

10

.0%

00

00

46

91

91

91

91

91

00

00

00

502

Fees o

n d

ev c

osts

0.0

%0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Total

502

PG

Pla

nnin

g g

ain

32

63

63

63

63

63

00

00

00

00

347

Total

347

Other

Pla

nnin

g£18

13

33

10

Su

rve

y£20

011

11

Mark

eting

£0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Total

21

Sales fees

b/fo

rward

fro

m a

bove

00

00

00

38

75

75

75

75

75

00

00

414

Total costs

2,731

104

172

237

639

1,141

1,179

1,216

1,080

1,080

75

75

00

00

9,729


-2,731

-104

-172

-237

-639

-1,141

-52

1,038

1,174

1,174

2,179

2,179

00

00

2,669


0-2

,782

-2,9

40

-3,1

70

-3,4

70

-4,1

86

-5,4

27

-5,5

81

-4,6

28

-3,5

19

-2,3

89

-214

2,0

02

2,0

02

2,0

02

2,0

02


-2,7

31

-2,8

86

-3,1

12

-3,4

07

-4,1

09

-5,3

27

-5,4

78

-4,5

43

-3,4

55

-2,3

45

-210

1,9

65

2,0

02

2,0

02

2,0

02

2,0

02

Interest

Charg

ed a

t7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

Tota

l-5

1-5

4-5

8-6

4-7

7-1

00

-103

-85

-65

-44

-437

00

00

-668


-2,782

-2,940

-3,170

-3,470

-4,186

-5,427

-5,581

-4,628

-3,519

-2,389

-214

2,002

2,002

2,002

2,002

2,002

2,001



Page 111

SITE 5B Paddons Field Stogursey


Page 112

Input assumptions

Scenario & option

Afford

able

15%

= 9

% s

ocia

l re

nte

d &

6%

inte

rmedia

te

Site details

Dwellings

ave f

loo

r sp

ace

bu

ildsa

les

Site

5B Paddons Field

no

of

%g

ross

ne

tco

st

va

lue

Location

Stogursey

dw

gs

sq

ft

sq

ft

pe

r sq

ft

pe

r sq

ft

Are

a ha

1.9

54.1

0M

ark

et housin

g50.1

585%

963

955

83.0

0230.0

048,2

94

acre

s4.8

20.0

%

No d

wgs

59

0.4

3A

fford

able

soc rent

5.3

19.0

%963

955

83.0

071.0

05,1

14

Density d

w/h

a30.3

0.0

%

0.2

9A

ff s

h o

ship

3.5

46.0

%963

955

83.0

097.0

03,4

09

Tota

l59.0

100%

56,8

17

56,3

45

£4,7

15,8

11

£11,7

03,4

20

56,8

17

net:

gro

ss=

99

%

Flo

ors

pace d

ensity

=11,6

94

net sq ft per acre

£k

Contingency

47893.2

5

allo

wance

2.5

0%

118

0

5071.0

5 0

3380.7

56345

Development costs

Other costs

sta

ndard

% b

uild

16.0

%773

Pla

nnin

g203

£ p

er dw

elli

ng

Surv

ey

200

£ p

er dw

elli

ng

plu

s a

bnorm

als

0.0

%0

Mark

eting

0£ p

er dw

elli

ng

Tota

l16%

Interest

Design fees

% p

er annum

7.5

0%

-601

on b

uild

costs

10.0

%483

on d

ev c

osts

0%

Notes

Planning gain

£ p

er dw

elling

6,0

00

354



Page 113


Programme

Ye

ar

1Y

ea

r 2

Ye

ar

3Y

ea

r 4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

TO

TA

LS

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g7.7

8.5

8.5

8.5

8.5

8.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

50.2

started

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0.8

0.9

0.9

0.9

0.9

0.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

5.3

Aff

sh

osh

ip0.5

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

3.5

TO

TA

L0

09

10

10

10

10

10

00

00

59.0

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0

08

99

99

90

00

00

050

'built'

+2Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0

01

11

11

10

00

00

05

Aff

sh

osh

ip0

01

11

11

10

00

00

04

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0

08

99

99

90

00

00

50

completed

+3Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0

01

11

11

10

00

00

5

Aff

sh

osh

ip0

01

11

11

10

00

00

4

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0

08

99

99

90

00

050

purchased

+4Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0

01

11

11

10

00

05

Aff

sh

osh

ip0

01

11

11

10

00

04

Land


Afford

able

No a

fford

able

Land p

urc

hase p

rice

£2,206,137

2,957,369

RV

per acre

£457,852

613,759

RV

per hecta

re£

1,131,352

1,516,599

Dev p

rofit

£1,889,084

2,159,626

Tota

l costs

£9,815,236

10,800,624


19.25%

20.00%


Page 114


Year

1Y

ear

2Y

ear

3Y

ear

4

rate

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

TO

TA

LS

INCOME

Housing sales

Mark

et h

ousin

g0

00

00

01,6

80

1,8

67

1,8

67

1,8

67

1,8

67

1,8

67

00

00

11,0

15

Afford

able

soc r

ent

00

00

00

55

61

61

61

61

61

00

00

360

Aff s

h o

ship

00

00

00

50

56

56

56

56

56

00

00

328

0

Sa

les fees

00

00

00

-60

-66

-66

-66

-66

-66

00

00

-391

Total income

00

00

00

1,785

1,984

1,984

1,984

1,984

1,984

00

00

11,703

COSTS

Land

La

nd a

cquis

itio

n2,2

06

2,2

06

Sta

mp

du

ty88

88

Pu

rch

ase fees

61

61

Total

2,355

Build costs

Mark

et h

ousin

g0

00

0611

679

679

679

679

679

00

00

00

4,0

08

Afford

able

soc r

ent

00

00

65

72

72

72

72

72

00

00

00

424

Aff s

h o

ship

00

00

43

48

48

48

48

48

00

00

00

283

Bu

ild c

on

ting

ency

2.5

%0

00

018

20

20

20

20

20

00

00

00

118

Total

4,834

Dev costs

Upfr

ont

8.0

%97

97

97

97

387

Bu

ild r

ela

ted

8.0

%0

059

66

66

66

66

66

00

00

00

387

Ab

norm

als

0%

00

0

Total

773

Fees

Fees o

n b

uild

costs

10

.0%

00

00

74

82

82

82

82

82

00

00

00

483

Fees o

n d

ev c

osts

0.0

%0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Total

483

PG

Pla

nnin

g g

ain

54

60

60

60

60

60

00

00

00

00

354

Total

354

Other

Pla

nnin

g£20

34

44

12

Su

rve

y£20

012

12

Mark

eting

£0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Total

24

Sales fees

b/fo

rward

fro

m a

bove

00

00

00

60

66

66

66

66

66

00

00

391

Total costs

2,468

101

214

222

937

1,027

1,086

1,093

967

967

66

66

00

00

9,214


-2,468

-101

-214

-222

-937

-1,027

699

891

1,016

1,016

1,917

1,917

00

00

2,490


0-2

,514

-2,6

63

-2,9

31

-3,2

12

-4,2

26

-5,3

52

-4,7

40

-3,9

21

-2,9

59

-1,9

80

-63

1,8

89

1,8

89

1,8

89

1,8

89


-2,4

68

-2,6

14

-2,8

77

-3,1

53

-4,1

49

-5,2

53

-4,6

53

-3,8

49

-2,9

05

-1,9

43

-62

1,8

54

1,8

89

1,8

89

1,8

89

1,8

89

Interest

Charg

ed a

t7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

Tota

l-4

6-4

9-5

4-5

9-7

8-9

8-8

7-7

2-5

4-3

6-1

35

00

00

-601


-2,514

-2,663

-2,931

-3,212

-4,226

-5,352

-4,740

-3,921

-2,959

-1,980

-63

1,889

1,889

1,889

1,889

1,889

1,888



Page 115

SITE 6A: Kings Yard Bishops Lydeard


Page 116

Input assumptions

Scenario & option

Afford

able

15%

= 9

% s

ocia

l re

nte

d &

6%

inte

rmedia

te

Site details

Dwellings

ave f

loo

r sp

ace

bu

ildsa

les

Site

6A Kings Yard

no

of

%g

ross

ne

tco

st

va

lue

Location

Bishops Lydeard

dw

gs

sq

ft

sq

ft

pe

r sq

ft

pe

r sq

ft

Are

a ha

0.6

61.3

9M

ark

et housin

g27.2

085%

1,0

94

1,0

84

85.0

0241.0

029,7

57

acre

s1.6

30.0

%

No d

wgs

32

0.1

5A

fford

able

soc rent

2.8

89.0

%1,0

94

1,0

84

85.0

068.0

03,1

51

Density d

w/h

a48.5

0.0

%

0.1

0A

ff s

h o

ship

1.9

26.0

%1,0

94

1,0

84

85.0

097.0

02,1

00

Tota

l32.0

100%

35,0

08

34,6

88

£2,9

75,6

80

£7,5

20,0

12

35,0

08

net:

gro

ss=

99

%

Flo

ors

pace d

ensity

=21,2

70

net sq ft per acre

£k

Contingency

29484.8

allo

wance

5.0

0%

149

0

3121.9

2 0

2081.2

8

34688

Development costs

Other costs

sta

ndard

% b

uild

13.0

%406

Pla

nnin

g415

£ p

er dw

elli

ng

Surv

ey

500

£ p

er dw

elli

ng

plu

s a

bnorm

als

2.4

%75

Mark

eting

0£ p

er dw

elli

ng

Tota

l15%

Interest

Design fees

% p

er annum

7.5

0%

-398

on b

uild

costs

10.0

%312

on d

ev c

osts

0%

Notes

Planning gain

£ p

er dw

elling

3,3

00

106



Page 117


Programme

Ye

ar

1Y

ea

r 2

Ye

ar

3Y

ea

r 4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

TO

TA

LS

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g3.4

6.0

6.0

6.0

6.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

27.2

started

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0.4

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.9

Aff

sh

osh

ip0.2

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.9

TO

TA

L0

04

77

77

00

00

032.0

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0

03

66

66

00

00

00

027

'built'

+2Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0

00

11

11

00

00

00

03

Aff

sh

osh

ip0

00

00

00

00

00

00

02

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0

03

66

66

00

00

00

27

completed

+3Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0

00

11

11

00

00

00

3

Aff

sh

osh

ip0

00

00

00

00

00

00

2

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0

03

66

66

00

00

027

purchased

+4Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0

00

11

11

00

00

03

Aff

sh

osh

ip0

00

00

00

00

00

02

Land


Afford

able

No a

fford

able

Land p

urc

hase p

rice

£1,503,002

2,008,376

RV

per acre

£921,601

1,231,482

RV

per hecta

re£

2,277,276

3,042,993

Dev p

rofit

£1,214,089

1,394,394

Tota

l costs

£6,306,747

6,966,239


19.25%

20.02%


Page 118


Year

1Y

ear

2Y

ear

3Y

ear

4

rate

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

TO

TA

LS

INCOME

Housing sales

Mark

et h

ousin

g0

00

00

0888

1,5

54

1,5

54

1,5

54

1,5

54

00

00

07,1

06

Afford

able

soc r

ent

00

00

00

27

46

46

46

46

00

00

0212

Aff s

h o

ship

00

00

00

25

44

44

44

44

00

00

0202

0

Sa

les fees

00

00

00

-31

-55

-55

-55

-55

00

00

0-2

52

Total income

00

00

00

940

1,645

1,645

1,645

1,645

00

00

07,520

COSTS

Land

La

nd a

cquis

itio

n1,5

03

1,5

03

Sta

mp

du

ty60

60

Pu

rch

ase fees

41

41

Total

1,604

Build costs

Mark

et h

ousin

g0

00

0316

553

553

553

553

00

00

00

02,5

29

Afford

able

soc r

ent

00

00

33

59

59

59

59

00

00

00

0268

Aff s

h o

ship

00

00

22

39

39

39

39

00

00

00

0179

Bu

ild c

on

ting

ency

5.0

%0

00

019

33

33

33

33

00

00

00

0149

Total

3,124

Dev costs

Upfr

ont

6.5

%51

51

51

51

203

Bu

ild r

ela

ted

6.5

%0

025

44

44

44

44

00

00

00

0203

Ab

norm

als

2%

37

37

75

Total

481

Fees

Fees o

n b

uild

costs

10

.0%

00

00

39

68

68

68

68

00

00

00

0312

Fees o

n d

ev c

osts

0.0

%0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Total

312

PG

Pla

nnin

g g

ain

13

23

23

23

23

00

00

00

00

0106

Total

106

Other

Pla

nnin

g£41

54

44

13

Su

rve

y£50

016

16

Mark

eting

£0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Total

29

Sales fees

b/fo

rward

fro

m a

bove

00

00

00

31

55

55

55

55

00

00

0252

Total costs

1,713

93

94

118

497

819

851

807

807

55

55

00

00

05,909


-1,713

-93

-94

-118

-497

-819

89

838

838

1,590

1,590

00

00

01,611


0-1

,745

-1,8

72

-2,0

03

-2,1

61

-2,7

08

-3,5

93

-3,5

70

-2,7

83

-1,9

81

-398

1,2

14

1,2

14

1,2

14

1,2

14

1,2

14


-1,7

13

-1,8

38

-1,9

66

-2,1

21

-2,6

58

-3,5

27

-3,5

04

-2,7

31

-1,9

45

-391

1,1

92

1,2

14

1,2

14

1,2

14

1,2

14

1,2

14

Interest

Charg

ed a

t7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

Tota

l-3

2-3

4-3

7-4

0-5

0-6

6-6

6-5

1-3

6-7

22

00

00

0-398


-1,745

-1,872

-2,003

-2,161

-2,708

-3,593

-3,570

-2,783

-1,981

-398

1,214

1,214

1,214

1,214

1,214

1,214

1,213



Page 119

SITE 6N notional site Castle Cary


Page 120

Input assumptions

Scenario & option

Afford

able

15%

= 9

% s

ocia

l re

nte

d &

6%

inte

rmedia

te

Site details

Dwellings

ave f

loo

r sp

ace

bu

ildsa

les

Site

6N notional as 6A

no

of

%g

ross

ne

tco

st

va

lue

Location

Castle Cary

dw

gs

sq

ft

sq

ft

pe

r sq

ft

pe

r sq

ft

Are

a ha

0.6

61.3

9M

ark

et housin

g27.2

085%

1,0

94

1,0

84

85.0

0211.0

029,7

57

acre

s1.6

30.0

%

No d

wgs

32

0.1

5A

fford

able

soc rent

2.8

89.0

%1,0

94

1,0

84

85.0

068.0

03,1

51

Density d

w/h

a48.5

0.0

%

0.1

0A

ff s

h o

ship

1.9

26.0

%1,0

94

1,0

84

85.0

097.0

02,1

00

Tota

l32.0

100%

35,0

08

34,6

88

£2,9

75,6

80

£6,6

35,4

68

35,0

08

net:

gro

ss=

99

%

Flo

ors

pace d

ensity

=21,2

70

net sq ft per acre

£k

Contingency

29484.8

allo

wance

5.0

0%

149

0

3121.9

2 0

2081.2

8

34688

Development costs

Other costs

sta

ndard

% b

uild

13.0

%406

Pla

nnin

g415

£ p

er dw

elli

ng

Surv

ey

500

£ p

er dw

elli

ng

plu

s a

bnorm

als

2.4

%75

Mark

eting

0£ p

er dw

elli

ng

Tota

l15%

Interest

Design fees

% p

er annum

7.5

0%

-281

on b

uild

costs

10.0

%312

on d

ev c

osts

0%

Notes

Planning gain

£ p

er dw

elling

13,0

00

416



Page 121


Programme

Ye

ar

1Y

ea

r 2

Ye

ar

3Y

ea

r 4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

TO

TA

LS

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g3.4

6.0

6.0

6.0

6.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

27.2

started

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0.4

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.9

Aff

sh

osh

ip0.2

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.9

TO

TA

L0

04

77

77

00

00

032.0

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0

03

66

66

00

00

00

027

'built'

+2Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0

00

11

11

00

00

00

03

Aff

sh

osh

ip0

00

00

00

00

00

00

02

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0

03

66

66

00

00

00

27

completed

+3Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0

00

11

11

00

00

00

3

Aff

sh

osh

ip0

00

00

00

00

00

00

2

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0

03

66

66

00

00

027

purchased

+4Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0

00

11

11

00

00

03

Aff

sh

osh

ip0

00

00

00

00

00

02

Land


Afford

able

No a

fford

able

Land p

urc

hase p

rice

£656,113

1,061,346

RV

per acre

£402,311

650,789

RV

per hecta

re£

994,111

1,608,099

Dev p

rofit

£1,071,080

1,223,760

Tota

l costs

£5,565,213

6,096,233


19.25%

20.07%


Page 122


Year

1Y

ear

2Y

ear

3Y

ear

4

rate

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

TO

TA

LS

INCOME

Housing sales

Mark

et h

ousin

g0

00

00

0778

1,3

61

1,3

61

1,3

61

1,3

61

00

00

06,2

21

Afford

able

soc r

ent

00

00

00

27

46

46

46

46

00

00

0212

Aff s

h o

ship

00

00

00

25

44

44

44

44

00

00

0202

0

Sa

les fees

00

00

00

-28

-48

-48

-48

-48

00

00

0-2

21

Total income

00

00

00

829

1,452

1,452

1,452

1,452

00

00

06,635

COSTS

Land

La

nd a

cquis

itio

n656

656

Sta

mp

du

ty26

26

Pu

rch

ase fees

18

18

Total

700

Build costs

Mark

et h

ousin

g0

00

0316

553

553

553

553

00

00

00

02,5

29

Afford

able

soc r

ent

00

00

33

59

59

59

59

00

00

00

0268

Aff s

h o

ship

00

00

22

39

39

39

39

00

00

00

0179

Bu

ild c

on

ting

ency

5.0

%0

00

019

33

33

33

33

00

00

00

0149

Total

3,124

Dev costs

Upfr

ont

6.5

%51

51

51

51

203

Bu

ild r

ela

ted

6.5

%0

025

44

44

44

44

00

00

00

0203

Ab

norm

als

2%

37

37

75

Total

481

Fees

Fees o

n b

uild

costs

10

.0%

00

00

39

68

68

68

68

00

00

00

0312

Fees o

n d

ev c

osts

0.0

%0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Total

312

PG

Pla

nnin

g g

ain

52

91

91

91

91

00

00

00

00

0416

Total

416

Other

Pla

nnin

g£41

54

44

13

Su

rve

y£50

016

16

Mark

eting

£0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Total

29

Sales fees

b/fo

rward

fro

m a

bove

00

00

00

28

48

48

48

48

00

00

0221

Total costs

809

93

133

186

565

887

915

800

800

48

48

00

00

05,285


-809

-93

-133

-186

-565

-887

-85

651

651

1,403

1,403

00

00

01,351


0-8

24

-934

-1,0

87

-1,2

96

-1,8

96

-2,8

36

-2,9

76

-2,3

68

-1,7

49

-352

1,0

71

1,0

71

1,0

71

1,0

71

1,0

71


-809

-917

-1,0

67

-1,2

73

-1,8

62

-2,7

84

-2,9

21

-2,3

24

-1,7

17

-346

1,0

51

1,0

71

1,0

71

1,0

71

1,0

71

1,0

71

Interest

Charg

ed a

t7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

Tota

l-1

5-1

7-2

0-2

4-3

5-5

2-5

5-4

4-3

2-6

20

00

00

0-281


-824

-934

-1,087

-1,296

-1,896

-2,836

-2,976

-2,368

-1,749

-352

1,071

1,071

1,071

1,071

1,071

1,071

1,070



Page 123

SITE 7A: Dabinetts Close Norton Fitzwarren


Page 124

Input assumptions

Scenario & option

Afford

able

15%

= 9

% s

ocia

l re

nte

d &

6%

inte

rmedia

te

Site details

Dwellings

ave f

loo

r sp

ace

bu

ildsa

les

Site

7A Dabinetts Close

no

of

%g

ross

ne

tco

st

va

lue

Location

Norton Fitwarren

dw

gs

sq

ft

sq

ft

pe

r sq

ft

pe

r sq

ft

Are

a ha

0.3

30.6

9M

ark

et housin

g9.3

585%

1,0

90

1,0

90

84.5

0190.0

010,1

92

acre

s0.8

20.0

%

No d

wgs

11

0.0

7A

fford

able

soc rent

0.9

99.0

%1,0

90

1,0

90

84.5

068.0

01,0

79

Density d

w/h

a33.3

0.0

%

0.0

5A

ff s

h o

ship

0.6

66.0

%1,0

90

1,0

90

84.5

096.0

0719

Tota

l11.0

100%

11,9

90

11,9

90

£1,0

13,1

55

£2,0

78,8

26

11,9

90

net:

gro

ss=

10

0%

Flo

ors

pace d

ensity

=14,7

04

net sq ft per acre

£k

Contingency

10191.5

allo

wance

2.5

0%

25

0

1079.1 0

719.4

11990

Development costs

Other costs

sta

ndard

% b

uild

12.0

%125

Pla

nnin

g415

£ p

er dw

elli

ng

Surv

ey

200

£ p

er dw

elli

ng

plu

s a

bnorm

als

0.0

%0

Mark

eting

0£ p

er dw

elli

ng

Tota

l12%

Interest

Design fees

% p

er annum

7.5

0%

-80

on b

uild

costs

10.0

%104

on d

ev c

osts

0%

Notes

Planning gain

£ p

er dw

elling

13,0

00

143



Page 125


Programme

Ye

ar

1Y

ea

r 2

Ye

ar

3Y

ea

r 4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

TO

TA

LS

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g1.7

2.6

2.6

2.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

9.4

started

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0.2

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.0

Aff

sh

osh

ip0.1

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.7

TO

TA

L0

02

33

30

00

00

011.0

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0

02

33

30

00

00

00

09

'built'

+2Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0

00

00

00

00

00

00

01

Aff

sh

osh

ip0

00

00

00

00

00

00

01

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0

02

33

30

00

00

00

9

completed

+3Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0

00

00

00

00

00

00

1

Aff

sh

osh

ip0

00

00

00

00

00

00

1

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0

02

33

30

00

00

09

purchased

+4Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0

00

00

00

00

00

01

Aff

sh

osh

ip0

00

00

00

00

00

01

Land


Afford

able

No a

fford

able

Land p

urc

hase p

rice

£171,234

294,116

RV

per acre

£209,993

360,688

RV

per hecta

re£

518,892

891,261

Dev p

rofit

£336,348

379,698

Tota

l costs

£1,743,228

1,899,152


19.29%

19.99%


Page 126


Year

1Y

ear

2Y

ear

3Y

ear

4

rate

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

TO

TA

LS

INCOME

Housing sales

Mark

et h

ousin

g0

00

00

0352

528

528

528

00

00

00

1,9

36

Afford

able

soc r

ent

00

00

00

13

20

20

20

00

00

00

73

Aff s

h o

ship

00

00

00

13

19

19

19

00

00

00

69 0

Sa

les fees

00

00

00

-13

-19

-19

-19

00

00

00

-69

Total income

00

00

00

378

567

567

567

00

00

00

2,079

COSTS

Land

La

nd a

cquis

itio

n171

171

Sta

mp

du

ty2

2

Pu

rch

ase fees

55

Total

178

Build costs

Mark

et h

ousin

g0

00

0157

235

235

235

00

00

00

00

861

Afford

able

soc r

ent

00

00

17

25

25

25

00

00

00

00

91

Aff s

h o

ship

00

00

11

17

17

17

00

00

00

00

61

Bu

ild c

on

ting

ency

2.5

%0

00

05

77

70

00

00

00

025

Total

1,038

Dev costs

Upfr

ont

6.0

%16

16

16

16

62

Bu

ild r

ela

ted

6.0

%0

011

17

17

17

00

00

00

00

62

Ab

norm

als

0%

00

0

Total

125

Fees

Fees o

n b

uild

costs

10

.0%

00

00

19

28

28

28

00

00

00

00

104

Fees o

n d

ev c

osts

0.0

%0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Total

104

PG

Pla

nnin

g g

ain

26

39

39

39

00

00

00

00

00

143

Total

143

Other

Pla

nnin

g£41

52

22

5

Su

rve

y£20

02

2

Mark

eting

£0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Total

7

Sales fees

b/fo

rward

fro

m a

bove

00

00

00

13

19

19

19

00

00

00

69

Total costs

197

17

54

72

264

368

324

330

19

19

00

00

00

1,663


-197

-17

-54

-72

-264

-368

54

237

548

548

00

00

00

416


0-2

01

-222

-281

-359

-635

-1,0

21

-985

-762

-218

336

336

336

336

336

336


-197

-218

-276

-353

-623

-1,0

02

-967

-748

-214

330

336

336

336

336

336

336

Interest

Charg

ed a

t7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

Tota

l-4

-4-5

-7-1

2-1

9-1

8-1

4-4

60

00

00

0-80


-201

-222

-281

-359

-635

-1,021

-985

-762

-218

336

336

336

336

336

336

336

336



Page 127

SITE 7N: notional site Langport


Page 128

Input assumptions

Scenario & option

Afford

able

15%

= 9

% s

ocia

l re

nte

d &

6%

inte

rmedia

te

Site details

Dwellings

ave f

loo

r sp

ace

bu

ildsa

les

Site

7N notional as 7A

no

of

%g

ross

ne

tco

st

va

lue

Location

Langport

dw

gs

sq

ft

sq

ft

pe

r sq

ft

pe

r sq

ft

Are

a ha

0.3

30.6

9M

ark

et housin

g9.3

585%

1,0

90

1,0

90

84.5

0210.0

010,1

92

acre

s0.8

20.0

%

No d

wgs

11

0.0

7A

fford

able

soc rent

0.9

99.0

%1,0

90

1,0

90

84.5

068.0

01,0

79

Density d

w/h

a33.3

0.0

%

0.0

5A

ff s

h o

ship

0.6

66.0

%1,0

90

1,0

90

84.5

096.0

0719

Tota

l11.0

100%

11,9

90

11,9

90

£1,0

13,1

55

£2,2

82,6

56

11,9

90

net:

gro

ss=

10

0%

Flo

ors

pace d

ensity

=14,7

04

net sq ft per acre

£k

Contingency

10191.5

allo

wance

2.5

0%

25

0

1079.1 0

719.4

11990

Development costs

Other costs

sta

ndard

% b

uild

12.0

%125

Pla

nnin

g415

£ p

er dw

elli

ng

Surv

ey

200

£ p

er dw

elli

ng

plu

s a

bnorm

als

0.0

%0

Mark

eting

0£ p

er dw

elli

ng

Tota

l12%

Interest

Design fees

% p

er annum

7.5

0%

-101

on b

uild

costs

10.0

%104

on d

ev c

osts

0%

Notes

Planning gain

£ p

er dw

elling

13,0

00

143



Page 129


Programme

Ye

ar

1Y

ea

r 2

Ye

ar

3Y

ea

r 4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

TO

TA

LS

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g1.7

2.6

2.6

2.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

9.4

started

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0.2

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.0

Aff

sh

osh

ip0.1

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.7

TO

TA

L0

02

33

30

00

00

011.0

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0

02

33

30

00

00

00

09

'built'

+2Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0

00

00

00

00

00

00

01

Aff

sh

osh

ip0

00

00

00

00

00

00

01

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0

02

33

30

00

00

00

9

completed

+3Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0

00

00

00

00

00

00

1

Aff

sh

osh

ip0

00

00

00

00

00

00

1

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0

02

33

30

00

00

09

purchased

+4Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0

00

00

00

00

00

01

Aff

sh

osh

ip0

00

00

00

00

00

01

Land


Afford

able

No a

fford

able

Land p

urc

hase p

rice

£304,157

445,858

RV

per acre

£373,002

546,777

RV

per hecta

re£

921,688

1,351,086

Dev p

rofit

£368,529

421,231

Tota

l costs

£1,914,877

2,097,419


19.25%

20.08%


Page 130


Year

1Y

ear

2Y

ear

3Y

ear

4

rate

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

TO

TA

LS

INCOME

Housing sales

Mark

et h

ousin

g0

00

00

0389

584

584

584

00

00

00

2,1

40

Afford

able

soc r

ent

00

00

00

13

20

20

20

00

00

00

73

Aff s

h o

ship

00

00

00

13

19

19

19

00

00

00

69 0

Sa

les fees

00

00

00

-14

-21

-21

-21

00

00

00

-76

Total income

00

00

00

415

623

623

623

00

00

00

2,283

COSTS

Land

La

nd a

cquis

itio

n304

304

Sta

mp

du

ty9

9

Pu

rch

ase fees

88

Total

322

Build costs

Mark

et h

ousin

g0

00

0157

235

235

235

00

00

00

00

861

Afford

able

soc r

ent

00

00

17

25

25

25

00

00

00

00

91

Aff s

h o

ship

00

00

11

17

17

17

00

00

00

00

61

Bu

ild c

on

ting

ency

2.5

%0

00

05

77

70

00

00

00

025

Total

1,038

Dev costs

Upfr

ont

6.0

%16

16

16

16

62

Bu

ild r

ela

ted

6.0

%0

011

17

17

17

00

00

00

00

62

Ab

norm

als

0%

00

0

Total

125

Fees

Fees o

n b

uild

costs

10

.0%

00

00

19

28

28

28

00

00

00

00

104

Fees o

n d

ev c

osts

0.0

%0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Total

104

PG

Pla

nnin

g g

ain

26

39

39

39

00

00

00

00

00

143

Total

143

Other

Pla

nnin

g£41

52

22

5

Su

rve

y£20

02

2

Mark

eting

£0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Total

7

Sales fees

b/fo

rward

fro

m a

bove

00

00

00

14

21

21

21

00

00

00

76

Total costs

341

17

54

72

264

368

325

332

21

21

00

00

00

1,814


-341

-17

-54

-72

-264

-368

90

290

602

602

00

00

00

468


0-3

47

-371

-433

-514

-793

-1,1

82

-1,1

13

-838

-240

369

369

369

369

369

369


-341

-364

-426

-505

-778

-1,1

60

-1,0

92

-822

-236

362

369

369

369

369

369

369

Interest

Charg

ed a

t7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

Tota

l-6

-7-8

-9-1

5-2

2-2

0-1

5-4

70

00

00

0-101


-347

-371

-433

-514

-793

-1,182

-1,113

-838

-240

369

369

369

369

369

369

369

368



Page 131

SITE 8A: Opposite rail station Bridgwater


Page 132

Input assumptions

Scenario & option

Afford

able

15%

= 9

% s

ocia

l re

nte

d &

6%

inte

rmedia

te

Site details

Dwellings

ave f

loo

r sp

ace

bu

ildsa

les

Site

8A opp rail station

no

of

%g

ross

ne

tco

st

va

lue

Location

Bridgwater

dw

gs

sq

ft

sq

ft

pe

r sq

ft

pe

r sq

ft

Are

a ha

0.1

40.2

9M

ark

et housin

g8.5

085%

759

759

89.5

0195.0

06,4

52

acre

s0.3

50.0

%

No d

wgs

10

0.0

3A

fford

able

soc rent

0.9

09.0

%759

759

89.5

066.0

0683

Density d

w/h

a71.4

0.0

%

0.0

2A

ff s

h o

ship

0.6

06.0

%759

759

89.5

096.0

0455

Tota

l10.0

100%

7,5

90

7,5

90

£679,3

05

£1,3

46,8

46

7,5

90

net:

gro

ss=

10

0%

Flo

ors

pace d

ensity

=21,9

40

net sq ft per acre

£k

Contingency

6451.5

allo

wance

3.7

5%

25

0

683.1 0

455.4

7590

Development costs

Other costs

sta

ndard

% b

uild

10.0

%70

Pla

nnin

g415

£ p

er dw

elli

ng

Surv

ey

350

£ p

er dw

elli

ng

plu

s a

bnorm

als

0.0

%0

Mark

eting

0£ p

er dw

elli

ng

Tota

l10%

Interest

Design fees

% p

er annum

7.5

0%

-47

on b

uild

costs

10.0

%70

on d

ev c

osts

0%

Notes

Planning gain

£ p

er dw

elling

13,0

00

130



Page 133


Programme

Ye

ar

1Y

ea

r 2

Ye

ar

3Y

ea

r 4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

TO

TA

LS

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0.9

2.6

2.6

2.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

8.5

started

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0.1

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.9

Aff

sh

osh

ip0.1

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.6

TO

TA

L0

01

33

30

00

00

010.0

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0

01

33

30

00

00

00

09

'built'

+2Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0

00

00

00

00

00

00

01

Aff

sh

osh

ip0

00

00

00

00

00

00

01

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0

01

33

30

00

00

00

9

completed

+3Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0

00

00

00

00

00

00

1

Aff

sh

osh

ip0

00

00

00

00

00

00

1

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0

01

33

30

00

00

09

purchased

+4Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0

00

00

00

00

00

01

Aff

sh

osh

ip0

00

00

00

00

00

01

Land


Afford

able

No a

fford

able

Land p

urc

hase p

rice

£53,413

135,791

RV

per acre

£154,401

392,528

RV

per hecta

re£

381,525

969,936

Dev p

rofit

£217,286

246,743

Tota

l costs

£1,130,310

1,234,057


19.22%

19.99%


Page 134


Year

1Y

ear

2Y

ear

3Y

ear

4

rate

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

TO

TA

LS

INCOME

Housing sales

Mark

et h

ousin

g0

00

00

0126

377

377

377

00

00

00

1,2

58

Afford

able

soc r

ent

00

00

00

514

14

14

00

00

00

45

Aff s

h o

ship

00

00

00

413

13

13

00

00

00

44 0

Sa

les fees

00

00

00

-4-1

3-1

3-1

30

00

00

0-4

5

Total income

00

00

00

135

404

404

404

00

00

00

1,347

COSTS

Land

La

nd a

cquis

itio

n53

53

Sta

mp

du

ty0

0

Pu

rch

ase fees

11

Total

55

Build costs

Mark

et h

ousin

g0

00

058

173

173

173

00

00

00

00

577

Afford

able

soc r

ent

00

00

618

18

18

00

00

00

00

61

Aff s

h o

ship

00

00

412

12

12

00

00

00

00

41

Bu

ild c

on

ting

ency

3.8

%0

00

03

88

80

00

00

00

025

Total

705

Dev costs

Upfr

ont

5.0

%9

99

935

Bu

ild r

ela

ted

5.0

%0

04

11

11

11

00

00

00

00

35

Ab

norm

als

0%

00

0

Total

70

Fees

Fees o

n b

uild

costs

10

.0%

00

00

721

21

21

00

00

00

00

70

Fees o

n d

ev c

osts

0.0

%0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Total

70

PG

Pla

nnin

g g

ain

13

39

39

39

00

00

00

00

00

130

Total

130

Other

Pla

nnin

g£41

51

11

4

Su

rve

y£35

04

4

Mark

eting

£0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Total

8

Sales fees

b/fo

rward

fro

m a

bove

00

00

00

413

13

13

00

00

00

45

Total costs

69

10

27

58

127

282

237

246

13

13

00

00

00

1,083


-69

-10

-27

-58

-127

-282

-102

158

391

391

00

00

00

264


0-7

0-8

1-1

10

-172

-304

-597

-713

-565

-177

217

217

217

217

217

217


-69

-80

-108

-168

-299

-586

-700

-555

-174

213

217

217

217

217

217

217

Interest

Charg

ed a

t7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

Tota

l-1

-1-2

-3-6

-11

-13

-10

-34

00

00

00

-47


-70

-81

-110

-172

-304

-597

-713

-565

-177

217

217

217

217

217

217

217

217



Page 135

SITE 8N notional site Yeovil


Page 136

Input assumptions

Scenario & option

Afford

able

15%

= 9

% s

ocia

l re

nte

d &

6%

inte

rmedia

te

Site details

Dwellings

ave f

loo

r sp

ace

bu

ildsa

les

Site

8N notional as 8A

no

of

%g

ross

ne

tco

st

va

lue

Location

Yeovil

dw

gs

sq

ft

sq

ft

pe

r sq

ft

pe

r sq

ft

Are

a ha

0.1

40.2

9M

ark

et housin

g8.5

085%

759

759

89.5

0185.0

06,4

52

acre

s0.3

50.0

%

No d

wgs

10

0.0

3A

fford

able

soc rent

0.8

08.0

%759

759

89.5

068.0

0607

Density d

w/h

a71.4

0.0

%

0.0

2A

ff s

h o

ship

0.7

07.0

%759

759

89.5

096.0

0531

Tota

l10.0

100%

7,5

90

7,5

90

£679,3

05

£1,2

85,8

22

7,5

90

net:

gro

ss=

10

0%

Flo

ors

pace d

ensity

=21,9

40

net sq ft per acre

£k

Contingency

6451.5

allo

wance

3.7

5%

25

0

607.2 0

531.3

7590

Development costs

Other costs

sta

ndard

% b

uild

10.0

%70

Pla

nnin

g415

£ p

er dw

elli

ng

Surv

ey

350

£ p

er dw

elli

ng

plu

s a

bnorm

als

0.0

%0

Mark

eting

0£ p

er dw

elli

ng

Tota

l10%

Interest

Design fees

% p

er annum

7.5

0%

-41

on b

uild

costs

10.0

%70

on d

ev c

osts

0%

Notes

Planning gain

£ p

er dw

elling

13,0

00

130



Page 137


Programme

Ye

ar

1Y

ea

r 2

Ye

ar

3Y

ea

r 4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

TO

TA

LS

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0.9

2.6

2.6

2.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

8.5

started

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0.1

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.8

Aff

sh

osh

ip0.1

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.7

TO

TA

L0

01

33

30

00

00

010.0

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0

01

33

30

00

00

00

09

'built'

+2Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0

00

00

00

00

00

00

01

Aff

sh

osh

ip0

00

00

00

00

00

00

01

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0

01

33

30

00

00

00

9

completed

+3Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0

00

00

00

00

00

00

1

Aff

sh

osh

ip0

00

00

00

00

00

00

1

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0

01

33

30

00

00

09

purchased

+4Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0

00

00

00

00

00

01

Aff

sh

osh

ip0

00

00

00

00

00

01

Land


Afford

able

No a

fford

able

Land p

urc

hase p

rice

£10,991

84,350

RV

per acre

£31,772

243,828

RV

per hecta

re£

78,509

602,500

Dev p

rofit

£208,490

234,077

Tota

l costs

£1,078,082

1,170,823


19.34%

19.99%


Page 138


Year

1Y

ear

2Y

ear

3Y

ear

4

rate

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

TO

TA

LS

INCOME

Housing sales

Mark

et h

ousin

g0

00

00

0119

358

358

358

00

00

00

1,1

94

Afford

able

soc r

ent

00

00

00

412

12

12

00

00

00

41

Aff s

h o

ship

00

00

00

515

15

15

00

00

00

51 0

Sa

les fees

00

00

00

-4-1

3-1

3-1

30

00

00

0-4

2

Total income

00

00

00

129

386

386

386

00

00

00

1,286

COSTS

Land

La

nd a

cquis

itio

n11

11

Sta

mp

du

ty0

0

Pu

rch

ase fees

00

Total

11

Build costs

Mark

et h

ousin

g0

00

058

173

173

173

00

00

00

00

577

Afford

able

soc r

ent

00

00

516

16

16

00

00

00

00

54

Aff s

h o

ship

00

00

514

14

14

00

00

00

00

48

Bu

ild c

on

ting

ency

3.8

%0

00

03

88

80

00

00

00

025

Total

705

Dev costs

Upfr

ont

5.0

%9

99

935

Bu

ild r

ela

ted

5.0

%0

04

11

11

11

00

00

00

00

35

Ab

norm

als

0%

00

0

Total

70

Fees

Fees o

n b

uild

costs

10

.0%

00

00

721

21

21

00

00

00

00

70

Fees o

n d

ev c

osts

0.0

%0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Total

70

PG

Pla

nnin

g g

ain

13

39

39

39

00

00

00

00

00

130

Total

130

Other

Pla

nnin

g£41

51

11

4

Su

rve

y£35

04

4

Mark

eting

£0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Total

8

Sales fees

b/fo

rward

fro

m a

bove

00

00

00

413

13

13

00

00

00

42

Total costs

25

10

27

58

127

282

237

245

13

13

00

00

00

1,037


-25

-10

-27

-58

-127

-282

-108

140

373

373

00

00

00

249


0-2

5-3

6-6

4-1

25

-256

-548

-669

-538

-168

208

208

208

208

208

208


-25

-36

-63

-122

-252

-538

-657

-529

-165

205

208

208

208

208

208

208

Interest

Charg

ed a

t7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

Tota

l0

-1-1

-2-5

-10

-12

-10

-34

00

00

00

-41


-25

-36

-64

-125

-256

-548

-669

-538

-168

208

208

208

208

208

208

208

208



Page 139

SITE 9A: Ilchester Rd Yeovil


Page 140

Input assumptions

Scenario & option

Afford

able

15%

= 9

% s

ocia

l re

nte

d &

6%

inte

rmedia

te

Site details

Dwellings

ave f

loo

r sp

ace

bu

ildsa

les

Site

9A Ilchester Rd

no

of

%g

ross

ne

tco

st

va

lue

Location

Yeovil

dw

gs

sq

ft

sq

ft

pe

r sq

ft

pe

r sq

ft

Are

a ha

0.1

00.2

1M

ark

et housin

g1.7

085%

1,5

66

1,5

66

97.5

0240.0

02,6

62

acre

s0.2

50.0

%

No d

wgs

20.0

2A

fford

able

soc rent

0.1

89.0

%1,5

66

1,5

66

97.5

068.0

0282

Density d

w/h

a20.0

0.0

%

0.0

1A

ff s

h o

ship

0.1

26.0

%1,5

66

1,5

66

97.5

096.0

0188

Tota

l2.0

100%

3,1

32

3,1

32

£305,3

70

£676,1

36

3,1

32

net:

gro

ss=

10

0%

Flo

ors

pace d

ensity

=12,6

75

net sq ft per acre

£k

Contingency

2662.2

allo

wance

2.5

0%

80

281.8

8 0

187.9

2

3132

Development costs

Other costs

sta

ndard

% b

uild

10.0

%31

Pla

nnin

g415

£ p

er dw

elli

ng

Surv

ey

200

£ p

er dw

elli

ng

plu

s a

bnorm

als

0.0

%0

Mark

eting

0£ p

er dw

elli

ng

Tota

l10%

Interest

Design fees

% p

er annum

7.5

0%

-29

on b

uild

costs

10.0

%31

on d

ev c

osts

0%

Notes

Planning gain

£ p

er dw

elling

13,0

00

26



Page 141


Programme

Ye

ar

1Y

ea

r 2

Ye

ar

3Y

ea

r 4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

TO

TA

LS

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g1.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.7

started

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.2

Aff

sh

osh

ip0.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.1

TO

TA

L0

02

00

00

00

00

02.0

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0

02

00

00

00

00

00

02

'built'

+2Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Aff

sh

osh

ip0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0

02

00

00

00

00

00

2

completed

+3Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Aff

sh

osh

ip0

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0

02

00

00

00

00

02

purchased

+4Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0

00

00

00

00

00

00

Aff

sh

osh

ip0

00

00

00

00

00

00

Land


Afford

able

No a

fford

able

Land p

urc

hase p

rice

£108,756

157,174

RV

per acre

£440,130

636,076

RV

per hecta

re£

1,087,561

1,571,743

Dev p

rofit

£109,340

125,352

Tota

l costs

£567,321

626,853


19.27%

20.00%


Page 142


Year

1Y

ear

2Y

ear

3Y

ear

4

rate

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

TO

TA

LS

INCOME

Housing sales

Mark

et h

ousin

g0

00

00

0639

00

00

00

00

0639

Afford

able

soc r

ent

00

00

00

19

00

00

00

00

019

Aff s

h o

ship

00

00

00

18

00

00

00

00

018 0

Sa

les fees

00

00

00

-23

00

00

00

00

0-2

3

Total income

00

00

00

676

00

00

00

00

0676

COSTS

Land

La

nd a

cquis

itio

n109

109

Sta

mp

du

ty1

1

Pu

rch

ase fees

33

Total

113

Build costs

Mark

et h

ousin

g0

00

0260

00

00

00

00

00

0260

Afford

able

soc r

ent

00

00

27

00

00

00

00

00

027

Aff s

h o

ship

00

00

18

00

00

00

00

00

018

Bu

ild c

on

ting

ency

2.5

%0

00

08

00

00

00

00

00

08

Total

313

Dev costs

Upfr

ont

5.0

%4

44

416

Bu

ild r

ela

ted

5.0

%0

016

00

00

00

00

00

016

Ab

norm

als

0%

00

0

Total

31

Fees

Fees o

n b

uild

costs

10

.0%

00

00

31

00

00

00

00

00

031

Fees o

n d

ev c

osts

0.0

%0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Total

31

PG

Pla

nnin

g g

ain

26

00

00

00

00

00

00

026

Total

26

Other

Pla

nnin

g£41

50

00

1

Su

rve

y£20

00

0

Mark

eting

£0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Total

1

Sales fees

b/fo

rward

fro

m a

bove

00

00

00

23

00

00

00

00

023

Total costs

117

446

4344

023

00

00

00

00

0538


-117

-4-46

-4-344

0653

00

00

00

00

0138


0-1

20

-126

-175

-182

-536

-546

109

109

109

109

109

109

109

109

109


-117

-124

-172

-179

-526

-536

107

109

109

109

109

109

109

109

109

109

Interest

Charg

ed a

t7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

Tota

l-2

-2-3

-3-1

0-1

02

00

00

00

00

0-29


-120

-126

-175

-182

-536

-546

109

109

109

109

109

109

109

109

109

109

109



Page 143

SITE 9B: Pittacre House Bridgwater


Page 144

Input assumptions

Scenario & option

Afford

able

15%

= 9

% s

ocia

l re

nte

d &

6%

inte

rmedia

te

Site details

Dwellings

ave f

loo

r sp

ace

bu

ildsa

les

Site

9B Pittacre House

no

of

%g

ross

ne

tco

st

va

lue

Location

Yeovil

dw

gs

sq

ft

sq

ft

pe

r sq

ft

pe

r sq

ft

Are

a ha

0.0

40.0

8M

ark

et housin

g1.7

085%

732

732

97.5

0185.0

01,2

44

acre

s0.1

00.0

%

No d

wgs

20.0

1A

fford

able

soc rent

0.1

89.0

%732

732

97.5

066.0

0132

Density d

w/h

a50.0

0.0

%

0.0

1A

ff s

h o

ship

0.1

26.0

%732

732

97.5

096.0

088

Tota

l2.0

100%

1,4

64

1,4

64

£142,7

40

£247,3

43

1,4

64

net:

gro

ss=

10

0%

Flo

ors

pace d

ensity

=14,8

12

net sq ft per acre

£k

Contingency

1244.4

allo

wance

2.5

0%

40

131.7

6 0

87.8

4

1464

Development costs

Other costs

sta

ndard

% b

uild

10.0

%15

Pla

nnin

g415

£ p

er dw

elli

ng

Surv

ey

200

£ p

er dw

elli

ng

plu

s a

bnorm

als

0.0

%0

Mark

eting

0£ p

er dw

elli

ng

Tota

l10%

Interest

Design fees

% p

er annum

7.5

0%

-7

on b

uild

costs

10.0

%15

on d

ev c

osts

0%

Notes

Planning gain

£ p

er dw

elling

13,0

00

26



Page 145


Programme

Ye

ar

1Y

ea

r 2

Ye

ar

3Y

ea

r 4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

TO

TA

LS

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g1.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.7

started

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.2

Aff

sh

osh

ip0.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.1

TO

TA

L0

02

00

00

00

00

02.0

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0

02

00

00

00

00

00

02

'built'

+2Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Aff

sh

osh

ip0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0

02

00

00

00

00

00

2

completed

+3Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Aff

sh

osh

ip0

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Units

Ma

rke

t h

ou

sin

g0

02

00

00

00

00

02

purchased

+4Q

Aff

ord

ab

le s

oc r

en

t0

00

00

00

00

00

00

Aff

sh

osh

ip0

00

00

00

00

00

00

Land


Afford

able

No a

fford

able

Land p

urc

hase p

rice

£-10,265

4,600

RV

per acre

£-103,850

46,544

RV

per hecta

re£

-256,614

115,011

Dev p

rofit

£40,000

45,225

Tota

l costs

£207,868

226,140


19.24%

20.00%


Page 146


Year

1Y

ear

2Y

ear

3Y

ear

4

rate

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

TO

TA

LS

INCOME

Housing sales

Mark

et h

ousin

g0

00

00

0230

00

00

00

00

0230

Afford

able

soc r

ent

00

00

00

90

00

00

00

00

9

Aff s

h o

ship

00

00

00

80

00

00

00

00

8 0

Sa

les fees

00

00

00

-80

00

00

00

00

-8

Total income

00

00

00

247

00

00

00

00

0247

COSTS

Land

La

nd a

cquis

itio

n-1

0-1

0

Sta

mp

du

ty0

0

Pu

rch

ase fees

00

Total

-11

Build costs

Mark

et h

ousin

g0

00

0121

00

00

00

00

00

0121

Afford

able

soc r

ent

00

00

13

00

00

00

00

00

013

Aff s

h o

ship

00

00

90

00

00

00

00

00

9

Bu

ild c

on

ting

ency

2.5

%0

00

04

00

00

00

00

00

04

Total

146

Dev costs

Upfr

ont

5.0

%2

22

27

Bu

ild r

ela

ted

5.0

%0

07

00

00

00

00

00

07

Ab

norm

als

0%

00

0

Total

15

Fees

Fees o

n b

uild

costs

10

.0%

00

00

15

00

00

00

00

00

015

Fees o

n d

ev c

osts

0.0

%0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Total

15

PG

Pla

nnin

g g

ain

26

00

00

00

00

00

00

026

Total

26

Other

Pla

nnin

g£41

50

00

1

Su

rve

y£20

00

0

Mark

eting

£0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Total

1

Sales fees

b/fo

rward

fro

m a

bove

00

00

00

80

00

00

00

00

8

Total costs

-82

35

2161

08

00

00

00

00

0200


8-2

-35

-2-161

0239

00

00

00

00

047


08

6-3

0-3

2-1

96

-200

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

40


86

-29

-31

-193

-196

39

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

Interest

Charg

ed a

t7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

7.5

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

Tota

l0

0-1

-1-4

-41

00

00

00

00

0-7


86

-30

-32

-196

-200

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

39



Page 147

Taunton & S Somerset viab · Affordable Housing Site Viability Study Page ii 8. The sites were...

Documents

Transcript of Taunton & S Somerset viab · Affordable Housing Site Viability Study Page ii 8. The sites were...