item4b pt 1.pdf - Oxford City Council

North East Area Committee
- 28 th February 2006
THIS IS A SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT TO THE MAIN REPORT FOR ITEM 4(b)
Application Number: 05/02504/FUL
Decision Due by: 3rd March 2006
Proposal: Demolition of detached house and outbuildings. Erection of
9 dwellings (4x4 bedroom houses and 5 x 2 bedroom flats)
in 3 storey (third floor in roof space) and two storey
buildings. Erection of garaging, cycle and refuse stores.
Closure of existing vehicular access and formation of new
vehicular access and provision of 18 car parking spaces
(including garages). (Amended plan)
Site Address: St Ebba's Old Road Headington Oxford – site plan at
appendix 1
Ward: Quarry And Risinghurst Ward
Agent: Kemp And Kemp Applicant: Thomas Homes
Recommendation: that the lack of provision of affordable housing should be added
as a fourth reason for refusal:-
4. The application site exceeds 0.25ha but fails to provide any affordable housing
on-site. The development is therefore contrary to policy HS.4 and HS.5 of the
Oxford Local Plan 2001-2016.
Introduction:
1. This report expands on the points made in paragraph 13 of the Officer’s main
report on this application dated 15 th February 2006.
2. The applicant’s agent argues that the developable site area is below the
0.25ha threshold for requiring affordable housing set out in Policy HS.4 of the
adopted Oxford Local Plan 2001-2016. The applicant’s agent also submitted
financial evidence to suggest that the provision of affordable housing on-site
would not be viable.
3. Whilst this supplementary report goes into some detail, these two issues
raised by the applicant’s agent are extremely important to this decision, and
future decisions, on residential developments where the provision of affordable
housing is contested on these points.
REPORT 1

Site size:
4. The first argument submitted by the applicant’s agent as to why no
provision for affordable housing should be made relates to the site area.
5. The gross area of the site, as defined by the red line boundary on the site
plan submitted with the application is 0.31ha. The applicant’s agent
argues that the wooded area is undevelopable and should therefore be
excluded from the calculation of the site area. The applicant’s agent
considers this to result in a developable area of 0.21ha which is below the
threshold for requiring affordable housing under Policy HS.4 of the
adopted Oxford Local Plan 2001-2016.
6. Whilst the Officer’s main report presented to committee on this application
(dated 15 th February 2006) states at paragraph 13 that the applicant’s
agent’s argument is reasonable in the light of an appeal decision in
Broadland District Council, that appeal decision and this current
application at St Ebba’s are not identical and it is considered that the
issues should be discussed further.
7. The wooded area in the Broadland DC appeal site is protected by a
general TPO and the Inspector considered that it’s loss would be “highly
detrimental to the landscape of this nationally important area”. The
wooded area of the St Ebba’s sites does not have a protective designation,
nor are any of the trees covered by a TPO and whilst this does not
necessarily mean that the wooded area would be acceptable for
development, it would be a generalisation to presume that it was
‘undevelopable’. Regardless of whether or not the woodland is considered
to have value in landscape, screening or habitat terms, the fact that
woodland is present, is not considered to inevitably make that area
undevelopable as certainly the mere presence of trees do not
automatically rendered land undevelopable.
8. In the Broadland DC appeal decision, the appeal Inspector did not
consider that wooded area to be part of the curtilage of the proposed
dwellings and he therefore did not consider it as being part of the site area.
This reduced the site area below the 1ha threshold for the provision of
affordable housing in Broadland DC. However, in this case at St Ebba’s,
the wooded area is considered part of the development site as it is labelled
(plan no. 619.20) as amenity space for the dwellings.
9. If this wooded area was not intended as amenity space for the proposed
dwellings, then it would not be unreasonable to expect the owner retaining
control of the wooded area to want to fence it off to prevent trespassers.
This would then raise an issue of whether the proposed development at St
Ebba’s would be acceptable without the wooded area as amenity space.
10. Because of the notable differences between the St Ebba’s proposal and
the Broadland DC appeal site, the wooded area at St Ebba’s should be not
REPORT 2

Viability:
be considered an undevelopable part of the site and so the site area
should be measured at 0.31ha, thus exceeding the threshold for the
requirement of affordable housing.
11. The second argument from the applicant’s agent as to why affordable
housing should not be provided relates to the viability of providing
affordable housing.
12. The applicant’s agent has argued that the refused proposal of 14 dwellings
would have been unviable if it had provided 6 dwellings (note: this is below
the 50% provision required by Policy HS.5) as affordable and therefore it is
considered that the applicant’s agent may also argue that to make
provision, due to the site exceeding 0.25ha, would also be unviable.
13. Policy HS.5 allows applicants to demonstrate if the development would be
unviable and the applicant’s agent has submitted financial information on
the 14 dwelling refusal for the City Council to assess.
14. An external consultant has been asked to audit the financial viability
evidence supplied by the applicant’s agent. Whilst a full detailed
assessment has not yet been completed, an initial opinion has been
offered. The main concerns are set out below:
a) The selling prices for the market units equate to £310 per sq ft
which is considered to be too cautious. Considering the high house
prices in Oxford, and the attractive location of development, it is
likely that the dwellings would sell for more than the financial
information suggests. The applicant’s agent suggests that the value
of the market dwellings would be reduced due to being developed in
close proximity to affordable housing. This argument is not
accepted, not least because of the high demand for housing in
Oxford. This opinion is shared by the City Council’s Asset
Management team. To offer an example, 2-bedroomed apartments
on the former bus depot site off Cowley Road are being offered at a
minimum of £235,000 which is £45,000 more that the suggested
figure by the applicant’s agent and those apartments are developed
adjacent to affordable housing on the same site. The presence of
affordable housing does not appear to affect market house prices.
b) The build costs at £100 per sq ft are considered on the high side for
a 2.5 storey development. Build costs would be likely to be at that
level only with a higher-storey development which would be
structurally more costly.
c) The land value at £750,000 is also considered high. One of the key
issues that often makes sites unviable is the developer offering too
much for the land at the outset, without giving due consideration to
the required provision of affordable housing. The Local Plan
REPORT 3

Inspector was clear that land values are reduced with the provision
of affordable housing therefore developers have to consider the
level of affordable housing expected when purchasing/agreeing an
option on the land, and if the result is that land is valued too high
and then can't provide the required level of affordable housing, then
planning permission should be refused. The City Council should
not accept the argument of non-viability if the applicant over-valued
the land otherwise the result would be the City Council consistently
having to negotiate on viability and compromising on affordable
housing provision. The argument of non-viability should be relevant
where an abnormal cost might result in non-viability, not to rectify a
developer’s over-valuation.
d) The final concern, and an important one, is that the main asset on
the site is the existing property. However, both the refused
application and the current proposal demolish the existing St Ebba’s
dwelling. This is an immediate loss of revenue. If the existing
property was to remain on site the sale value of that property would
be added to the revenue which would significantly positively
improve the viability of the development.
15. Due to the concerns raised it is considered that the financial information
cannot be accepted as evidence of non-viability on a site of 14 dwellings.
Should Members resolve to refuse this application on the lack of affordable
housing provision, it is advised that further financial information should be
requested from the applicant in the event of a future application being
submitted on this site
16. Members should note that even where the City Council is satisfied that a
financial appraisal confirms that the affordable housing requirement cannot
be provided in line with Policy HS.5, this does not mean that 0% should be
provided. The City Council will provide a cascade approach by which the
City Council will agree to, first, alter the tenure split requirement and
second, reduce the affordable housing requirement. The City Council
would apply this order of preference until the proposal is considered viable.
Conclusion:
17. It is concluded that the site should be measured as being 0.31ha which
exceeds the 0.25ha threshold for requiring affordable housing in line with
Policy HS.4 of the adopted Oxford Local Plan 2001-2016. With a
development of 9 dwellings, 5 of those should be affordable dwellings in
order to comply with Policy HS.5 which requires a minimum of 50%
affordable housing and in order to meet local need, the affordable
dwellings should be the larger dwellings. It is also concluded that the
financial viability evidence submitted by the applicant’s agent is not
accepted as evidence of non-viability.
18. Members are recommended to resolve that planning permission should be
REPORT 4

efused and a reason for refusal added to the three reasons set out in the
Officer’s main report to state that the proposal would be contrary to Policy
HS.4 and HS.5 of the adopted Oxford Local Plan 2001-2016.
Background Papers: Application file no. 05/02504/FUL
Contact Officer: Laura Goddard
Extension: 2713
Date: 23rd February 2006
REPORT 5