item4b pt 1.pdf - Oxford City Council
item4b pt 1.pdf - Oxford City Council item4b pt 1.pdf - Oxford City Council
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
Viability:<br />
be considered an undevelopable part of the site and so the site area<br />
should be measured at 0.31ha, thus exceeding the threshold for the<br />
requirement of affordable housing.<br />
11. The second argument from the applicant’s agent as to why affordable<br />
housing should not be provided relates to the viability of providing<br />
affordable housing.<br />
12. The applicant’s agent has argued that the refused proposal of 14 dwellings<br />
would have been unviable if it had provided 6 dwellings (note: this is below<br />
the 50% provision required by Policy HS.5) as affordable and therefore it is<br />
considered that the applicant’s agent may also argue that to make<br />
provision, due to the site exceeding 0.25ha, would also be unviable.<br />
13. Policy HS.5 allows applicants to demonstrate if the development would be<br />
unviable and the applicant’s agent has submitted financial information on<br />
the 14 dwelling refusal for the <strong>City</strong> <strong>Council</strong> to assess.<br />
14. An external consultant has been asked to audit the financial viability<br />
evidence supplied by the applicant’s agent. Whilst a full detailed<br />
assessment has not yet been completed, an initial opinion has been<br />
offered. The main concerns are set out below:<br />
a) The selling prices for the market units equate to £310 per sq ft<br />
which is considered to be too cautious. Considering the high house<br />
prices in <strong>Oxford</strong>, and the attractive location of development, it is<br />
likely that the dwellings would sell for more than the financial<br />
information suggests. The applicant’s agent suggests that the value<br />
of the market dwellings would be reduced due to being developed in<br />
close proximity to affordable housing. This argument is not<br />
acce<strong>pt</strong>ed, not least because of the high demand for housing in<br />
<strong>Oxford</strong>. This opinion is shared by the <strong>City</strong> <strong>Council</strong>’s Asset<br />
Management team. To offer an example, 2-bedroomed apartments<br />
on the former bus depot site off Cowley Road are being offered at a<br />
minimum of £235,000 which is £45,000 more that the suggested<br />
figure by the applicant’s agent and those apartments are developed<br />
adjacent to affordable housing on the same site. The presence of<br />
affordable housing does not appear to affect market house prices.<br />
b) The build costs at £100 per sq ft are considered on the high side for<br />
a 2.5 storey development. Build costs would be likely to be at that<br />
level only with a higher-storey development which would be<br />
structurally more costly.<br />
c) The land value at £750,000 is also considered high. One of the key<br />
issues that often makes sites unviable is the developer offering too<br />
much for the land at the outset, without giving due consideration to<br />
the required provision of affordable housing. The Local Plan<br />
REPORT 3
Change language