item4b pt 1.pdf - Oxford City Council

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