Affordable Housing Viability Assessment Sept 2010

Warrington Borough Council
Final Report

Affordable Housing
Financial Viability Assessment

Report for the consideration of
Warrington Borough Council:

This document does not constitute Council Policy

September 2010

Prepared by

55 West Street
Chichester
West Sussex
PO19 1RP
01243 771304
www.adamsintegra.co.uk
Warrington Borough Council Affordable Housing Financial Viability Assessment

Adams Integra September 2010 (Ref: 09864) i

CONTENTS

Executive Summary iv

1. Introduction 1

2. Methodology and Assumptions 4
Background 4
Residual Land Value (RLV) Appraisal Methodology 5
Property Values and Residential Market 9
Gross Development Value (GDV) 14
Developers Profit 14
Model Scenarios, Property Types, Size and Mix 15
Affordable Housing Transfer (to RSL) Method of Payment
Calculation and Type of Property Transferred 17
Indicative Site Area, Scheme Density and Resulting Residual Land Value 21
Other Assumptions 21
Wider Research 26
Stakeholders and Consultation 26
General Notes and Study Limitations 27

3. Results 29
Background 29
Property Values 32
Indicative Value Comparisons 36
Results Trends 39
Affordable Housing Proportion 42
The Effect of Affordable Housing Thresholds and Potential Sliding Scale 45
Impact of Social Housing Grant (or other equivalent subsidy) and
Tenure Mix 49
Developers Profit 54
Increase in Planning Obligations Costs 56
Cumulative Impact on Development Viability 58

4. Conclusions 61
Values, Costs and General Overview 61
Schemes above 15 Unit Threshold 64
Consideration of schemes below current 15 Unit Threshold 67

5. Key Recommendations 70

6. Wider Discussion 72

Adams Integra September 2010 (Ref: 09864) ii

Figures Page

Figure 1: Simplified Example of Residual Land Valuation Calculation
basic structure 7

Figure 2: Summary of Value Points Adopted for Each Property Type (based on
assumed floor areas, but also applicable to other dwelling types and sizes) 11

Figure 3: Summary of Sums Payable by RSL to Developer for Completed
Affordable Units 19

Figure 4: Average asking price analysis and trends - by SHMA sub-area
classification including indicative hierarchy 32

Figure 5: Average asking price analysis and trends by Settlement/Neighbourhood
area Including indicative hierarchy 33

Figure 6: New Build Range of Values 34

Figure 7: Example showing impact on RLV of increasing affordable housing
proportion (Value Point 4) relative to VOA indicated industrial land values
range 43

Figure 8: Indicative Residual Land Value ( per Ha) - 15 Unit Housing Scheme 44

Figure 9: Graph Showing Reduction in RLV from 0% to 20% Affordable Housing on a
5 Unit Housing Scheme 46

Figure 10: Residual Land Value ( per Ha) - 5 Unit Housing Scheme 47

Figure 11: Comparison of Appraisal Results With and Without Grant (Value
Point 4 only; 90%/10% tenure mix) 50

Figure 12: Comparison of Appraisal Results With and Without Grant with
variations to tenure mix (Value Point 4 only) 51

Figure 13: Comparison of Appraisal Results at Varying Developers Profit
(Value Point 4) 55

Figure 14: Comparison of Appraisal Results from varying infrastructure
cost/(Planning obligations/other costs) - (Value Point 4 & 5 only) 57

Figure 15: Cumulative impact of applying cost assumptions over and above
base RLV results (Value Point 4); 25 Unit Housing Scheme 59


Adams Integra September 2010 (Ref: 09864) iii

Appendices

Appendix I Development Scenarios

Appendix II Base Appraisals
1
Residual Land Value Results
(2,500 per unit Infrastructure Cost)

Appendix IIa Residual Land Value Results - 50%/50% Tenure Mix

Appendix IIb Residual Land Value Results - 20%/80% Tenure Mix

Appendix IIc Residual Land Value Results - 10,000 per unit
Infrastructure Costs; All Tenure Mixes

Appendix IId Residual Land Value Results - 20,000 per unit

Appendix IIe Residual Land Value Results - With Grant; All Tenure
Mixes

Appendix IIf Residual Land Value Results - 20% Developers Profit
- All Tenure Mixes

Appendix IIg Residual Land Value Results - Cumulative Impact of
Cost Assumptions

Appendix III Warrington Borough Council - Property Values
Report

Appendix IV Details of Stakeholder Consultation Event

Appendix V Glossary

1
Base appraisals assume base build costs; CfSH Level 4; 10% requirement for renewable energy provision; 17.5%
developers profit, 90%/10% tenure mix; 2,500 per unit planning infrastructure costs, nil grant.

Adams Integra September 2010 (Ref: 09864) iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This summary first seeks to briefly introduce and explain the study. It then provides a
quick overview of the main study findings and goes on to outline the key
recommendations.

For detailed information on the study methodology, results and conclusions it will be
necessary to refer to the full text and appendices which follow this summary.

Background and Introduction

1 In the process of considering and developing its Local Development Framework
(LDF) approach to planning-led affordable housing policies, Warrington Borough
Council commissioned Adams Integra to study the workability of various potential
policy positions in terms of likely impact on residential development viability.

2 The Governments key statement on planning for housing, Planning Policy
Statement 3 (PPS3), requires local authorities to enable the bringing forward of a
suitable, balanced housing mix including affordable housing. It confirms the well-
established route for the principles of seeking integrated affordable housing within
private market housing developments. It encourages local authorities to make
best use of this approach bearing in mind their local markets and circumstances.
As a part of this, PPS3 also requires local authorities to consider development
viability when setting policy targets for affordable housing.

3 This commission was therefore made against the backdrop of PPS3, in the
context of building the evidence base for and considering the affordable housing
content of Core Strategy Policies for the Councils LDF.

4 The study is to be considered as part of and alongside the Councils developing
wider evidence base, including on the local housing market and housing needs,
and information on the range of site sizes and types which are likely to come
forward.

5 This study is required to review potential policy options and recommend suitable
policy positions from a viability point of view.

6 Maintaining the viability (in this sense meaning the financial health) of residential
development schemes is crucial to ensuring the release of sites and thus a
continued supply of housing of all types. The study addresses only affordable
housing which is required to be provided within market housing schemes. This is
through the existing established approach of setting site size thresholds (point(s)
at which affordable housing policy is triggered) and proportions (percentages) of
affordable housing to be sought at those points.


Adams Integra September 2010 (Ref: 09864) v

7 The study is based on carrying out a large number of developer type appraisals.
These use well-established residual land valuation techniques to approximate
the sum of money which will be left for land purchase once all the development
costs, including profit requirements, are met (hence land residual). The
appraisals are based on a widely applied calculation structure, common also to
tools such as the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) Economic Appraisal
Tool.

8 The basic study methodology is settled and tested, having been used in a wide
range of local authority areas for this purpose. The assumptions, detail and
particular application of calculations are varied to ensure local relevance. We
make an appropriate strategic overview, as fits the LDF process, in a way that is
both influenced by, and feeds back out to, the local characteristics and approach.

9 We vary the affordable housing assumptions across the range of appraisals. The
outcomes inform our judgements on the likely suitability of various policy
positions from a viability viewpoint. Having fixed development costs and profit
requirements, we can see the impact on development viability caused by
variations to the amount and type of affordable housing.

10 Two of the key ingredients to ensuring viable development are sufficient land
value created by a development (relative to existing or alternative use values,
and/or perhaps to an owners particular circumstances) and adequate developers
profit in terms of risk reward and profile of a scheme from a funders point of view.
Throughout the appraisals we maintain developers profit whilst reviewing the
scope to create land value depending on the affordable housing and other
assumptions considered, and as those vary.

11 Affordable housing impacts development viability mainly because it usually
provides a significantly reduced level of revenue to the developer compared with
market level sales values. Essentially it is viewed as a scheme cost, which is
largely passed on to the landowner by way of reduced land value. It is these
dynamics that we explore through this study, in considering the implications of a
wide range of factors and costs on market residential development viability and
its ability to provide affordable housing.

Warrington Borough Property Market and Viability Findings

12 Before commencing work on appraisals, Adams Integra researched the local
residential property market to inform a range of appraisal assumptions, and to
help set the context for considering the outcomes. This research is included
within our Property Values Report, which is to be found at Appendix III to the full
study document. That includes market commentary. A brief overview only of the
current climate is provided here.


Adams Integra September 2010 (Ref: 09864) vi

13 At the time of the study, the local market broadly reflects the type of conditions
which have been, and are being experienced, throughout the country. In general
the market and economic backdrop remains relatively weak and uncertain. Funds
for property finance remain limited and relatively expensive in the context of the
historically low base rate climate that we have (the base rate having remained at
0.5% for some time now). Terms and deposit requirements are unfavourable for
many. Mortgage lending and sales volumes are still relatively low compared to
their peak, although have shown significant recovery in recent months. From a
steep downturn triggered in the Autumn of 2007 and prices that generally peaked
early in 2008, it is fair to say that we have seen a degree of stabilisation since the
Spring of 2009, with more mixed market sentiment. However, much has been
said and continues to be about the fragile nature of the recent degree of
recovery, since the stabilising (and of late rising) house prices have been
underpinned mainly by lack of supply. It is simply not possible to predict the future
direction of the market. Overall, we regard the market messages as mixed still. A
balanced view of the various market signs and reporting must be taken.

14 Given the long-term nature of the LDF, any study such as this also has to
envisage periods in which a more stable, active market will again begin to feed an
improved level of market and therefore development activity again.

15 The results of our study show that viability of development in the Borough is
mixed. Outcomes range from a significant number of poor results related to
modest local property values, to much better results underpinned by higher
values which are also seen locally and are sufficient to support affordable
housing alongside wider obligations. The Council will need to monitor the local
market in any event. If there is further decline or delayed recovery, values may
well be seen at lower levels more frequently with consequent links through to
poor development viability.

16 The economic conditions should not be the only factor that determines policy
positions, given that housing need is worsening and that those same conditions
(with consequent job losses, etc) are most likely to be adding to the needs trend.
Although house prices are still below their peak, affordability has been
compromised by the restrictive mortgage lending climate.

17 In setting strategic policy, the Council will seek a balance between the opposing
tensions of housing need and viability. It will not be viable to provide the levels of
affordable housing that the needs evidence, in the form of the Councils Strategic
Housing Market Assessment, justifies. On the other hand, strategic affordable
housing targets which were reduced too far with recent and current market
characteristics (rather than longer-term market variety) as a driver would not go
far enough to contribute towards addressing need particularly when the delivery
scope improves.


Adams Integra September 2010 (Ref: 09864) vii

18 Whilst we have to consider the particular market conditions now in coming to our
recommendations, those are very likely to change in some way over a short
period of time in relation to the planning periods being considered. We do not
consider that it is appropriate or realistic to set strategic policies and targets
based on a view of current market features alone (or based on any specific
snapshot for that matter). Such an approach could mean regularly varying those
policies and targets. That could lead to potential inequities and to requirements
that are uncertain the approach needs to create certainty and clarity of
expectations.

19 When considering delivery based on challenging targets, particularly in the short-
term as policy expectations change and we have very difficult market conditions,
it is vital that the Council continues to apply policy with flexibility where needed.
As a part of this, the current financial conditions mean that the Council may need
to place additional emphasis on prioritising planning objectives and obligations.

20 We have studied viability at values ranging from 1,400/m to 4,180/m
(approximately 130/ft to 388/ft). These values are covered by a range of
Value Points ascending 1 to 7. This is a key point of the study methodology and
can be viewed in the context of values varying by location/scheme type and/or
through time with a varying market.

21 Values were seen to vary throughout the Borough, on the evidence available
more so in the case of the overall (resales dominated) market than noted for new
build schemes. In a more active market, a greater variety of new build schemes
and values might be seen (i.e. with development in more guises and locations).
The average pricing of the new build schemes seen at the time of the study was
around 2,100/m (195/sq ft). We consider the most relevant part of the above
values range to be 1,450/m to 3,750/m, representing Value Points 2 to 5
with the middle areas of that part of the range being most relevant at present.

22 We link these points to our analysis and discussion of results, whereby Value
Points 3 to 4 at 2,016/m to 2,419/m represent the minimum point at around
which affordable housing begins to be supported in a meaningful way alongside
other obligations. It is with this in mind that we regard our suggested policy
headline of 20% to 30% as challenging, not just short-term, and that a Borough-
wide approach should not be pushed higher than this on viability grounds, despite
the levels of need. We think a target or targets within this range (dependent on
the nature and location of sites and the Councils wider evidence in terms of site
supply) goes as far towards the right balance with need as possible. This is likely
to mean a target on sites on previously developed land and/or in lower value
areas towards the lower end of this range (20% affordable housing target), for
sites on Greenfield and/or higher value locations the likely scope is towards the
upper end (30% affordable housing target).


Adams Integra September 2010 (Ref: 09864) viii

23 Given the level of need and type of site supply (role of smaller sites locally) the
Council is also considering widening its approach by bringing within the policy
scope a wider set of schemes. This would be part of looking for a reasonably
market sensitive but still sufficiently challenging approach. We consider that a
more equitable and appropriate local approach could evolve in this way i.e.
from lowering thresholds from a wider range of sites, compared with restricting
the approach to, and potentially overstating requirements from, a narrower band
of larger sites.

24 Having stated within this study that smaller sites are no more or less viable than
larger ones (i.e. site size in itself is not a determinant of viability), we can support
the application of a 20% headline target proportion to such smaller sites. This is
notwithstanding the points we also make about first-time impact of policy in such
situations and how development value tends to reduce and may become more
marginal compared with existing/competing land use values. In other areas where
we have recommended a sliding scale (the potential role of which we also
discuss in this study) typically the headline proportion of affordable housing
sought (usually on sites of 15 or more) is 35%-40%, or more. In some of those
cases a sliding scale which seeks say 20%-30% affordable housing on smaller
sites has been put forward as part of our recommendations. There is not the
scope here to do this and dampen effects in the same way, and the need is not
so great since the scale of the first-time impact is less with the more modest 20%
base target that we propose.

Quick overview of main outcomes - Recommendations

25 For a scheme size of 15 or more dwellings across the Borough suggested
affordable housing targets of 20% to 30% dependent on the nature and
location of schemes/sites. For sites on previously developed land and/or in
lower value areas the likely scope is towards the lower end of this range
(20% affordable housing target); for sites on Greenfield and/or higher value
locations the likely scope is towards the upper end (30% affordable housing
target).

26 The potential to lower the threshold where proven needs and site supply patterns
dictate a reliance on contributions from a wider range of sites.

27 Accompanying this, a target of not more than 20% could be extended
downwards applicable to sites of 5 or more dwellings. As the report
discusses, in fact there would be limited relevance in further complicating policy
by having a target other than 20% on such sites (in say the 5 to 14 dwellings size
range).

28 Some flexibility may well be needed on the application of affordable housing
targets particularly in the short-term (noting the market difficulties) and especially
if the collective costs burden on schemes is to rise significantly (including higher

Adams Integra September 2010 (Ref: 09864) ix

Code for Sustainable Homes Levels and increased wider planning obligations).
The cumulative effect of increasing cost areas will need to be viewed alongside
affordable housing needs and aspirations. This approach should extend to
considering the collective burden placed on development schemes in terms of
planning obligations and potentially other costs potential prioritisation in certain
situations. It needs to be kept in mind that affordable housing is not just about
numbers; it is also about types, mix, tenure, affordability and quality. The Council
will need to prioritise affordable rented homes provision. This too relates back to
not pitching targets too high. It is expected that, strategically, the Council will aim
for a more balanced tenure mix than the 90% affordable rent/10% intermediate
that is currently sought but that location, site specifics and delivery circumstances
will ultimately determine the type of provision.

29 Due to potential existing and alternative use values relevant to schemes and
owners circumstances combined with the specific characteristics of sites, it is
impossible to provide definitive cut-off points where viability will be
compromised to the degree that development may not take place. However, it is
possible to provide likely outcomes at varying levels based on judgements from
review of the results.

30 Approximate residual land values (RLVs) should not be considered in isolation. It
is also necessary to consider the change in these as affordable housing
requirements (and other obligations and costs) are varied. The study explores the
scale of reduction in land values flowing from the proposed policy impact in each
case. Whether a specific site comes forward for residential development will
hinge on the wide range of factors to be discussed in the report, not least any
competing land use value (and potential incentive level in some situations)
which will usually be highly site-specific and need consideration accordingly,
particularly if viability issues are expressed.

31 Above all, clarity of expectations is required. The study is to guide policy
development and therefore set a realistic backdrop for site-specific negotiations; it
is not intended to override detailed outcomes which will always need site-specific
consideration. We envisage that the Council will require the usual approach of
developers sharing viability information where they need to demonstrate viability
issues leading to open working for appropriate solutions in the particular
circumstances.

32 These represent challenging but appropriate targets when viewed in the context
of a potential range of future market conditions. They are not suggested purely
with current market conditions in mind, and in our view they will often be viewed
as particularly challenging in relation to recent and any similar future conditions.
In addition, these potential policy positions are suggested not in isolation of other
scheme costs and planning obligations, but have been arrived at through
including assumptions on a range of other matters as set out in the study detail,
including reasonable profit variations the key ones being:


Adams Integra September 2010 (Ref: 09864) x

- Planning infrastructure (wider planning obligations).

- Increased sustainable design and construction standards.

- But always bearing in mind the collective impact of costs and
obligations on developments.

33 In arriving at its final policy selections, the Council should also have regard to its
wider information and evidence base for example, on affordable housing needs
and type of site supply.

34 In all cases, policy positions should be framed as clearly worded targets, to
provide clarity for stakeholders and a basis for a continued practical, negotiated
approach which has regard to viability matters. It should be noted that current
market conditions, in particular, will mean increased emphasis on this type of
approach. The selected policies and the Councils approach in practice should
acknowledge the relevance of viability and the adaptable approach that will need
to be applied to policy application, especially short-term.

35 Open working will be required with landowners, developers, RSLs and other
stakeholders, underpinned by clear policy. This will be with a view to optimising
affordable housing delivery in the given circumstances alongside, and as a vital
aspect of, wider planning objectives.

36 The Council will need to monitor affordable housing delivery progress and
experiences alongside its site supply and wider housing delivery monitoring work.
Review periods and potential delivery contingency measures will need to be
considered, linked to those monitoring processes.

Executive Summary ends

Adams Integra September 2010 (Ref: 09864) 1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

1.1.1 Warrington Borough Council is in the process of preparing its Core Strategy
Development Plan Document (DPD) as part of the Local Development
Framework (LDF). In February 2009 the Council released for consultation an
Issues and Options Report which identified the key building blocks for the
future. Following this consultation these building blocks have been refined
and form the subject of a more detailed draft vision. The Council published
the draft objectives and options for realising the draft vision in July 2010 with
consultation on the preferred option to take place in late 2010 before a draft
Core Strategy will be made available for consultation in early 2011.

1.1.2 As part of the LDF process the Council is collating its evidence base to
ensure that LDF targets reflect local circumstances. This report forms one
part of the evidence base looking at the financial viability of the provision of
affordable housing on private housing developments within the Borough of
Warrington.

1.1.3 In accordance with the consideration of viability required by Planning Policy
Statement 3 (PPS3) - Housing
2
and its accompanying document Delivering
Affordable Housing
3
, the Council requires the study to provide a robust,
transparent and up-to-date assessment of the financial implications of policy
requiring affordable housing provision within residential developments in the
locality. This includes assessments of viability impacts of the existing and
potential future policy positions for the Council area. Specifically, the study
examines the impacts on development viability of applying a range of
affordable housing proportions, development size thresholds and mix of
affordable tenure on residential development sites.

1.1.4 The Councils currently applied affordable housing policy is set out in a
Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)
4
. The SPD identifies that the
Council will seek to secure 20% of residential floor space within private
developments as affordable. The site size threshold at which this policy is
implemented is set at 15 units.

1.1.5 In July 2007, owing to an increasing housing land oversupply within the
Borough, the Council introduced a Supplementary Planning Document
entitled Managing the Housing Supply. The SPDs purpose was to elaborate
Development Plan policies and ultimately ensure that any further approvals
for residential units were not adding to the supply unnecessarily. As opposed
to a blanket moratorium the SPD instead sought to restrict further additions by

2
Communities and Local Government - Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (November 2006)
3
Communities and Local Government Delivering Affordable Housing (November 2006)
4
Warrington Borough Council Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (September 2007)


identifying a number of exceptions. Owing to a considerable need for
additional affordable housing the SPD identified that the Council would
consider favourably those proposals which deliver a minimum of 50%
affordable housing that reflects local need.

1.1.6 In October 2007 Warrington Borough Council published a Strategic Housing
Market Assessment (SHMA)
5
which incorporated a housing needs
assessment. This identified a need for 419 affordable dwellings per annum - a
figure which exceeds the existing Development Plan housing allocation for
the supply of all new housing (currently set at 380 p.a.). Against a previously
identified annual need of 42 affordable dwellings, which emerged from a 2002
housing needs assessment, the 2007 SHMA findings clearly demonstrate the
increasing severity of housing affordability as an issue within the Borough.

1.1.7 In May 2009, primarily in response to significant changes in the residential
markets and wider economic conditions, the Council commissioned an update
of the key findings from the 2007 SHMA
6
. In short this identified that the
affordability of entry-level market housing for all households within the
Borough has improved. In direct response to this annual affordable need has
now reduced to 171. Whilst somewhat less than the previously reported figure
of 419, the level of affordable need remains challenging and represents 45%
of the overall new housing Development Plan annual requirement of 380.

1.1.8 To help address identified needs the SHMA update report recommends that
the Council pursue a policy target which seeks to secure 35% of private
housing developments as affordable. Furthermore, in order to maximise the
delivery of affordable housing through the planning system, it recommends
that the Council employ a site threshold below the national guide level
stipulated by PPS3 of 15 dwellings or one Ha.

1.1.9 This study therefore investigates and assesses the impact on land values,
and therefore on development viability, of a range of potential affordable
housing policies.

1.1.10 The range of viability testing carried out for this study is shown at Appendix I
Development Scenarios. We test a large number of scenarios in conjunction
with a range of assumptions. From analysis of the outcomes, we provide
advice on affordable housing thresholds and proportions combinations that
are considered to be broadly viable and therefore suitable as targets, taking
into account property type, tenure mix, market value levels, wider planning
obligations and associated characteristics of residential development. Where
possible, we set out parameters and so provide options to the Council for the
development affordable housing policy and detail.

5
Fordham Research Warrington Borough Council Strategic Housing Market Assessment (November 2007)
6
Fordham Research Warrington Borough Council Strategic Housing Market Assessment Update (May 2009)


1.1.11 We use the impact of varying affordable housing requirements on Residual
Land Value (RLV) as our measure in putting forward our judgements and
guidelines. This process involves comparing the likely impact of (changes to
RLVs from) the range of potential policy changes with the RLVs indicated by
appraisals relating to current policy positions. The study examines the
variations in approximate RLVs indicated across Warrington Borough on this
basis, as we envisage policy changing, and the implications of these are
included in the assessment of site viability and deliverability.

1.1.12 As recognised by the Council it is important that its policies do not deter
development through unduly reducing the supply of land brought forward for
residential development more widely. Any policy position must balance
optimal delivery of affordable housing and wider planning objectives and
obligations with maintaining sufficient incentive (reasonable land value levels)
for landowners to release land allowing developers to promote and bring
forward schemes whilst securing a reasonable level of profit related to their
risk reward and funding arrangements.

1.1.13 It is essential to keep in mind that this planning-based tool for securing
affordable housing relies on market-led processes. Throughout the study, an
emphasis is placed on the need for a practical approach to be taken by the
Council, bearing in mind development viability particularly given the
recent/current and likely short-term uncertain market conditions. In
considering policy of this type and carrying out any assessment of this nature
it has to be assumed that there will be a return to more stable financial and
property market conditions (where improved access to mortgage and
development finance, on appropriate terms, will promote demand and re-
stimulate more normal levels of development activity than we have seen while
working in Warrington at the present time). The same applies to all such
studies which look at affordable housing supplied through market-led
schemes.

1.1.14 The methodology and assumptions used are described in Chapter 2, the
results are discussed in Chapter 3, the conclusions and recommendations set
out in Chapter 4 and Chapter 5. Chapter 6 sets out wider points in relation to
affordable housing delivery. The tables, graphs and associated information
referred to throughout this study are set out within the Appendices to the rear
of this document.


2 METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS

2.1 Background

2.1.1 A number of factors need to be taken into account when considering bringing
sites forward that include affordable housing. It is necessary to determine
what effect increased affordable housing proportions, variations to tenure mix
and other development requirements or costs may have on the value of a
potential development site and therefore whether that site may come
forward given the requirements, or not.

2.1.2 This study investigates development scenarios across a range of site sizes.
Site sizes of between 5 and 100 dwellings have been modelled (see
Appendix I Development Scenarios, for the range of appraisals carried out).

2.1.3 The schemes modelled are notional sites chosen to reflect scenarios that best
match the various policy options to be tested. At certain site sizes, a range of
dwelling mixes has been tested. These were arrived at through discussion
with the Councils officers based on the range of site types which may come
forward across Warrington Borough, and bearing in mind the nature of
developments seen at the time of our research. These should reasonably
reflect a range of scheme types coming forward now and in the future.

2.1.4 Most importantly, however, the notional development scenarios have been
formulated to enable development viability to be tested at a range of points
with reference to scale of development (as will relate to affordable housing
policy thresholds) and dwelling mix, as part of this strategic overview work.
The smaller scheme sizes enable us to test viability at a lower threshold,
whereas the larger schemes enable us to test the impact of the proportion of
affordable housing on sites that already trigger the requirement for affordable
housing.

2.1.5 An alternative approach to testing development viability on a strategic basis
could be to investigate the development viability of actual sites. We have
chosen the notional approach for a number of reasons including:

Our established approach to this viability work, including the use of
notional sites, has been tested successfully through the former Local
Plan Inquiry and current Development Plan Examination processes.

There can be difficulties in obtaining sensitive information from
developers and landowners in relation to actual sites. This leads to
appraisals of actual sites becoming heavily assumption based in any
event.



The use of actual sites affects our ability to compare outcomes like
with like to assess the impact of varying affordable housing
requirements the key viability factor being studied. Affordable
housing impacts can become blurred with, or by, other issues which
vary from one site to another.

Sensitivities with reporting, information and potential effect on future
negotiations.

Site sizes may not align to studying potential threshold points.

An actual site approach can be very resource hungry and thus costly
for this stage of the process.

Ultimately, unless extensively applied (noting the previous point) and
still assumption based, an actual sites approach does not fit well with
taking a strategic overview of the impact of potential affordable
housing polices, when in fact sites vary so much.

All noting that there is no published good practice guidance on a
methodology to follow for carrying out development viability studies.

2.1.6 The wide range of appraisal outcomes from the scenarios tested provides us
with a scale of results (discussed in Chapter 3) from which conclusions can
be drawn as to the key factors and trends affecting viability across
Warrington. This leads to discussion on how these might be considered in
reviewing policy options, and then to policy recommendations.

2.2 Residual Land Value (RLV) Appraisal Methodology

2.2.1 In order to review the impact of proposed affordable housing policy on the
range of site sizes appraised across the scale of values considered for this
strategic overview, it is necessary to determine a common indicator to ensure
that comparisons are made on a like-for-like basis.

2.2.2 The key viability outcome and indicator for this study is the land value that
can be generated where there is a predetermined and fixed level of developer
profit assumed (alongside allowing for all other assumptions and allowances
allowed for and varied as discussed in this report). The study is not based
on the notion of fixed land values with developers profit varying as affordable
housing or other requirements change. Land value expectations (and how
those need to be adjusted over time with changing markets in addition to
changing planning and environmental requirements) are central to this work
and to the ongoing negotiation and delivery processes. Local authorities and
others involved in the process must recognise that developers need to make
appropriate profits, and this work is not based on a premise that those should


be eroded below reasonable levels. This area is discussed further below,
including at 2.5 Developers Profit.

2.2.3 Assuming a developer reaches the conclusion in principle that a site is likely
to be viable for development and worthy of consideration, an appraisal is
usually carried as part of fine-tuning the feasibility review and checking what
price can be justified for the site purchase.

2.2.4 In this study we have to assume that a negotiation has occurred or is under
way based on knowledge of the current development climate and planning
policy requirements as they will apply to the scheme. To inform the review of
outcomes from a range of potential policy positions (e.g. increased/decreased
affordable housing proportions and site size thresholds), this study also
compares the viability results from the current policy requirements/approach
with those likely to result from the potential variations under consideration.

2.2.5 Ultimately, the land values under review are a product of a series of
calculations that provide a residual valuation based on both the specific form
of development a site can accommodate, and its development costs. While
the market uses a variety of approaches to appraise sites and schemes
(including comparisons between sites particularly difficult to do in a market
of few transactions) in early stages of feasibility, a more detailed approach is
necessary to understand how the value/cost relationship appears - as used in
this study.

2.2.6 The simplest, most effective and widely understood way of checking site
viability in most instances is via a developer-type Residual Land Value (RLV)
appraisal (see Appendix V Glossary). We have developed our own
spreadsheet tool for this purpose. In doing so we have made what we feel are
reasonable assumptions but it must be noted that individual developers will
have their own varying approaches, and a developer might also apply a
different approach from one scheme to another.

2.2.7 A highly simplified example which groups various cost elements together and
showing only the basic structure of the RLV calculation, is shown in Figure 1
below. This is an illustrative example only and is not to be relied upon for
calculation purposes. It demonstrates, in outline only, the key relationship
between development values and costs. This is a dynamic relationship and
determines the amount left over (hence residual) for land purchase from the
total sales value (the gross development value) of the site. It can be seen
that as values increase, but costs remain similar, there is more scope to
sustain adequate developers profit levels together with, crucially, land values
which will be sufficient to promote the release of land for residential
development.



Figure 1: Simplified Example of Residual Land Valuation calculation Basic
structure (for illustration purposes only)

Starting point is total sales value (Gross
Development Value)

Number of Units = 10
Sales Value = 120,000
Gross Development Value = A 1,200,000

Development Costs (build costs, fees,
etc.) = B 575,000

Development Profit (@17.5% of Sales
Value) = C 210,000

Land Purchase Costs and Planning
Infrastructure (not including affordable
housing element) = D 75,000

Residual Land Value (Gross
Development Value - Development Costs
- Profit - Land Purchase and Planning
Obligations) = E

A (B + C + D) = E 340,000

2.2.8 This method reflects one of the main ways of how development viability tends
to be assessed. We have been able to verify our experience and thoughts on
the structure of, and components within, the approach and indicative output
land values through our contact with developers and their advisers, through
our experience of site-specific appraisal work and comparison with inputs and
outputs used in/by a range of similar tools.

2.2.9 The tool used for analysis in this instance runs a calculation that provides an
approximate RLV, after taking into account assumed normal costs for site
development. We do not allow for abnormal costs. Those can only be
properly reflected with detailed site-specific knowledge. If such varying costs
were to be considered within this study, it would affect our ability to accurately
compare like with like, when assessing the impacts of affordable housing
requirements.

2.2.10 Accounted for within this RLV calculation is the inclusion of an affordable
housing element, whereby the developer receives a payment from a
Registered Social Landlord (RSL) (or other affordable homes provider) for a
number of completed affordable homes provided within a market housing


development. This level of receipt is based on a predetermined calculation,
and it is not at a level comparable with open market values. Essentially, this
(usually significantly) reduced level of revenue to the scheme, relative to
market level receipts (sales values) is where the viability impact of affordable
housing comes from.

2.2.11 In addition, an allowance for other planning infrastructure (usually in the form
of Section 106 obligations) costs is also included. Although in practice these
payments will be calculated on a site-by-site basis (depending on dwelling
mix and location, etc), this study looks at a range of fixed overall costs (per
dwelling) to determine the additional impact that varying planning
infrastructure costs may have on development viability in tandem with other
potential cost areas (e.g. - but not exclusively - renewable energy, Code for
Sustainable Homes, etc). See paragraphs below (from 2.9) on Other
Assumptions.

2.2.12 Assuming that a developer will require a minimum fixed profit margin on any
given site to balance risk and often to underpin funding arrangements,
beyond a certain point it is therefore the land value that will be affected by the
introduction of affordable housing or other infrastructure requirements. In this
sense (and although there can be positive cash flow effects similar to those
from off-plan sales) affordable housing is viewed as a significant cost
element within the developers appraisals, in much the same way as other
planning infrastructure requirements (planning obligations) are. This cost
impact is seen through reduced land value the mode through which the cost
is usually effectively passed on to the landowner. This then potentially affects
the point at which a landowner will be prepared to release a site for residential
development in comparison with other options they may have.

2.2.13 The results of the appraisal calculations (set out in the Appendices to the rear
of this report) show the indicative residual land values (RLVs) generated in
monetary terms and the RLVs as a percentage of the gross development
value (GDV). These give us indications of the strength of those RLVs after the
various affordable housing and other assumptions are allowed for.

2.2.14 Where possible, the results are then also compared against potential
existing/alternative land use values. Those comparisons build on our
acknowledgements that existing or alternative use values are often a key
factor in determining viability outcomes. So the comparisons help to inform
our judgements they are a measure which is part of determining the likely
viability of a scheme given an overview of the RLV results from a range of
appraisals. This aspect can only be highly indicative at this strategic overview
study level, however. In practice every site will have specific characteristics
and its value will be determined by its type, location, use, economic lifespan
of existing premises, marketability and development potential, etc, and the
cost of creating/realising that potential use or maintaining an
existing/alternative use. Linked to this variable picture on value and


existing/alternative value positions to compare that with, there can also be a
level of incentive or price paid in excess of a particular established value level
whereby under some circumstances an owner may require an additional level
of incentive in order to release a site. This scenario will be highly variable and
need to be borne in mind at the site-specific stage which sits beneath this
strategic level. The setting of clear policy by the Council will be a key part of
the adjustment and appropriate guiding of land value expectations over time.

2.2.15 Regarding existing/alternative use values, the Commercial Property Market
has been suffering and seen a greater degree of downturn, even, than the
residential market as a consequence of the financial markets crisis. Although
a generalised statement, demand for commercial property has fallen very
dramatically with severe consequences for values. This factor needs to be
borne in mind. The comparisons that are relevant are likely to change over
time. The relative positions, in viability terms, of alternative proposals for sites
could alter.

2.3 Property Values and Residential Market

2.3.1 In determining the range of modelling to be carried out, it was decided to
consider a scale of Value Points appropriate to the Borough area as a
whole, rather than concentrate on the specifics of settlement areas or centres
(within which values can vary greatly in any event). This fits the strategic
approach needed. It allows a more meaningful review of trends how viability
varies with the key driver of values. By taking a Value Points approach we
cover a range wide enough so that the value levels considered at each Value
Point (or between points) can be found anywhere within Warrington Borough.
Effectively we are considering what the viability of a scheme might look like if
it were moved to a range of locations. The methodology also enables us to
review the impact of changing market conditions as are likely to affect values
over time. The resulting scope of results then means we can see effectively
what happens as we move a particular scheme type around the Borough
and/or expose it to varying market demand levels as could affect its prices.

2.3.2 We undertook research into property prices, across the area as a whole, on a
detailed localised basis between November 2009 and January 2010 to
determine a realistic range of development values (property sales values) for
each of our appraisals. The research was kept open during the study period
so that we could also consider any further information that became available.

2.3.3 We carried out a review of the pricing of all available and sold subject to
contract properties (1 and 2-bed flats and 2, 3 and 4-bed houses) across the
area. This was undertaken using internet searching (RightMove being the key
source). This part of the exercise helped us to understand and consider, very
broadly, how values vary with location across the Borough in the context of
the Value Points whether and, if so what, particular values patterns are


seen. It enables us to provide reasonable average values for the Borough,
and localities within it, by dwelling type.

2.3.4 Adams Integra acknowledges that there is usually a gap between marketing
and sale price. In more recent months this may have closed to a degree. It is
not possible to make a statement about the usual gap between the two, as
particular owners aspirations and the saleability of particular properties
clearly vary. The research has been reviewed in the context of this, and the
range of value levels assumptions set accordingly.

2.3.5 The overall (resales dominated) market data was then considered alongside
our on the ground research. That involved travelling around the area,
speaking to a number of estate agents in various locations, visiting new build
schemes and speaking to developers sales staff where possible, and
gathering other leads to inform supplementary desktop research. Appendix III,
the Property Values Report, summarises the research and also provides
wider regional and national property market climate context.

2.3.6 The review of various sources of information on values ranges is preferred to
any single desktop resource, which would be limited to historic data. This
process of considering a wide range of values data, overall, informs our
judgements on the range of values that we apply as we conduct the large
number of appraisals.

2.3.7 The results of the property value research, and in particular the new build
values research, led to the formation of 7 Value Points (see Figure 2 below).
Within these 7 Value Points, 5 core points cover the range within which new
build housing values in most areas of Warrington Borough fall (points 2-6).
Two additional Value Points (1 and 7) were also used in the modelling for this
study (above and below the typical range seen) to enable us to consider the
sensitivity of results to market conditions and price levels outside the typical
range seen at the time of the study. Most areas see a variety of property
values (even within the same postcode) therefore the results of this research
can be used independently of location where approximate sales values can
be estimated. The overall range covers values from 1,400/m (about
130/ft) to 4,180/m (about 390/ft), with the core part of the range in the
current climate being 1,680/m (about 156/ft) to 3,484 (about 324/ft).



Figure 2: Summary of Value Points Adopted for Each Property Type (based on
assumed floor areas, but also applicable to other dwelling types and sizes):

Property
Type
Value
Point
1-Bed
Flat
(50m)
2-Bed
Flat
(67m)
2-Bed
House
(75m)
3-Bed
House
(85m)
4-Bed
House
(100m) per m
Value Point 1 70,000 93,800 105,000 119,000 140,000 1,400
Value Point 2 84,000 112,560 126,000 142,800 168,000 1,680
Value Point 3 100,800 135,072 151,200 171,360 201,600 2,016
Value Point 4 120,960 162,086 181,440 205,632 241,920 2,419
Value Point 5 145,152 194,504 217,728 246,758 290,304 2,903
Value Point 6 174,182 233,404 261,274 296,110 348,365 3,484
Value Point 7 209,019 280,085 313,528 355,332 418,038 4,180

2.3.8 As above, we spoke to estate agents and where possible housebuilders
sales office/showhome staff at various locations across Warrington Borough
as part of the research. Where little data was available at the time of the
search, the data has been verified or supplemented by using Land Registry
average sales figures and resale data.

2.3.9 It must be reiterated that any attempt to define value patterns can only be
highly indicative. This is because values can change over very short
distances dependent on a sites location and its surroundings, local amenities,
etc. In practice, variations in values are often seen down to a street-by-street
level and sometimes even between ends or sides of streets, and within
developments depending on the orientation of dwellings and their outlook, for
example.

2.3.10 This study does not attempt to provide comprehensive property valuation
data, but rather identifies the typical range of new build values of various
dwelling types based on the assumed sizes set out. The values research is
carried out to enable us to make judgements about the range of values of
new build properties typically available. Inevitably judgements have to be
made. It is not a statistical exercise. The values used in the appraisals are
averaged across properties of varying size and type, and any settlement
could contain a range of property values covering a single property type. We
believe, however, that the information used is reasonably representative. The
key point is to consider the likely range of typical new build values which will
underpin this planning-led delivery of affordable homes, rather than consider
overall resale market Land Registry type data alone, which can often dilute
the new build market picture.

2.3.11 Prior to, and during, the study period, there has been continued reporting at
all levels of a weak and uncertain property market. Although these conditions
could not be described as over, in the last few months modest month on
month average house price increases have been seen in many areas.


2.3.12 One of the principal concerns with the market currently is the volume of sales
being achieved rather than simply the value levels. Sales volume is difficult to
reflect in financial viability terms. It may affect developers views on risk
levels, and it may affect development and sales periods, and thus finance
periods. These will in any event be site-specific factors. To what extent the
depressed levels of market activity, if prolonged, will ultimately affect value
levels with time remains to be seen. However, it should also be noted that
value levels are still high when long-term trends are reviewed. In the past,
schemes have been brought forward and have therefore been viable at
similar or lower value levels.

2.3.13 This is also discussed later in the report and our market review information is
included Appendix III. There are still wide-ranging views as to what extent the
market is stabilising overall. Examples of characteristic features of the
downturn to be noted in the context of this study have included:

Mortgage lending well down. Increased deposit requirements and
difficulties in obtaining funding more widely experienced by prospective
purchasers.

A marked slow-down in the rate of construction of new homes in many
cases a virtual stalling of new build progress.

Increased reports of developers pulling out of schemes, and delaying
starts or slowing scheme progress/mothballing sites.

Some house builders and others involved in the development industry
reducing staff numbers significantly, with some ceasing to trade. Many
house builders have been reporting reduced returns and trading results.

Incentives being offered fairly typically on new build sites - such as stamp
duty/5% deposit paid/deferred purchase/shared equity/mortgage
payments assistance, and perhaps others dependent on a prospective
purchasers position together with the developers marketing experience
and sale potential of particular plots, etc.

Some use of guide pricing alone, or even no advertised pricing.

Some schemes still selling relatively well but usually with slower sales
where this is so.

Some developers considering offers from RSLs for expanded affordable
housing quotas on sites, or even entire schemes for affordable.



Extended development periods in some cases, with a knock-on effect of
impacted sales progress because there is less for purchasers to see.
Purchasers are far less likely to purchase off plan given uncertainty over
values movements. This creates a circular effect with regard to build
progress on some schemes i.e. some developers taking a view that
build progress needs to be underpinned by firmer sales interest. Others
are, however, proceeding based on prospective purchasers typically now
wanting to see what they will get.

Examples of estate agents combining, closing or mothballing offices, or
operating restricted hours. Developers sales operations operating
reduced hours/being rationalised.

Fewer investment buyers active.

2.3.14 Despite the signs of a more positive market picture, it would be premature to
say that the above effects are now a thing of the past. Some key
commentators consider there to be a strong possibility of a further dip in the
market in 2010 and into 2011. This is because house prices have received
some protection through a lack of supply, rather than through significantly
increased confidence levels or significantly improved availability and terms of
mortgage finance. In terms of study methodology, the continued uncertainties
are very difficult to reflect in the detail, beyond considering varying house
price levels as those drive scheme viability.

2.3.15 Clearly future values cannot be predicted, but our methodology does allow for
potential future review of results in response to changes over time, perhaps
including more established market trends or revised price levels - as well as
sale price variations through site characteristics or location. It enables us to
look more widely at the sensitivity of results to value levels.

2.3.16 In our view, it would be impractical for a local authority to move affordable
housing and perhaps other viability-related planning obligations targets
through Core Strategy policy in response to what could be relatively short-
term market conditions and adjustments.

2.3.17 A key message for local authorities in this situation is the need to monitor the
market, housing delivery outcomes and trends locally - and respond to those
through consideration of contingency measures and possible policy review
longer-term. It is also about adopting a practical and flexible approach to
secure delivery of all housing types, especially in the short-term. This theme
will be picked up again in Chapters 4 and 5.



2.4 Gross Development Value (GDV)

2.4.1 In order to further explain the residual valuation principles, we will now
provide further information on the various key inputs and the implications of
those.

2.4.2 Gross Development Value (GDV) is the amount the developer ultimately
receives on completion or sale of the scheme, whether through open market
sales alone or a combination of open market sales and the receipt from an
RSL for completing the affordable homes on the scheme. Thus the
developers profit in each case relates to that scheme-specific sum rather
than to a base level of GDV that assumes no affordable housing. It assumes
that the developer has appraised the site and secured land in the knowledge
of, and reflecting, policy that will apply, i.e. the developer is aware that a
proportion of the receipts will be at a lower level than prior to any affordable
housing policy taking effect. This can be regarded as a reasonable approach
given established local and national policy guidance on the provision of
affordable housing.

2.5 Developers Profit

2.5.1 The requirement to place an increased proportion of affordable housing on a
site will inevitably reduce the sales income that a developer can reasonably
expect to receive. As this reduction will not be accompanied by lower
construction costs, the offset must be taken up in a reduced development
profit, a lower land price or a combination of the two.

2.5.2 Developers profit and landowners sale price are key considerations that
must be taken into account if residential development is to be undertaken.

2.5.3 If profit levels fall below a certain point then developers will not take the risk of
developing a site, nor in many cases will funding organisations provide the
necessary support. Equally, if the price offered by a developer to a landowner
for a site is too low, the landowner may not sell and instead continue with, or
pursue, an existing or higher value use. There are also intangibles, for
instance some smaller sites may start out as homes, gardens or small
business premises which will not be sold unless certain aspirations are met.
Business and tax considerations, investment values and costs, and
availability and cost of replacement facilities can all influence decisions to
retain or sell sites. A mix of these factors may be relevant in some cases.

2.5.4 Continued ready access to development finance is likely to be a particular
issue in the current market conditions which have flowed from the recent
economic recession.



2.5.5 At the time of considering the study assumptions, Adams Integras experience
of working with a range of developers and of reviewing appraisals, lead us to
suggest that they would need to seek a fixed profit (margin) of approximately
15% to 20% (gross) of GDV.

2.5.6 This study therefore uses a developers profit based assumption fixed at
17.5% of GDV. Lower and higher profit levels than those we have assumed
may well be appropriate, depending on the nature of the project and
risk/reward scenario and in this sense the market conditions. Some
developers will look at alternative profit criteria, for example a higher
percentage (perhaps up to 30%) of capital employed. We felt it appropriate to
appraise the scenarios at the margins from the developers perspective
Different profit aspirations will also be held by different types of house building
and development companies.

2.5.7 Until recently, the former Housing Corporation Economic Appraisal Toolkit
(re-launched in Summer 2009 by the Homes and Communities Agency
(HCA)) developers profit guide figure was 15% (at the point of fixing
assumptions for this study). This was raised to 17.5% at that point of the re-
launch.

2.5.8 Our experience shows that particularly for smaller and lower risk schemes,
and those often carried out by smaller more local developers (or contractor
developers), a lower level of developer profit may well be an appropriate
assumption. However, given our acknowledgement of varying profit levels, as
above, we have carried out our base appraisals assuming 17.5% developers
profit with further sensitivity analysis carried out on the basis of 20%
developer profit (based on GDV). In this context, development profit can be
regarded as a development cost. In reality, again there will be no substitute
for site-specific consideration of the details as with other assumptions that
will be reviewed where viability is discussed on sites coming forward. The
assumptions used here are suitable guides and starting points, but should not
be regarded as fixed figures which will always suit.

2.6 Model Scenarios, Property Types, Size and Mix

2.6.1 The Council required a range of scenarios to be appraised to assess the
viability of the potential approach to thresholds and proportions of affordable
housing.

2.6.2 In considering on-site provision of affordable homes, the scheme types
modelled range in size from 5 to 100 dwellings to allow the study to
investigate a full range of potential policy options.

2.6.3 The scenarios modelled tended to concentrate on smaller sites, as in our
experience the most sensitive area can be around newly captured sites


(which under adopted policy provided no affordable housing contribution and
therefore which see a large viability impact on policy adoption). Variations to
the dwelling mix help to consider the impact of various dwelling types on
development viability, within and between these scenarios.

2.6.4 The schemes were tested using 0% (representing currently applied policy on
sites of fewer than 15 units across the Borough), and at 10%, 20%, 30%, 35%
and 40% affordable housing. This range of testing allows us to investigate
viability related to the Councils currently applied policy and potential options
around both the proportion of affordable housing sought and the threshold
positions. These options include potential lower proportions of affordable
housing sought from smaller sites below the current 15 unit threshold - as part
of a sliding scale type approach to affordable housing policy. It is simply not
practical or economic for this type of study to appraise and consider every
conceivable policy option (combination of threshold and proportion). The
volume of results can grow very rapidly without adding very usefully to how
the study can assist policy development. Reviewing of trends is necessary,
and a degree of interpolation of results is also possible.

2.6.5 The dwelling sizes used in the modelling are 50sq m for 1-bed and 67 sq m
for 2-bed flats. For 2, 3 and 4-bed houses we have used 75sq m, 85sq m and
100sq m respectively. These are gross internal areas (GIAs). They are
thought to be reasonably representative of the type of units coming forward
for smaller and average family accommodation, within the scheme types likely
to be seen most frequently providing on-site integrated affordable housing.
We acknowledge that these 3 and 4-bed house sizes may be small compared
with some coming forward, but our research suggests that the values for
larger house types would also often exceed those we have used and would,
therefore, be similar on a per sq m basis. Conversely, many new build
flats for the private market may be below the unit sizes assumed. All will vary,
and from scheme to scheme. It is always necessary to consider the size of
new build accommodation while looking at its price hence the range of
prices expressed per square metre is the key measure used in considering
the research, working up the range of Value Points and reviewing the results.

2.6.6 This study assumes that the affordable housing mix will broadly reflect that of
the private housing and so would be transferred to an RSL on a proportional
basis to the market mix (or reflect that as closely as possible, to ensure a
range of affordable dwellings coming forward as part of a wider sustainable
approach). Clearly, in practice, the exact private and affordable housing
mixes will vary from site to site, as may the consistency between them. The
intention of this study assumption was to follow the principle that a mix of
affordable housing dwelling types will be expected wherever that is
achievable.



2.6.7 For details of the dwelling mix for each on site scenario appraised see
Appendix I Development Scenarios. It is acknowledged that dwelling mix
will vary from site to site in practice but these scenarios are reasonably
representative of the development types being delivered, and in our
experience this has proved a suitable way of considering viability for this
strategic purpose. In practice, there would be a tendency towards developers
needing to maintain the higher value units within a scheme for private sales
whilst also thinking about the relationship of the private units to the affordable
units in terms of location. These are all factors which in reality (and
dependent on the site location and characteristics) will affect the dwelling and
tenure mix as part of the negotiated approach.

2.7 Affordable Housing Transfer (to RSL) Method of Payment Calculation
and Type of Property Transferred

2.7.1 Discussions with the Borough Council suggested that for the purposes of this
study the payments developers receive from RSLs (Registered Social
Landlords) for the provision of completed affordable homes are currently
based on a negotiated approach between those parties. These are in turn
driven by scheme costs and what the RSL can afford to pay based on its
business planning and financial assumptions when it considers the cashflow
that will be produced by a scheme.

2.7.2 PPS3 asks us to consider the availability of funding in looking at viability, and
the Council also wanted to test the impact of public subsidy (in the form of
Social Housing Grant (SHG)). The grant funding climate is uncertain. All
appraisals were carried out without grant and a small sample was tested with
grant. The with grant appraisals assume an approximate level of 50,000
per unit for social rented homes and 26,000 per unit for intermediate tenure
homes.
7
In practice, on specific sites this might vary considerably, dependent
on property type. It is simply not possible to predict the amount of SHG that
will actually be available. Recent grant rates in some areas have often been
significantly higher than these assumptions. However, rather than assume
high figures based on what seems to have been quite an opportunity-led
approach to funding by the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) in very
recent months, we have preferred what we consider to be more realistic,
sustainable assumptions longer-term where social housing grant is made
available. The Governments drive through the Homes and Communities
Agency (HCA) is for best value, and making sure that grant money achieves
the additionality rather than supporting land value or similar. We assume
that (where grant is assumed as above) a 1 bed flat accommodates 2
persons; 2 bed flat 3 persons; 2 bed house 4 persons; 3 bed house 5
persons; 4 bed house 6 persons and a 5 bed house accommodates 7
persons.

7
Source: Warrington Borough Council- based on discussions with RSL partners


2.7.3 The likely payment that an RSL would make for an affordable rented or unit of
intermediate tenure within this modelling was determined through carrying out
a series of appraisals using industry standard software (in this case -
ProVal) whilst making judgements on the range of input assumptions
following liaison with a number of locally active RSLs. Effectively, the value
that could be paid to a developer for completed affordable homes is usually
related to the mortgage finance the RSL could raise based on the rental
income stream (affordable rent) or capital and rental income stream (in the
case of shared ownership or similar) with management and other costs
deducted.

2.7.4 In practice, the values generated could be dependent on property size and
other factors including the RSLs own development strategies and thus would
vary from case to case when looking at site specifics. The RSL may have
access to other sources of funding, such as its own resources or recycled
capital grant from stair-casing receipts, for example, but such additional
funding cannot be regarded as the norm it is highly scheme-dependent and
variable and thus has not been factored in here.

2.7.5 The figures used in the appraisals are shown in Figure 3 below for each
property type, and reflect the sums received per completed affordable home
by the developer in return for constructing them (usually for an RSL to which
they are transferred):



Figure 3: Summary of Sums Payable by RSL to Developer for Completed
Affordable Units

Rent (no Grant)
Value
Point
1 Bed Flat 2 Bed Flat
2 Bed
House
3 Bed
House
4 Bed
House
1 24,000 29,000 31,000 35,000 39,000
2 27,000 32,000 33,000 38,000 43,000
3 30,000 37,000 39,000 44,000 50,000
4 36,000 43,000 46,000 51,000 59,000
5 41,000 50,000 54,000 61,000 70,000
6 49,000 58,000 63,000 71,000 80,000
7 56,000 67,000 72,000 82,000 92,000
Rent (with Grant)
Value
Point
2 Bed
House
3 Bed
House
4 Bed
House
1 37,000 49,000 53,000 57,000 62,000
2 40,000 52,000 57,000 61,000 66,000
3 45,000 58,000 64,000 68,000 75,000
4 51,000 66,000 72,000 78,000 85,000
5 58,000 75,000 82,000 89,000 98,000
6 68,000 89,000 97,000 74,000 115,000
7 79,000 104,000 113,000 85,000 134,000
Intermediate (no Grant)
Value
Point
2 Bed
House
(n/a) 3 Bed
House
(n/a) 4 Bed
House
1 42,000 56,000 63,000 N/A N/A
2 50,000 68,000 76,000 N/A N/A
3 59,000 80,000 89,000 N/A N/A
4 70,000 94,000 105,000 N/A N/A
5 84,000 113,000 126,000 N/A N/A
6 101,000 135,000 152,000 N/A N/A
7 121,000 162,000 182,000 N/A N/A
Intermediate (with Grant)
Value
Point
2 Bed
House
(n/a) 3 Bed
House
(n/a) 4 Bed
House
1 47,000 63,000 70,000 N/A N/A
2 55,000 73,000 82,000 N/A N/A
3 66,000 88,000 98,000 N/A N/A
4 79,000 105,000 118,000 N/A N/A
5 94,000 126,000 142,000 N/A N/A
6 113,000 152,000 170,000 N/A N/A
7 136,000 182,000 204,000 N/A N/A

Note that the N/A entries within Figure 3 above were where 3 and 4 (+) bed dwelling
types were not considered for intermediate tenure within the base appraisal dwelling
mixes, owing to likely lack of affordability to households in need. In practice this does
not mean that intermediate tenure of 3 and 4 (+) bed homes would be ruled out
each case would be considered by the Council on site specifics.



2.7.6 The exact nature and range of tenure models within an affordable housing
mix will often need to be bespoke to a particular location and site
particularly in market conditions where these details are currently so
dependent on demand as influenced by mortgage product availability,
changing price levels, the Governments constantly evolving range of
initiatives, developers reactions and own practical marketing initiatives and
other factors.

2.7.7 Although tenure mix is a site-specific consideration and dependent on local
housing needs evidence plus the type of factors mentioned at 2.7.6, this study
tests the impact of varying the tenure mix on development viability based on
certain assumptions as have to be fixed to drive appraisals. Current
experience with scheme specifics is that in the current climate the RSL type
financial appraisals for shared ownership and intermediate rent are producing
similar outcomes in respect of what RSLs can afford to pay for dwellings. As
with much of this, figures will, of course, vary with scheme specifics. The
tenure mixes tested were as follows and as agreed with the Council:

90% social rent/10% intermediate

2.7.8 In looking at our assumptions for intermediate tenure more generically in this
way, for shared ownership accommodation our calculations were based on a
35% initial capital sale with 2.5% rent paid by the purchaser on the retained
equity. Intermediate rents would normally be at up to 80% of market rent
levels. For the base appraisals we assumed that only houses and flats of 2
bedrooms or less would be transferred to an RSL for intermediate tenure -
with larger units remaining as private and/or being transferred for affordable
rented tenure. This is due to the potential lack of affordability, particularly of
shared ownership properties - where larger units may be unaffordable to the
end user.

2.7.9 Although generally it is expected that housing needs will dictate a bias
towards affordable rent as a strategic starting point, it is acknowledged here
that there may well be local circumstances where the Council will look to work
with its partners on a different approach to tenure mix in some areas in order
to create mixed and balanced communities.

2.7.10 It should be noted that where we refer to shared ownership in this study - and
that may still be a part of specific site discussions between the Council on
intermediate tenure content, developers and RSLs - other tenure options or
models may well now be relevant. The focus will increasingly be on
intermediate tenure in an adaptable mix alongside the priority needed
affordable rented accommodation. Other models, including renting at rates
discounted from market rental costs (intermediate rent) may well be


relevant. Those could come into play depending on local specifics such as
need, demand, funding, market factors (especially in the current climate) and
affordability. In most cases, they will produce improved cash-flows and
provide a better viability outcome, compared with affordable rent without
grant; and be considered as more market friendly by developers as part of
their overall view.

2.8 Indicative Site Area, Scheme Density and Resulting RLV

2.8.1 The results of all the appraisals provide us with data in both absolute value
() terms and as a percentage (%) of GDV. To provide broad comparisons
with published (VOA sourced) land value data so as to provide an additional
basis for interpretation of results, the approximate site area (land take) and
density for each development scenario (site type and size) has been
estimated taking into account the likely building and ancillary areas footprint.
These land take indicators have been estimated assuming 2/3 storey
housing, with flats generally in buildings of no more than 3/4 storeys. The
purpose is, as with varying assumptions on other aspects, to enable us to
consider the sensitivity of outcomes to variables. The land take assumptions
for ancillary space (gardens, immediate access roads, parking, outbuildings,
etc) have necessarily been estimated.

2.8.2 Based on the dwelling sizes assumed in this study, this provides us with
indicative densities of between 30 and 100 dwellings per hectare (dph)
depending on the types and mixes within the notional schemes. We can then
calculate the approximate value of each scenario and appraisal variation in
per hectare (ha) to enable a comparison with other published land value data.
Again, in practice, densities will be highly variable. Indicative site sizes are
shown within the relevant tables of the appendices.

2.8.3 A range of densities has been examined for each site type to provide an
approximate indication of what might happen to scheme viability as the
notional site is moved from one area to another (e.g. from a higher density
central urban location to a sub-urban or rural lower density location both as
Brownfield and Greenfield development). This of course is highly indicative
but provides us with a further opportunity to sensitivity test the results.
Appendix I sets out the density and location assumptions.

2.9 Other Assumptions

2.9.1 The appraisals include a range of other variables that are all taken into
account when calculating an approximate RLV. This is an extensive list and
includes items such as fees, land buying costs, finance, agency costs and
planning infrastructure provision (generally planning obligations secured
through Section 106 agreements).



2.9.2 In some instances these figures are factors of other elements of the appraisal
and, therefore, vary by site size and type.

2.9.3 The percentages and values assumed for the purposes of this exercise are
listed below and are the result of a BCIS overview, Adams Integras
experience, work with and discussions with developers, valuers, agents and
others:

Base Build Costs (House Schemes) 1,000/sq m

Base Build Costs (Flatted Schemes) - 1,100/sq m

2.9.4 The above are applied to the Gross Internal Area (GIA) of the
accommodation. Base costs for flats are likely to be higher than for a scheme
of houses particularly where sites are constrained and often difficult to work
on (involving materials storage difficulties, craning, etc). Common areas have
to be allowed for, as does the degree of repetition of costly elements. Cash-
flow for flatted development can also be less favourable as rolling sales are
more difficult to deliver. In this study the figure for flats assumes standard low
rise flats as typically witnessed across Warrington Borough (usually no more
than 3 storeys and allowing standard construction techniques). In practice,
again all schemes will be different.

2.9.5 Build cost figures have been taken as an indicative level, supported by our
ongoing experience of scheme specifics, whilst also taking into account a
range of information from BCIS data (the Building Cost Information Service of
the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS)), and feedback from
developers.

2.9.6 There will always be a range of data and opinions on, and methods of
describing, build costs. In our view, we have made reasonable assumptions
which lie within the range of figures we generally see for typical new build
schemes (rather than high specification or particularly complex schemes
which might require particular construction techniques or materials). As with
many aspects there is no single appropriate figure in reality, so a judgement
on some form of benchmark is necessary. There will be instances where
other costs are relevant, including in overcoming abnormal site issues or
characteristics.

2.9.7 We are aware that the developers base build costs can be lower than our
above base cost figures, and also that the BCIS tends to indicate lower
figures. In contrast, however, there is also much said about costs being
higher than this, often in the context of RSLs procuring new housing through
contractors and developers. Build costs are set out in a range of guises,
including in BCIS, whereby items such as external works costs and fees, etc,
are sometimes included, sometimes excluded. It can be difficult to carry out


reliable analysis. So a view needs to be taken, and then monitored, tested
and updated as informed by the experience of site specifics, negotiations and
(from the affordable housing perspective) in light of funding availability and
affordability for occupants.

2.9.8 Typical scheme-specific additions to these are:

Architects and other professional fees: 10.0 % of build costs.

Contingencies and insurance allowance: 5.5% of build costs.

Marketing and Sales Fees: 3.0% of Estimated Total Sales Value
(GDV). There will be instances, dependent on the location and
scheme type, where some of this expense, or an additional sum will
be directed to the setting up of a show home. This will, however, not
be appropriate on all schemes hence we have not included for it as a
standard assumption item. We would not expect it to alter the
outcomes fundamentally.

Legal Fees on Sale: 600 per unit.

Finance (build): 7.0% - on build costs, fees, etc, over build period.

Build Period: 6 to 24 months depending on scheme size within the
range assumed.

Land Survey Costs: Approximate cost of 500 per unit including
basic ground conditions research (on larger schemes especially there
will usually be additional cost associated with transport,
environmental/landscape, ecology, etc, dependent on the scheme and
not covered here).

Legal Fees on Land Purchase: 0.75% of land value (this will often
produce a low figure when looking at very small or low value sites but
only make a minimal difference to outcome).

Planning Application costs: 335 per dwelling where the number of
dwellings is 50 or fewer; where the number of dwelling houses
exceeds 50 - 16,565 plus 100 per dwelling in excess of 50, subject
to a maximum total of 250,000.

Stamp Duty Land Tax: Between 0% and 4% depending on RLV.

Infrastructure Payments: Appraisals carried out assuming 2,500
per unit as a base appraisal and then tested at 10,000 per unit and
20,000 per unit for wider planning obligations. This covers a range of
potential infrastructure costs but equally could apply to other future


costs. They are notional levels. We varied this assumption so that we
and the Council could review the sensitivity of results to this factor
using similar thinking to the Value Points methodology rather than
looking only at a relatively narrow set of assumptions. This was done
with the potential nationwide Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)
policy developments in mind, but also in the context of a range of
other areas which could effectively add costs to schemes from a
developers and therefore landowners perspective.

The figures used are not intended to be a guide to CIL levels. We
have used the range of values to test the additional impact of those
costs on development viability of the schemes types appraised. As
stated elsewhere in the study text, this group of appraisals can also
serve a wider purpose in that the outcomes give a guide as to how
RLVs vary when costs at these levels are added to appraisals. In fact
those costs could be related to a range or group of different factors
including on sustainability measures or abnormal site costs. The
results can be interpreted in a wider way.

Renewable Energy: All base appraisals (at Code for Sustainable
Homes Level 4) carried out on basis of all sites achieving 10%
reduction in CO
2
through the use of on-site or decentralised renewable
energy. Cost is assumed to be included within the cost of achieving
appropriate CfSH levels.

Code for Sustainable Homes: Addition of 100/m on build costs for
achieving Code Level 4. Additional build cost approximated from CLG
- July 2008
8
report and assumes medium case scenario for flats and
terraced houses. Once again, the wide scope of appraisals and
outcomes allows other results to be considered as also representing
the impact of particular added costs beyond those allowances
specifically mentioned in these sections. Since carrying out the
modelling for this study, a cost review of the Code for Sustainable
Homes has been carried out updating the July 2008 report
9
. The
review does not affect the costs assumed in this study that ensure
sufficient cost allowances have been made.

Lifetime Homes - While this can affect scheme viability in a wider
sense - from the point of view of increasing building footprints and
therefore cost and, potentially, site capacity - it does not necessarily
add significant cost but has design implications. Interpretations and
opinions vary widely. Early design input minimises its impacts, and
costs depend on to what degree standards are applied and what other
standards are already to be met. There are overlaps, and even areas

8
DCLG Cost Analysis of the Code for Sustainable Homes (July 2008)
9
DCLG Code for Sustainable Homes: Cost Review (March 2010)


where it can compromise or not fit well with other requirements. It is an
area that needs to be kept under review in terms of practicalities, costs
and impacts as part of the overall expectations from schemes. For
the purposes of this exercise, and to build on our acknowledgment of
the relevance of this area, rather than make our own judgement we
have preferred to rely on the published work by Habinteg Housing
Association (www.lifetimehomes.org.uk) which suggests that the cost
of meeting Lifetime Homes standards is up to 545 per dwelling
(included) depending on size, layout and specification of the property.
It is an area that needs to be kept under review in terms of
practicalities, costs and impacts as part of the overall expectations
from schemes. The same applies to the Councils likely approach to
wheelchair adapted housing being incorporated wherever possible
within schemes specific needs, design implications and impacts will
need to be considered as sites come forward and planning applicants
will need to build this into their thinking.

Finance related to land purchase: 7.0% interest cost on land
survey, planning costs, legal fees on land purchase and RLV over
build time plus 26 weeks. No finance arrangement or related fees
have been included for the purposes of this exercise. They might in
practice be applicable, but we would not expect them to alter the
viability equation fundamentally. Scheme funding arrangements will
vary greatly, dependent again on the type of developer and scheme.
As with much of this exercise, this is a snapshot and there are varying
views as to what future trends will hold, and so over time we would
need to see how added costs balanced with changes in sales values.

During the course of the study, the Bank of England Base Rate has
been maintained at 0.5% following a significant period at which it has
been at this level. On fixing our assumptions in the early study stages
we decided to leave our finance rate assumptions unchanged. In light
of the daily recession reporting (on the reduced availability and
associated likely terms of finance), we considered this approach to be
further validated and therefore to remain appropriate. On closing the
study, the impacts of the low Base Rate have not been seen in any
notable way, but with further time our interest rate assumption might
begin to look high it is not possible to tell. Nevertheless, this again
fits with looking at viability reasonably cautiously rather than stripping
out too many cost allowances from appraisals. It also fits with the
strategic view in terms of trying to settle on assumptions reflective of
a range of potential market conditions. Our understanding is that
house-buying and development finance remains relatively difficult to
access at least on favourable terms, related to the risks perceived by
the markets and to the fact that lending between institutions is still not
working on terms or to the extent that had underpinned the active


market in preceding years. We have had a climate recently whereby
rate reductions have tended not to be passed on, certainly not to a
significant degree, to borrowers, and where other charges
(arrangement fees, etc) have weighed against any cuts. So far as we
can see, similar applies in a commercial sense. In summary, at the
time of writing, we have no reason to believe that the commercial
lending climate has eased significantly.

2.10 Wider Research

2.10.1 To supplement our research on the property market local residential property
values (as set out in Appendix III), Adams Integra has also carried out further
desktop research and contacted a variety of organisations which are (or have
been in more buoyant conditions) involved in the local land market, i.e. in
selling or perhaps buying sites.

2.10.2 The information gathered from that process, as far as it was available, is also
included in Appendix III. We collected it with the aim that it would help our
understanding of land price expectations locally, potentially to enable us to
consider the information offered by the VOA reporting in a more informed
way, and potentially inform further comparisons with our indicative RLV
results while we considered those, and thus help with the judgements we
seek to make.

2.11 Stakeholders and Consultation

2.11.1 We invariably find that developers are, understandably, more often than not
reluctant to share information on their usual assumptions. There are
commercial sensitivities to be respected. However, as part of considering a
range of information and informing our judgements for each of our studies we
consult with a range of stakeholders including developers, landowners, RSLs
and agents as a matter of course. This is done through the on the ground
and web-based/desktop research we have mentioned. For this study the
Council also sent out details of the study to a wide portfolio of stakeholders
asking for their assistance with development appraisal assumptions and any
other comments they wished to make on the study. The purpose of this was
for Adams Integra (and the Council) to engage with a range of organisations
involved in the local market and to gain an understanding of key stakeholders
perspectives on development issues in the Borough, with a view to further
informing our research and judgements in setting assumptions and so as to
provide additional context for considering results later on. Adams Integra and
the Council undertook not to disclose the detail of any of the responses but
these were collated and have helped to inform our progress from that point. It
is our job to make an independent view.



2.12 General Notes and Study Limitations

2.12.1 This study requires judgements based on the development values and
changes seen in land values as a result of varying potential policy positions.
This is in the context of seeking to guide policy development and arrive at
clear policy targets. The results cannot be a definitive guide to how specific
sites will be appraised or how outcomes on a site-specific basis will look. As
this is a relative exercise aimed at determining the likely effect of a range of
policy options, the most important factor is consistency between assumptions
used for modelling scenarios. Specific assumptions and values applied for our
schemes are unlikely to be appropriate for all developments. The same could
be said of any set of study assumptions. We are confident, however, that our
assumptions are reasonable in terms of making this viability overview and
informing policy development.

2.12.2 This study is set in the context of setting clear and realistic targets as a basis
for long-term policy but bearing in mind short-term flexibility required to deal
with the current housing market. Development viability will vary from site to
site, and there will be no substitute for the negotiated approach to provision
where necessary (e.g. sites with abnormal costs, low sales values, etc).

2.12.3 There can be no definite viability cut-off point owing to individual landowners
circumstances. It is not appropriate to assume that because a development
appears to produce some land value (or in some cases value equivalent to an
existing/alternative use), the land will change hands and the development
proceed. This principle will in some cases extend to landowners expecting or
requiring the land price to reach a higher level, perhaps even significantly
above that related to an existing or alternative land use. This might be
referred to as a premium, overbid or sufficient level of incentive to sell. In
some specific cases, whilst weighing up overall planning objectives to be
achieved, therefore, the proposals may need to be viewed alongside the
owners enjoyment/use of the land, and a potential overbid relative to
existing use value or perhaps to an alternative use that the site may be put to.
In practice, whether and to what extent an active market exists for an existing
or alternative use will be a key part of determining whether or how site
discussions develop.

2.12.4 These factors will not always come into play or always have very significant
influences on outcomes. For instance, the market for an existing or alternative
use proposal, and therefore the value it produces, will vary with time, location
and economic conditions. They are likely to be highly variable as to relevance
for, and impact on, particular schemes. In reality, scheme-specific land values
have to be considered alongside existing or alternative use values and the
latter, being very location and planning use or business dependent, will vary
significantly too.



2.12.5 To attempt to make detailed comparisons with existing or alternative uses in
this type of overview work for policy context would, in our view, have limited
meaning. We have, however, attempted to provide examples of, and
comparisons with, alternative use values. Commercial use values in particular
are highly site-specific. Nonetheless this study acknowledges that the level of
value created by a residential scheme after making allowance for affordable
housing and other planning obligations requirements will need to be weighed
up against any existing or alternative use relevant to a particular site.

2.12.6 The use of notional sites most effectively enables like-for-like comparisons to
be made, i.e. the testing of impacts of the varying requirements on the same
typical scheme in a range of value locations. The fact that individual schemes
vary makes like-for-like comparison very difficult when studying those for this
purpose of trying to measure policy impacts, with full reliable and readily
comparable information being critical.

2.12.7 We have not definitively labelled specific locations or areas as higher/lower
value, or similar. This is because, while a general values hierarchy might be
noted (see Appendix III) based on typical values, in practice we found that
values can vary from street to street and within very small areas. The Value
Points approach used in this study means that viability outcomes can
effectively be transported around the Borough and a feel for viability gained in
relation to relevant value levels as those might vary by location as well as by
scheme). As noted, this approach of reviewing outcomes from a range of
values also enables the consideration of viability impacts and trends as
values change with regard to market adjustments.



3 RESULTS

3.1 Background

3.1.1 The residual land value (RLV) modelling carried out for this study looks at a
range of scenarios investigating the impact on development viability in
accordance with the methodology as set out.

3.1.2 The number of appraisals required rises exponentially with the number of
variables investigated. This is the case with all such studies. Whilst it is
important to keep this exercise within practical limits, the modelling still
creates an extensive range of results once all the variables are considered
through additional layers of appraisals. These are presented by means of a
large number of tables and graphs. The tables and graphs are all appended
to the rear of this report should the reader wish to view them. They are set out
in different ways depending on the particular impact we are seeking to
investigate and visualise. The following results chapter aims to lift from that
large volume of information a few example results to explain the
characteristics, impacts and trends of various potential policies on
development viability. The purpose here is to help guide the reader in
interpreting the results and to illustrate key points and trends which have led
to our conclusions.

3.1.3 The data is shown in tabular and graphical form and shows the indicative
residual land value produced by each appraisal, those residual land values
shown as a percentage of gross development value (GDV), and the reduction
in residual land values as the proportion of affordable housing proportions
increase.

3.1.4 The Appendices are set out as follows:

Appendix II shows the results from the base appraisals carried out across
a range of scenarios, with in all cases assumptions including tenure mix of
90% affordable rented and 10% intermediate, Code for Sustainable
Homes Level 4 attainment, on the basis of nil grant and 17.5%
developers profit. These appraisals were carried out assuming
infrastructure (wider planning obligations) costs of 2,500 per unit.

Appendices IIa and IIb show the results of the sample appraisals carried
out assuming changes to tenure mix (50%/50% affordable rented
/intermediate and 20%/80% affordable rent/intermediate respectively).

Appendices IIc and IId show the results of the appraisals assuming
infrastructure (wider planning obligations) costs of 10,000 and 20,000
per unit. This allows us to see the impact on residual land values of
increases in property values, increases in affordable housing proportions


and increases in infrastructure costs. The higher levels of infrastructure
cost are intended primarily to reflect potential future increases to the
planning infrastructure burden through increases to existing calculations
and requirements, but equally they could represent potential growth in any
other cost area e.g. associated with potential flood risk mitigation, other
sites works, increased allowances for Lifetime Homes or mobility
standards, other building specification enhancements, etc.

Appendix IIe shows the results of the appraisals that assume an element
of grant (at all tenure mixes).

Appendix IIf shows the results of the sample appraisals carried out
assuming increased developer profit (at 20% of GDV) at all tenure mixes
and both with and without grant.

Appendix IIg outlines results from Value Point 4 appraisal variations
looking at the potential cumulative impact of costs and obligations.

Appendix III contains a summary of our property values and market
research.

Appendix IV summarises the formal stakeholders consultation process
which complemented our wider and on the ground research.

Appendix V provides a Glossary of technical terms used throughout this
study.

3.1.5 The results appendices also summarise the RLV results across all scenarios
and site sizes showing the corresponding monetary value in pounds per
hectare ( per Ha) based on assumed indicative site areas (land take) and
density for each scenario. Each set of results is shown on sites varying
density as set out in Appendix I Development Scenarios and can also be
loosely related to where these site types may be likely to occur. The tables
are suffixed with the letter b. The tables also show by way of colour coding
whether the values fall below, within or exceeding the range of Valuation
Office Agency (VOA) reported land values
10
for example alternative land uses
in the local context (agricultural and industrial/B1). Again, it should be noted
that both the assumed development scenario site (land take) areas and the
VOA data are highly indicative. This type of data can become outdated
quickly especially in times of fast-changing markets as we have had
currently. Such comparisons are used within this study only to help highlight
how land value varies as assumptions change, and to show very generally
the type or range of other information that the indicative RLV results might be
compared with when it comes to considering how likely a scheme is to
proceed given other valuation factors. The inclusion of this information here

10
VOA Property Market Report July 2009


seeks to help with illustrating how the value (RLV) created by residential
development proposals may look and vary relative to other example uses
only. The key point through these indications is to build on the emphasis that
considering alternative/competing or existing use values (and potentially
additional incentive levels, as has been discussed) will often be important in
site-specific viability and thus delivery discussions. In practice, as the study
notes elsewhere, the values likely to be attributed to various existing or
potential uses of a particular site will be highly site-specific.

3.1.6 At this strategic level overview for policy development, we are able only to
make broad comparisons. Unfortunately it is simply not possible to provide
the Council with definitive cut-off points where a scheme definitely would
proceed, or conversely where viability would be compromised to the degree
that development would not take place. Site specifics will influence viability on
individual sites. Adams Integra sought additional, more Warrington-specific,
information on land values such as was available at the time of research. The
information search was also kept open during the study period. This was
done through enquiries of local agents who may be dealing with land sales
sites for commercial and residential developments. Desktop (web-based)
searching for any information was also carried out. Our study process
involves asking agents if they have dealt with, or are aware of, any specific
land sale (or marketing) information or, if not, whether through their
experience they can offer any views on local land values. These are typically,
but not always, different agents from those we talk to about residential
property sales. Particularly in the current market, this extra research has
typically resulted in little additional information; however, any that was
gathered as the study progressed is included at Appendix III.

3.1.7 There will need to be a second stage to this overall viability process whereby
site-specific discussions prevail in situations where it is necessary to have
those for example, in the event of landowners or developers needing to
demonstrate that affordable housing targets, or perhaps other planning
obligations, cannot be met. The same might apply where a developer or
landowner wished to explore enhanced (in excess of target levels) or
alternative provision of affordable housing with the Council, possibly reliant on
a varied extent on SHG or other subsidy.

3.1.8 As we have commented about existing and alternative use values (for
example commercial), and how those vary greatly with site specifics, much
the same will apply if the Council consider the viability of a mixed use scheme
in dialogue with a landowner or developer. Our suggested starting point would
be to consider the residential element of such a scheme in a similar way to a
solely residential scheme, and then consider any positive or negative impact,
on overall viability, from the other scheme elements. Inevitably this
consideration will be highly site and scheme-specific, but there is no reason
why the general target approach - the level at which that is pitched, and the


overall process - would not follow that which is related to entirely residential
sites.

3.2 Property Values

3.2.1 One of the key inputs into the appraisal process is what the value of
residential properties that will make up a scheme will be (i.e. the estimate of
the schemes GDV). Across Warrington Borough generally, but also within
settlements and localities, there is a range of values seen. Typical value
levels that reliably represent particular localities are hard to pin down given
the highly variable nature of housing product and local influences on price.
However, on an indicative overview basis from our research, the following
hierarchy of values was noted from our overall (resales dominated) market
research (expressed by sub-area as provided by Warrington Borough
Council) see Figure 4 below:

Figure 4: Average asking price analysis and trends by SHMA sub-area
classification including indicative hierarchy

Average Asking Prices Analysis
Rank Settlement
1 Bed
Flats
2 Bed
Flats
2 Bed
House
3 Bed
House
4 Bed
House
All
Properties
1 Culcheth & Croft 120,000 200,180 162,474 198,388 332,259 239,179
2 South 92,683 144,057 145,948 201,445 371,918 227,055
3 North West 74,850 119,015 117,602 148,195 239,211 165,307
4 East 64,004 92,035 107,609 145,370 227,879 145,858
5 Central 70,805 100,744 88,996 126,312 176,633 100,039
Overall 77,610 131,108 121,545 170,365 300,203 185,431

3.2.2 For wider context, these indications can also be compared with an England
and Wales average house price, at the time of our research, of 161,554
(Land Registry House Price Index November 2009 published 30 December
2009), and to the North West average price of 120,226 or Warrington
average price of 141,934 (same source). Again, to provide context, these
values can be compared to the Land Registry data provided by the Councils
SHLAA which show that the average house price in Warrington was
183,075, with an average in the North West of 153,112
11
.

Features noted are:

Highest average values in Culcheth & Croft sub-area
(significantly in excess of England and Wales average).

Average values in the South sub-area are also above the
general tone for the Borough.

11
Prices taken from Warrington Borough Council SHMA (2007) with data source attributed to Land Registry (4
th

Quarter 2006)


Average values around 25% less than South in North West
sub-area but still in excess of the England and Wales
average.

Significantly lower values in Warrington Central (58% below
highest levels).

3.2.3 This data has also been analysed with regard to settlements/neighbourhoods
that make up each of the classifications as shown in Figure 5:

Figure 5: Average asking price analysis and trends by
Settlement/Neighbourhood area including indicative hierarchy

Rank Settlement
1 Bed
Flats
2 Bed
Flats
2 Bed
House
3 Bed
House
4 Bed
House
All
Properties
1 Appleton Thorn N/A N/A N/A 182,980 437,100 346,343
2
Appleton 66,500 140,000 149,963 222,295 406,334
287,189
3 Thelwall N/A N/A N/A 241,113 313,317 272,057
4 Croft N/A N/A 206,650 238,317 304,629 261,391
5 Lymm 103,641 157,123 188,478 244,274 372,399 256,098
6 Culcheth 120,000 186,633 163,220 196,804 345,132 253,017
7 Winwick N/A 159,950 171,142 241,988 320,475 250,405
8 Walton N/A N/A N/A 238,973 399,950 249,034
9
Grappenhall & Grappenhall
Heys 135,000 146,142 188,556 217,353 320,237 232,706
10 Stockton Heath N/A 157,475 166,046 207,773 355,327 227,667
11 Westbrook 155,000 113,725 140,000 177,613 250,970 207,922
12 Whittle Hall N/A 117,950 133,150 177,136 237,814 184,719
13 Glazebury N/A 220,500 139,142 180,063 248,750 178,764
14 Hollins Green N/A N/A 154,475 170,548 262,498 176,379
15 Glazebrook N/A N/A 144,998 182,477 N/A 175,663
16 Cinnamon Brow N/A N/A 114,963 162,376 198,186 172,956
17 Woolston N/A N/A 107,133 151,192 265,465 169,881
18 Great Sankey 74,806 134,950 114,031 146,731 233,374 163,629
19 Burtonwood N/A N/A 86,650 104,542 250,300 159,267
20 Old Hall 69,950 89,950 114,983 165,570 244,963 158,833
21 Callands N/A N/A 108,243 126,300 232,050 153,042
22 Penketh 117,475 111,000 127,788 156,484 172,393 151,065
23 Birchwood 59,963 61,950 115,892 146,588 214,950 143,564
24 Longbarn 59,950 99,150 101,067 137,340 185,383 131,293
25 Bewsey N/A N/A 122,950 126,041 149,950 128,354
26 Paddington 71,725 89,950 103,415 137,224 236,667 125,540
27 Latchford 80,986 95,957 103,747 111,874 139,317 107,633
28 Howley 61,338 97,370 82,960 154,967 189,975 104,834
29 Warrington Centre 70,805 100,744 88,996 126,312 176,633 100,039
30 Dallam N/A N/A 71,450 82,647 N/A 81,329
- Overall 80,546 131,249 123,201 171,629 299,794 185,299



3.2.4 These are based on averages and across the area these general
observations and trends are affected by prices in particular locations or areas
within settlements and/or by volumes of particular housing types for sale at
any one time (which in turn is influenced by the local stock make up). Values
can be driven by specific location and scheme desirability as much as by
particular area or settlement. In certain areas there can be wide variations.
Again, the Property Values Report (Appendix III) summarising our research
goes into more detail.

3.2.5 With regard to new build values which needed to be the focus of our attention
for the appraisal assumptions, we noted a different picture. These show a
narrower range across the Borough than for the re-sales research although
this is based on a limited sample. We have to be careful in analysing new
build pricing, since often when higher values are seen, the property floor
areas are larger too. That relationship needs to be borne in mind, as
explained in the methodology - at 2.6.5.

3.2.6 The general range of values, in terms of per square metre/per sq ft sales
prices, seen and assumed for carrying out appraisals is as follows:

Figure 6: New Build Range of Values

Value Point / sq m / sq ft Occurrence - Indications
1 1,400 130 Market falling from current lower end.
2 1,680 156
Lower end values e.g. typically seen
Warrington Central and parts of East.
3 2,016 187
4 2,419 225
Middle range values e.g. typically seen
West and North West and parts of East.
5 2,903 270
6 3,484 324
Upper end values e.g. typically seen
South e.g. Thelwall, Lymm, Grappenhall,
Appleton Thorn, Stockton Heath etc, and
Culcheth & Croft.
7 4,180 389 Market rising from current upper end.

3.2.7 Some further analysis of the pricing information we have gathered indicated
that the average new build marketing price point for Warrington Borough as a
whole area was about 2,100/m (195/sq ft) at the point of our research (i.e.
around our Value Point 3 to 4). However, this does not take account of the
number of properties for sale at each point that fed into this calculation and as
such the average can be skewed. The range of new build values seen goes
from approximately 1,450/m to 3,750/m (or about 135/sq ft to 349/sq
ft). The overall range of values appraised was extended beyond this as a part
of exploring the sensitivity of outcomes to further variation in values. The new
build averages suggest a fairly wide range of property values across the
Borough but it is difficult to comment on significant variation of new pricing by


locality. However the re-sales values research indicates a differential between
the sub-areas (see above).

3.2.8 We saw only few instances of new build pricing getting to more than
3,000/m (about 278/ft) regardless of location. We also have to take into
account the fact that sales prices are typically lower than asking prices often
by up to around 10% currently, but again this can vary. Whilst the agent
feedback has been mixed, and some schemes were still doing relatively well
it seems, more often than not a ready to go purchaser might get a discount
of 5-10% and perhaps more from marketing price. However, some prices
have already been adjusted downwards so that discounts are not universal
and are often not made very openly. Conversely, these are prices in the
current market and it is entirely possible that values could increase again in
the future. Studying viability over a range of values also enables the results to
be viewed in the context of values changing as influenced by moving market
conditions. The range of Value Points, as at Figure 6 above, covers the
typically occurring new build values seen in the Borough and likely to be
seen with additional foreseeable market movements, up or down. Within
Appendix III we give examples of currently seen new build market pricing in
relation to these Value Points and of how those might vary by Value Point
with both downward and upward market movements.

3.2.9 Of the relatively limited amount of new build pricing information available, it
appears that generally, values in the range Value Points 2-4 were most
commonly seen with some values falling below that in the range between
Value Points 1-2. Central Warrington and parts of the East area seemed to
indicate values between Value Points 2 and 3 whilst the South area saw
values at the higher end of the range, most commonly between Value Points
5 to 6. We also have to acknowledge that this looks like being a moving
scenario in current market conditions, and not on any sort of predictable
basis.

3.2.10 There are likely to be areas where new build values achieve only low levels
(at around our Value Point 1-2) bearing in mind sales prices will usually vary
from asking prices in the current market, and often significantly. If market
conditions deteriorate further, however, we could see a general move
downwards within our overall scale of value levels (range of Value Points).
Equally, there will also be cases where values are much higher (our Value
Point 6-7 or above) but again the incidence of these is low currently. A
majority of the values centre on Value Points 2 up to 5. Values can be higher
in favoured areas of main settlements, more rural areas and also for premium
housing products. If prices increase again, we see that an approximate 20%
increase in values takes our Value Point 3 properties up to Value Point 4 and
so on.



3.2.11 Adams Integras recent research for viability studies suggests in general that
there no longer appears to be a significant premium value attached to new
build properties compared to re-sales of a comparable type (although data is
not always on a like-for-like basis). This is due to the recent and current lack
of confidence in the housing market triggered by the recession. We have
been picking up anecdotal reports of mortgage valuation surveyors down-
valuing new builds. Many agents have indicated that new build property now
has to compete directly with resale in pricing terms. This is not always the
case, however - for example where a scheme creates what is considered to
be a new or particularly attractive offer for a given location.

3.2.12 An important feature of the housing market which was triggered in Autumn
2007, developed in 2008 and has run through to 2010 (and appears to be
universal) has been the dramatic slow-down in the rate of sales (number of
sales being agreed and proceeding). The impact of the vastly reduced level of
market activity (volume of house sales) has been to significantly affect the
level of development activity by increasing perceptions of uncertainty and risk.
It remains to be seen how this will play out fully in terms of the financial
appraisal of schemes and sites and, as mentioned in Chapter 2, we see a
range of reactions to it in terms of profit levels sought, and other assumptions
applied.

3.2.13 We feel there is no doubt that current conditions add up to a negative
financial viability impact when compared with how schemes are viewed and
pursued in a more stable, confident market. Developments in general will be
taking longer to sell (with build progress possibly slowed and costs
outstanding for longer as a result) and varying packages of incentives are
typically being offered. These factors were identified at 2.2 and are
recognised in Appendix III as well.

3.3 Indicative Value Comparisons

3.3.1 As mentioned previously, due to highly variable potential existing and
alternative use values of sites, and in some cases particular overbid or
incentive requirements, it is not possible to provide the Council with definitive
cut-off points where viability will be compromised to the degree that
development may not take place. However, it is possible to provide likely
outcomes at varying levels.

3.3.2 By way of a basic example, a residual calculation that provides an output of
zero value (i.e. RLV of 0% of GDV) after testing the policy proposal, means
that development on this site would not go ahead unless there were a special
business case for pursuing it. Conversely, on a site where the RLV
approaches 25% to 40% of GDV after the application of affordable housing
policy it is likely (although not definitive) that land values are going to be high
enough to absorb the impacts of the new policies.


3.3.3 In addition, the indicative RLVs in monetary terms (as at Appendix II) resulting
from the application of various policy positions across the different site types,
can be compared very generally to land values provided by organisations
such as the VOA through estimating the land area (land take) of the notional
schemes (Tables suffix b in each Appendix). These tables group together
the results of the appraisals at differing densities and by location please
refer to Appendix I for the density assumptions. The density assumption
clearly has a direct effect on the RLV when expressed in per Ha terms. We
decided again to cover a range of scenarios. Density is a factor of the
particular type of development, and in practice will vary significantly from
scheme to scheme and area to area.

3.3.4 As an example, and again bearing in mind the notional nature of it, Adams
Integras 15 unit housing scheme could occupy approximately 0.38 hectares
(equivalent to a density of 40 dwellings per hectare). At this site size, the
value of the land at Value Point 4 with zero (0%) affordable housing is
indicated to be 1,370,580 per hectare. With a requirement for 10%
affordable housing this falls to 870,911 per hectare. At 20% affordable
housing it falls further to 557,564 and further still at 30% to 33,355 per
hectare. Valuation Office statistics for industrial land in Warrington
12
provide
values between 280,000 and 475,000 and a typical value of 390,000 per
hectare.

3.3.5 VOA data also suggests that agricultural land value is below 20,000 per ha
(dependent on type). Although this is true for purely agricultural land, if the
case arises in Warrington that true Greenfield land comes forward for
residential development (either through site allocations policy or other means)
there is normally an associated uplift in value. While land value expectations
and payments in those cases are likely to be very much lower than with many
previously developed sites, there may well still be varying degrees of
incentive required taking comparative land value situations up to perhaps
100,000-300,000 per hectare. Again, this is necessarily purely indicative
but adds a further layer or filter when comparing the RLVs of our notional site
typologies with values created by alternative uses.

3.3.6 What this broadly indicates on a comparison basis with average data from the
VOA, is that the value of our 15 unit housing scheme at Value Point 4 with
20% affordable housing exceeds values produced by upper end industrial
schemes and potentially higher end commercial values as well. At 30%
affordable housing, however, the value drops to below the indicated range of
industrial land use values. At 40% affordable housing, no residual value is
generated.

12
VOA Property Market Report July 2009


3.3.7 By Value Point 5 we would see the value of the land for our 15 unit housing
scheme (based on an indicative 40 units per hectare) exceed the range of
industrial and upper end commercial use values at both 10%, 20%, 30%, 35%
and 40% affordable housing compared to the indications provided by the VOA
data.

3.3.8 For general information, the VOA also provides average data for residential
land within Warrington (but only South Warrington where, as we have already
indicated, residential values tend to be amongst the highest in the Borough).
Figures of between 1,650,000 and 1,700,000 per hectare are indicated.
These levels of RLV align more to our results as seen from higher end values
and/or lower proportions of affordable housing at lower Value Points. This
information can only be regarded in very general terms, however, since we
stress again that development values and appraisals are very site-specific
once actual schemes are being looked at. It also needs to be borne in mind
that the basis of that values data may well not be consistent with particular
planning obligations expectations, including on affordable housing, as well as
with other current locally applicable assumptions.

3.3.9 It is also very important to note when comparing values with VOA data (or
other historical data) that the commercial property market is currently very
depressed, has lost confidence and is seeing demand levels reduced more
severely even than in the residential market with very low occupier demand
levels affecting values very significantly. It needs to be borne in mind that land
value comparisons between residential and other existing/potential alternative
(commercial) uses will vary quite significantly over time, particularly in such
turbulent economic conditions. The VOA data will look increasingly historic.

3.3.10 We have noted that comparisons with other information such as provided by
the VOA on land values for various uses, is purely indicative. The purpose is
to reinforce the relevance of considering the issue of other land use values,
and that those might impact on what becomes of a site - or on what a site is
able to provide. The values relating to sites (whether for existing or
alternative/potential uses) will be highly specific. Where we have been able to
gather any further information or indications from agents on land values
locally, details have been added to Appendix III as the study has progressed.
Looking across a wide range of similar studies, this has typically been very
limited, because the feedback echoes our points about the site-specific nature
of comparisons. Recent and current market conditions, for residential and
commercial property and development, have meant very low activity and
transactions levels and resulted in such information being hard to come by.

3.3.11 As stated previously, comparisons on this sort of basis are difficult to make
with any real certainty or confidence. Again, there will be no substitute for
consideration of site specifics where viability issues arise, but we consider it
helpful to make some cross reference between our results and this sort of
information on land values.


3.3.12 The site densities assumed above are for example purposes only as site
specifics will influence viability on individual sites. The example values for
alternative uses cannot be considered definitive. This section is provided as a
guide only, and to emphasise that considering alternative use values will often
be important in delivery discussions.

3.4 Results Trends

3.4.1 This study has looked at a range of affordable housing proportions and
thresholds on development viability.

3.4.2 The wider work also looked at the possibility of seeking affordable housing on
sites below the currently adopted threshold (that being 15 dwellings across
the Borough).

3.4.3 The potential introduction of a sliding scale of policy requirements has also
been reviewed, purely in viability terms, enabling the Council to consider that
potentially in relation to reducing the threshold or possibly considering that
in respect of certain localities. This could lead to a policy position where the
affordable housing proportion sought increased with site capacity at set
steps if appropriate.

3.4.4 The overall trend of results shows a decrease in RLV for all site sizes and
types in all cases as:

Market property values decrease;

The proportion of affordable housing increases;

Availability of grant is reduced/removed;

Developers profit is increased;

Planning obligations/infrastructure requirements are increased, and

Other costs are added to the scheme.

3.4.5 A reduction in RLV would be seen if any of the costs within the appraisals are
increased or the affordable housing revenue to the developer reduced whilst
maintaining the same private sales values. These are all normal trends
encountered in any such study (or indeed site-specific appraisal). They
demonstrate the dynamic nature of the development process and the fluid
nature of any appraisal modelling that endeavours to understand or
demonstrate the process.



3.4.6 The above will all have an impact on development viability because the sums
of money remaining to purchase land after all costs are met (i.e. the RLVs)
reduce as development costs increase (including increasing affordable
housing requirements, in the context of this study). The importance of strong
sales values to viability, particularly as development costs (again including
affordable housing) increase, can clearly be seen.

3.4.7 A combination that includes multiple or all of the factors which decrease RLV
(as per the examples listed above) will have the greatest impact on the
viability of a scenario.

3.4.8 Given the development cost levels and base assumptions as set out
previously, at Value Points 1 or 2 there is no land value generated on any of
the schemes appraised - on the basis of our assumptions. This means
essentially that, on this basis, there is insufficient value in schemes to
overcome their costs whilst still creating sufficient development profit and a
meaningful land value. As such, it would not be practical to expect such
schemes to deliver affordable housing in any substantial proportions, unless
they were promoted on inherently low value sites or where land did not
have to be purchased. As mentioned in Chapter 2, Value Point 1 falls below
the range of values currently encountered on a consistent basis, but was
included to test viability at lower value levels should the lowest values
encountered fall further. Value Point 2 levels in the current and recent market
indicate the lower end of the values range.

3.4.9 Again at Value Point 3, given the level of costs assumed, once affordable
housing at any level is required all the schemes show little or no RLV with any
proportion of affordable housing. With no affordable housing positive land
values are generated.

3.4.10 The reason for generally such low RLVs is low sales values combined with
development costs (including a Code for Sustainable Homes base
assumption of Level 4 attainment) which are comparable to those in higher
value situations. These situations may lend themselves to a different view
needing to be taken on the cost/value relationship and, again, we can only
really speculate as to some of the factors which might have been at play in
making development occur in such circumstances (as has been the case in
the more buoyant market conditions seen until relatively recently) for example
possibly:

Smaller/local/contractor developers with different cost bases or taking a
different view on costs, risks, profits, marketing, overheads or
combinations of these.



Housing Association/other subsidised/low cost or possibly conversion
schemes distorting recorded sales data pulling lower end figures further
down.

Smaller units/more modest specifications which help to keep costs down.

3.4.11 Again this must be set against the fact that the occurrence of these value
levels are low and that in general, through our combination of assumptions
we are taking quite a cautious view of development viability here, which we
feel is necessary.

3.4.12 At Value Point 4 (very generally the middle of the new build values range
typically seen across West and North West Warrington in the current market),
relatively strong land values are generated across many scheme types and
sizes at the lower proportions of affordable housing reviewed. At Value Point
4 with 20% affordable housing assumed, the land values deteriorate to the
point that they only just exceed the upper end of the commercial/industrial
use values in some cases, and again would be unlikely to compete with sites
in existing residential use (i.e. sites with permission for residential
redevelopment where the purchase of one or more existing properties is
required). If, however, the sites were to come forward on previously
undeveloped Greenfield land then we see that the values generated exceed
likely enhanced Greenfield land values. At this point it is worth re-iterating that
the requirement for affordable housing or any other cost to a scheme will
have a negative impact on RLV.

3.4.13 By Value Point 5 (again very generally towards the upper end of the new build
values range seen across the South of Warrington and Culcheth & Croft sub-
areas), much stronger RLVs are generated more often, where the affordable
housing requirement reaches 30%. Lower but still positive RLVs are produced
with a 40% proportion applied. At 30% the indicative RLVs regularly exceed
likely alternative upper industrial use values, but again may struggle to
compete with sites in existing residential use.

3.4.14 At Value Points 6 and above, towards the upper end of the range of values
most regularly seen locally, the indicative land values generated by our
appraisals reach or exceed levels likely to be representative of most potential
existing/alternative use values where there is a requirement for 40%
affordable housing.

3.4.15 As with all study locations, there will be variations within, and exceptions to,
these types of trends.

3.4.16 We will now go on to describe the impact of these variables in more detail
whilst drawing out examples from the results, before setting out our
conclusions in relation to the likely viability of various affordable housing
policy options (affordable housing thresholds and proportions).


3.5 Affordable Housing Proportion

3.5.1 The effect of affordable housing proportion has been tested on all scheme
sizes at 10%, 20%, 30%, 35% and 40%. Across the Borough, the affordable
housing policy applies currently on schemes of 15 or more dwellings. The
entire range of proportions has been tested to enable us to consider a range
of options for the Council.

3.5.2 The lowest RLVs occur where the property values are lowest whilst the
affordable housing proportion increases. The following is based on our base
appraisal assumptions. The impact of grant, tenure, varying profit and higher
infrastructure costs are discussed later.

3.5.3 For this section we will look at the results of our 15 unit housing scheme to
see the impact on that scheme as that range of affordable housing
proportions is applied.

3.5.4 A comparison of the reduction in RLVs for a 15 unit housing scheme across
Value Points 1 to 7 resulting from an increase in the affordable housing
requirement on qualifying sites from 20% to 40% indicates a reduction of
100% at Value Point 3 improving to 22.5% at Value Point 7 (no value is
generated to compare at Value Points 1 and 2). The tables and graphs
numbered 1 within Appendix II show this trend.

3.5.5 The pattern of reduction in RLV is repeated across all scheme types and
sizes. We see RLV reducing as the affordable housing proportion increases,
but this effect is mitigated by increased market value levels as schemes are
able to generate more significant land value whilst bearing more cost (see
Figure 8).



Figure 7: Example showing impact on RLV of increasing affordable housing
proportion (Value Point 4) relative to VOA indicated industrial land values range

3.5.6 The results which show very large reductions in RLV are caused by relatively
low starting value schemes. Only a small increase in costs (or reduction in
sales receipt) results in a large relative percentage drop in RLV. Although this
impact is principally going to have an effect on sites which are asked to
provide affordable housing for the first time (i.e. go from providing 0% to
potentially up to 10%, 20%, 30%, 35% or 40%, and see below at 3.6), we are
also seeing it here with lower end value schemes where even a 20%
affordable housing proportion already deteriorates results significantly and
provides very low or nil land values. It should be noted that reductions in
RLVs showing 100% are due to nil or negative land values, and a maximum
reduction in RLV of 100% has been shown in such cases.

3.5.7 The results suggest that there may even be difficulties experienced in
applying current policy targets in areas with values up to and around our
Value Point 3 levels - where there are low RLVs. Therefore it is likely that the
Council will need to negotiate in such instances, particularly in current market
conditions even more so if those weaken further. This would also apply to
schemes with high abnormal costs, highlighting the importance of regarding
the policy positions as targets and a basis for a practical approach, wherever
they are set.

3.5.8 In terms of the notional land residual remaining for our 15 unit housing
scheme at Value Point 1 or 2, no residual land value is generated at any
proportion of affordable housing. At Value Point 3 with 20%, 30%, 35% or
40% affordable housing, the RLV for our notional scheme is nil. Only between
0% and 10% affordable housing would we see a positive residual land value
(at 0% this is 162,424 or 433,130 per Ha assuming 40 dph). This shows
that while there is an affordable housing impact being seen at these lower
values, even without it (or with a very low level of affordable housing) viability


is likely to be weak or marginal at best in many of these lower value instances
in our view, given our assumptions as a starting point. The inherent value
levels raise viability concerns by the time the various development cost
assumptions are considered alongside them. The potential impact of a market
that continues to struggle or further weakens can be envisaged. It is important
not to single out affordable housing as the sole cause of the poor results at
the lower value levels.

3.5.9 By Value Point 4, the RLV has increased to 209,826 (557,564 per Ha at
40dph) at 20% affordable housing and drops to 12,508 (33,355 per Ha),
with the effect of a 30% (or 35%) affordable housing policy. With a further
increase in affordable housing requirement to 40%, the RLVs produced fall to
nil. Figure 8 shows how RLVs increase with Value Point and decrease with
affordable housing proportion on the 15 unit scheme example.

Figure 8: Residual Land Value ( per Ha) - 15 Unit Housing Scheme

3.5.10 The results indicate that the impact of moving from 20% to 30%, 35% or 40%
affordable housing requirement further reduces already modest residual land
values across all Value Points. Bearing in mind that a majority of the new
build values seen fall within the Value Point 2 to 4 range in most areas of
Warrington with the exception of the South and Culcheth & Croft sub-areas
this means that viability would be compromised relatively frequently at the
lower end of this range with too high a level of affordable housing. A 20%
proportion of affordable housing provides stronger results in the current local
context although still nil RLVs at Value Points 1 and 2 (again indicating
though that affordable housing, per se, is not the cause of limited/lack of
viability at this end of the scale).



3.5.11 On schemes that achieve Value Point 4 levels the approximate RLVs appear
to be able to support affordable housing at a proportion of 20%, but in
conjunction with the lower level base assumptions on other cost areas. This
will obviously be dependent on the existing or alternative use value and
owner expectation of any site value and as such there is no definitive cut-off
point where it is possible to say that land values can or cannot support
affordable housing. However, it indicates that Value Point 4 residual values
are more likely to support a 20% affordable housing requirement than Value
Point 1, 2 or 3 linked to the discussion earlier on possible alternative use
values. The results indicate that Value Point 5 levels are more likely to be
needed to support anything in excess of 20% affordable housing alongside
the base assumptions (i.e. value levels towards the top of the current typical
local range). Value Point 3 outcomes are such that negotiation is almost
certainly going to be required on the percentage of affordable housing to be
sought, especially alongside other planning requirements. Value Point 1 and
2 residual values are at zero with reference to our calculations (although the
occurrence of developments with this level of value were not common at the
time of conducting the research for this study). As mentioned above, a
different view of the cost (particularly build cost)/value relationships may kick-
start certain schemes and mitigate lower value development (Value Point 1-2)
barriers and issues. However, the affordable housing requirements and
optimal deliverable level should be looked at on a site-by-site basis.

3.5.12 A practical approach will need to apply in all cases, especially while we have
depressed conditions with such a low level of market activity. In lower value
cases (as above) we think there will need to be a particular emphasis on the
affordable housing requirements being looked at sensitively on a site-by-site
basis. In our view this does not suggest abandoning a suitably challenging
target which clearly sets expectations for the long-term strategy; it is about
how that is implemented, particularly in the short-term.

3.6 The Effect of Affordable Housing Thresholds and Potential Sliding Scale

3.6.1 The overall impact of a range of potential affordable housing policies also
needs to be judged with reference to the scheme size (principally number of
dwellings) at which policy requirements could take effect. These scheme
sizes, or trigger points for policy, are known as thresholds. The study brief
extended to cover wider potential options including the review of a lowered
(i.e. where a wider range of smaller sites, would contribute in some way
towards meeting affordable housing needs).

3.6.2 Warrington Borough Councils currently applied affordable housing policies
place a requirement for the provision of affordable housing on sites of 15
dwellings or more. To reflect schemes of fewer dwellings, i.e. falling outside
the scope of the current approach, the range of modelling carried out for this
study also included a starting proportion of 0% affordable housing on those


smaller sites as a benchmark representing the fact that currently no
affordable housing is sought from them. It then looks at the impact of applying
10%, 20%, 30%, 35% or 40% affordable housing.

3.6.3 Analysis of the results indicates that, as expected, a potential lowering of the
on-site affordable housing threshold (effectively increasing the proportion of
affordable housing from 0% to 10%, 20%, 30%, 35% or 40%) on any of the
scenarios modelled leads to significant reductions in RLV across the entire
range of scheme types and Value Points.

3.6.4 As an example, looking at the 5 unit housing scheme through Value Points 1
to 7 as the affordable housing requirement increases from 0% to 10% or 20%,
we see a reduction in RLV of between 100% at Value Point 3 (no value is
generated at Value Point 1 or 2) and 27% at Value Point 7.

Figure 9: Graph Showing Reduction in RLV from 0% to 20% Affordable Housing
on a 5 Unit Housing Scheme

3.6.5 Given base level (2,500 per dwelling) planning infrastructure costs, if the
affordable housing proportion is increased to 30% (from 0%) we see a
reduction in RLV of between 100% in Value Point 3 and 51.7% in Value Point
7. The results of the 40% proportion of affordable housing repeat those for
30% (due to the rounding of units).

3.6.6 The results indicate that for all scheme types and sizes, the RLV is
significantly reduced across the full range of Value Points. The impact of
those reductions is greater at the lower end of the value scale due to the
initial (pre-affordable housing requirement) lower land values which in turn
lead to a reduced ability to bear cost.



3.6.7 This pattern is repeated across the range of scheme sizes and types from 5-
10 units although again it must be noted that due to rounding effects, there is
no difference between the results produced on a 5 unit scheme at 10% and
20%, and 30% and 40% affordable housing.

3.6.8 The main trend we are looking at is the scale of reduction in values flowing
from the proposed policy impact in each case. Whether a specific site comes
forward for residential development in practice will hinge on the wide range of
factors discussed in this study, not least any competing land use value.

3.6.9 Whilst the above highlights the impact of affordable housing on site viability
by looking at the overall reduction in RLV, it is also relevant to review the
approximate RLV figures produced (in monetary terms) and compare these
across the range of sites considered. This has been shown as an absolute
monetary figure in Appendix II, and also as value in per hectare based on
assumed site sizes and densities discussed previously (see Table 1b).

3.6.10 In terms of the notional RLV remaining for a 5 unit housing scheme at Value
Points 1 or 2 (Table 1, Appendix II), there is effectively no land value created
by the scheme. At Value Point 3 the residual land value lowers from 48,864
to 0 (or from 390,770 per hectare to zero at 40dph) as a result of applying a
20% affordable housing policy from an original starting position where 0%
(no) affordable housing was required. Again, as Figure 8 shows and as
discussed above, there is no difference between 10% or 20% and 30% or
40% proportion of affordable housing sought on a 5 unit scheme.

Figure 10: Residual Land Value ( per Ha) - 5 Unit Housing Scheme



3.6.11 At Value Point 4, the notional RLV lowers from 164,670 at 0% affordable
housing to 60,648 at 10% and 20% and nil at 30% (Appendix II, Table 1).
Alternatively, this can be expressed in value per hectare (Appendix II, Table
1b at 40dph). So, for this 5 unit housing scheme, we see a reduction in RLV
( per Ha) from 1,317,363 per Ha at 0% affordable housing to 485,185 per
Ha at 10% or 20% from an original starting position where affordable housing
was not required.

3.6.12 The trend of results shows increases in RLV for each of the potential policy
positions as we move through Value Points 1 to 7, i.e. as values increase.
These trends are replicated across all scheme types and all potential policy
positions. Property values are the main determinant of site viability. Again we
can see that positive residual land values only occur at 30% or 40%
affordable housing at Value Points 5 and above. This pattern is repeated
across the scheme mixes modelled.

3.6.13 They also show that scheme size is not a determinant of viability in itself. This
is a consistent finding common to all of our studies. There is nothing within
the appraisal maths which suggests that smaller or larger sites tend to be any
more or less viable than each other. It really does come down to site specifics
the nature of sites and the proposals for them relative to existing use,
specific costs, etc, all as discussed. In addition, the actual sum of money
remaining with which to purchase land diminishes for the smaller schemes to
the point that regardless of the value created in terms of the rate per hectare,
there may well be insufficient value remaining in actual terms (s) to compete
with other uses. Other effects also come into play on the smallest sites, as
discussed below.

3.6.14 We see the same basic trend of RLV deteriorating with affordable housing
proportion increasing, regardless of scheme size.

3.6.15 Consideration of the effect of this first time policy impact (i.e. moving from 0%
rather than an existing proportion) helps to demonstrate why normally we
consider a sliding scale of affordable housing requirements could have
potential as a useful and effective tool for reducing viability impacts on these
smaller sites (those that would trigger affordable housing requirements for the
first time should the affordable housing threshold be lowered from 15 units).

3.6.16 The wider evidence beyond this study points to lowered thresholds being
necessary and justified to optimise progress towards meeting affordable
housing needs. Given this and the finding that there is no particular reason for
smaller sites not making a carefully judged contribution on a target basis, then
in our view sites below the current threshold should be considered in
contributing to the supply of affordable housing across the Borough.

3.6.17 On a scheme that would already be captured by the policy scope (i.e. of
more than 15 dwellings) it must be assumed that there has been, and is


already, a land value expectation adjustment in process. In other words, there
is a growing acceptance more generally of the affordable housing
requirements which affect those sites already within policy scope, and of the
need for those to be factored in to early stages scheme discussions.

3.6.18 However, for sites falling beneath current policy scope, this is not the case
(that expectation has not been in place). Those will need to be brought within
that adjustment process owing to the first time impact that we refer to.

3.6.19 On some of the very smallest sites, numbers rounding of the affordable
housing component means that varying affordable housing percentages
produce the same RLV outcomes. That means the target percentages are
actually being distorted by the calculation an anomaly which again points to
careful consideration of how to most appropriately treat the smaller sites.

3.6.20 In addition, there may be cases on the smallest sites where the on-site
provision of affordable housing may not be a suitable and practical response
to seeking to meet affordable housing needs while meeting a wider range of
planning obligations. This has less to do with development viability alone than
the practicalities of delivery on small sites - including integration of affordable
homes, scheme design, marketing issues, perceptions, management
sustainability and the potential for occupiers to become isolated. As
discussed above such smaller schemes can be very high value and comprise
very large dwellings as well, with consequential affordability issues around
suitability and affordability for affordable housing tenure, as well as around
meeting wider planning objectives.

3.7 The Impact of Social Housing Grant (or other equivalent subsidy) and
Tenure Mix

3.7.1 Sample appraisals have also been carried out to show what happens to our
notional schemes as we alter the viability picture through the addition of grant
to the scheme or change the tenure mix. All site types have been tested at
both 90%/10% and 50%/50% (with a sample also tested with a tenure mix of
20%/80% affordable rent to intermediate). Appendices II, IIa and IIb show the
results of appraisals at 90%/10%, 50%/50% and 20%/80% tenure split
respectively assuming nil grant for comparison. Appendix IIe shows the
impact of grant input into schemes at all tenure mixes. Figure 11 below
compares the results of appraisals run with and without grant on a 25 unit
housing scheme. In this instance grant was added to the base appraisals
(90%/10% tenure split).



Figure 11: Comparison of Appraisal Results With and Without Grant (in this
case for illustration - Value Point 4 only; 90%/10% tenure mix)

25 Unit Housing Scheme
Appraisal Type
Without
Grant ()
With Grant ()
Without
Grant (/Ha)
40 dph
With Grant
(/Ha) 40 dph
20% Affordable
(RLV)
363,775 467,648 582,040 748,237
30% Affordable
(RLV)
117,725 269,466 188,360 431,146
35% Affordable
(RLV)
26,519 205,880 42,430 329,408
40% Affordable
(RLV)
0 136,738 0 218,780

3.7.2 Figure 11, with data taken from Appendix II and IIe indicates that adding grant
to the scheme improves the residual land value by between 22%, 56%, 87%
and 100% (at 20%, 30%, 35% and 40% affordable housing respectively).
Grant ultimately improves the viability of a scheme, but the availability of grant
is an element that must be considered on a site-specific basis. Related to
these points, the use of Cascade type mechanisms will be valuable for
consideration within the Councils overall approach. This envisages the
Council working with developing partners - where necessary - to adjust, but
still optimise, affordable housing delivery in all the circumstances relevant to a
particular site, including the funding levels ultimately available. The Council
would expect to take a lead role in such discussions, aimed at maintaining
appropriate affordable housing delivery within the Section 106 framework
agreed - avoiding going back to the start with that process, and thus avoiding
significant delivery delays.

3.7.3 The findings indicate a range of values across the study area from weak
values (where development viability is compromised even with the most
favourable cost assumptions) to relatively strong values (where development
viability is improved and schemes will usually be able to bear greater costs).
Grant may well have an important role to play on many sites - where
affordable housing numbers or deliverability of a favourable tenure mix can be
improved compared with a nil grant route.

3.7.4 Given the viability constraints discussed so far at Value Points 1, 2 and 3 and
to some degree Value Point 4 with even low levels of affordable housing, it is
likely that social housing grant or other public subsidy would need to be
levered in as support to achieve a meaningful affordable housing content. At
the higher Value Points there is scope for the Council to adopt a relatively
robust position on the use of grant, and so in negotiations with landowners
and developers on what any grant input will be adding to a scheme.



3.7.5 Figure 12 shows a comparison between the use of grant on a scheme with a
90%/10% tenure mix and no grant on the same scheme with a 50%/50% and
20%/80% tenure mix.

Figure 12: Comparison of Appraisal Results With and Without Grant with
variations to tenure mix (Value Point 4 only)

Appraisal
Type
90/10 Mix
No Grant
(/Ha)
90/10 Mix
With Grant
(/Ha)
50/50 Mix
No Grant
(/Ha)
50/50 Mix
With Grant
(/Ha)
20/80 Mix
No Grant
(/Ha)
20/80 Mix
With Grant
(/Ha)
20%
Affordable
(RLV)
582,040 748,237 731,590 854,407 872,056 968,291
30%
Affordable
(RLV)
188,360 431,146 407,034 603,751 556,584 718,821
35%
Affordable
(RLV)
42,430 329,408 270,956 495,358 489,807 667,963
40%
Affordable
(RLV)
0 218,780 202,802 444,500 423,030 617,105

3.7.6 From the Figure 12 examples and the wider results, it is possible to see
comparable outcomes (in RLV terms) with different combinations of
affordable housing proportion, tenure mix and grant assumptions applied. For
example, the results of the appraisals carried out assuming a 50/50 tenure
mix without grant provide similar results to those carried out with a 90/10
tenure mix with grant where the proportion of affordable housing is
comparable. Similarly, we can see that with no grant, a 40% proportion of
affordable housing and a 50%/50% tenure mix creates a similar (but low)
residual land value in this example as 30% affordable housing but with a
90%/10% tenure split.

3.7.7 These results indicate:

The significant impact (viability boost) that grant can have,
though this should really be seen through improved affordable
housing provision (additionality) not by way of increased land
value.

How much RLVs can deteriorate by the time we allow for the
higher proportions of affordable housing, particularly with no
grant and even with a more balanced tenure mix.

3.7.8 It may be useful to the Council to make some comparisons between these
various results in terms of the RLVs that the various combinations of
assumptions produce. Although we see a reduction in RLV as the proportion


of affordable rent increases, this has much less of an impact than increasing
the overall affordable housing percentage.

3.7.9 These figures are based purely on the appraisals carried out and assume that
the intermediate product is feasible for RSLs and their customers. Aside from
the well-established difficulties that can arise with the overall affordability
(total costs) of shared ownership for its purchasers, there are increased
experiences of difficulties with shared ownership saleability in the current
market. This is largely due to current deposit requirements and mortgage
availability. As we understand it, experiences are mixed, and tend to echo the
open market in that the most popular, well located and attractively priced
schemes can still sell relatively well, while others are attracting little or no
interest.

3.7.10 We have looked generically at the intermediate tenure, since what counts for
financial viability is the level of revenue it produces for the developer. This
reflects the increased likelihood that it will be seen in varied forms and
combinations within schemes. This is purely for the purposes of fixing
assumptions and reviewing financial viability, whereby we are looking at
increased payments to the developer compared with affordable rented tenure
(particularly with no grant). It does not prevent the Council and its range of
partners from considering and perhaps trialling a range of tenure models, or
from varying the assumptions we have applied. Indeed such an approach is
to be encouraged we expect that there will be a role for a wider menu of
tenure options.

3.7.11 Whilst (in line with the HCAs additionality approach), the Councils starting
point may well be to consider what affordable housing can be achieved
without grant, as discussed above, our view is that grant may have an
important role to play in balanced housing delivery locally, in particular in
supporting varied and appropriate tenure provision, perhaps especially on
lower value schemes or in instances of competing alternative land use values
where viability may be more marginal. We understand that the Councils
general approach will be that it may seek up to 90% affordable rented tenure,
although site specifics will prevail. Whether or not grant is available, and if so
at what level, will be one of the key determinants of whether this level of
tenure mix can be supported on a regular basis over the longer-term.
Unfortunately, it is not possible to rely on, or predict, grant availability. The
HCA have been contacted previously and Adams Integra were provided with
the following information which reflects our understanding:

The Homes and Communities Agency works on a basis of additionality on
s.106 sites whereby any social housing grant going into a scheme is to
purchase outcomes above and beyond those that can be delivered through
the s.106 agreement itself. The starting position is to assume no grant goes
into an s.106 site as the s.106 itself should be securing affordable housing


outcomes. Grant input would then be required to improve the affordable
housing outputs (e.g. secure a greater percentage of social rented homes).

3.7.12 Our recent experience of schemes is that HCA social housing grant funding
has been quite opportunity-led for a period (coinciding with the difficult market
conditions and HCA incentives aimed at maintaining affordable housing
development) and many schemes have been providing increased proportions
of affordable rent compared with previous experience. This is because of a
mixture of factors including:

This recent more opportunity-led funding approach (although we
understand that a reversion to a more planned funding approach is
under way).

Wider housing market trends (crucially the limited availability, still, of
suitable mortgage finance) mean that low cost homes ownership
tenure such as shared ownership may be either unattractive or
unworkable in many instances.

Linked to this, affordable rent with grant can now look equally or more
attractive to RSLs in terms of their financial appraisals (and thus can
mean better relative offers to developers for that form of tenure).

3.7.13 Overall, this can only be regarded as a fluid set of circumstances, which
together with the levels of local needs and Regional Policy, point towards a
significant bias to affordable rented tenure as a target position.

3.7.14 In our experience, approximately balanced tenure can be achieved with little
or no grant, providing the affordable housing proportions sought (and other
planning requirements) are not too high. However, as above, we consider that
there is likely to be a role for grant to support a bias towards the priority
needed affordable rented tenure in particular, especially where the proportion
of that tenure rises. As an example of the possible positive impact of grant,
with regard to the current mortgage access issues often experienced with
home ownership products, it may be that through increased grant input more
affordable rent could produce more viable schemes which are also more
acceptable financially to RSLs in the current conditions. Although there is
much uncertainty surrounding grant funding availability, the Council and their
development partners will need to consider such factors in relation to site
specifics.

3.7.15 As mentioned above, the use of Cascade type mechanisms will be valuable
for consideration within the Councils overall approach. This envisages the
Council working with developing partners - where necessary - to adjust, but
still optimise, affordable housing delivery in all the circumstances relevant to a
particular site, including the funding levels ultimately available.



3.7.16 A Cascade principle or mechanism allows the affordable housing element of a
scheme to adapt to funding circumstances at the point of the delivery details
being fixed (i.e. most likely post-planning, but prior to contracts being entered
into by the developer and RSL for the affordable housing construction and
purchase).

3.7.17 Where used, it would normally be built in to the Section 106 agreement. It has
the potential to help delivery when the availability of funding is uncertain, or
perhaps when other planning or site issues mean that the exact details of the
affordable housing delivery need to be agreed. This can help avoid or reduce
delays where Section 106 agreements would otherwise be renegotiated
instead. An agreement including a Cascade principle provides scope for the
affordable housing content of a scheme to be reshaped and usually optimised
given the available funding and perhaps other financial circumstances.

3.7.18 Usually a local authority would expect to lead the process which redefines the
affordable housing, working closely with the other parties such as the
developer, HCA and any involved RSL. As an example of a potential cascade
outcome, the Council may take a view that it is best to consider fewer
affordable homes, but of the priority needs tenure type (i.e. usually affordable
rent). Alternatively it may decide to maintain affordable homes numbers
delivery by allowing the tenure mix to skew towards more financially viable
home ownership or intermediate housing tenure, or to commute the
affordable housing delivery into fewer family homes. Ultimately, discussions
and outcomes would be very site-specific.

3.7.19 The same principle as outlined above (i.e. the need to inform judgements on
the affordable housing target proportions in conjunction with wider criteria -
including likely funding availability) will also be relevant in the context of any
wider consideration the Council may be giving to overall planning obligations
requirements, and other burdens on schemes. The wider costs and
obligations also affecting viability always need to be taken account of.

3.8 Developers Profit

3.8.1 As mentioned at 2.5 of this report, viability has also been investigated on a
small sample of scenarios using 20% developers profit in place of 17.5%.
This has been carried out on schemes of 25 and 50 units at all Value Points
at 20%, 30%, 35% and 40% affordable housing. A summary of a 25 unit
housing scheme results at Value Point 4 is provided here with a comparison
to the results using a 17.5% developers profit. The full results can be found in
Appendix IIf.

3.8.2 This comparison allows us to investigate the additional impact of increased
profit requirements that may be more likely on schemes as a result, for
example, of increased risk in bringing more complex sites forward for
development. The results also allow us to see what happens if profit levels


decrease from our base level, as may happen, for example, with a stronger,
more confident market or on smaller, lower risk schemes. As expected, the
same trends discussed previously are seen, whereby with higher profit levels,
the lower the development value, the greater the additional impact on scheme
viability and vice versa.

3.8.3 Figure 13 below shows the comparison where the only change made was to
the developers profit level. In this instance the developers profit altered on
the base appraisals.

Figure 13: Comparison of Appraisal Results at Varying Developers Profit
(Value Point 4)

25 Unit Housing Scheme Without Grant
Appraisal
Type RLV 17.5%
Profit ()
RLV 20%
Profit ()
RLV (/Ha)
40 dph
17.5% Profit
RLV (/Ha)
40 dph
20% Profit
20%
Affordable
363,775 273,441 582,040 437,505
30%
Affordable
117,725 38,016 188,360 60,826
35%
Affordable
26,519 0 42,430 0
40%
Affordable
0 0 0 0

3.8.4 As would be expected, the result of an increase or decrease in developers
profit leads to further reductions or increases in the residual land values
across the range. As the percentage of affordable housing increases, with
reducing RLV the impact of an increased developers profit on scheme
viability becomes greater, there are more burdens on the development
revenue in simple terms. The impact is also more marked with lower starting
values. What can clearly be seen is the combined impact both a 35% or 40%
affordable housing proportion and a 20% profit requirement have on the
residual land value (and in any event what increases in both assumptions
from base levels mean for outcomes). This reinforces earlier points that there
will be schemes that the Council will need to consider in this context, in
negotiations. It should be noted that this effect will be more in focus when
looking at lower value schemes such as those discussed already.

3.8.5 We have to consider that there will be a wide range of scheme types brought
forward by an equally wide range of parties. Once again, there are no firm
rules when it comes to scheme-specifics. In our view, however, the 17.5%
level we use would form a reasonable benchmark for the Council when first
considering site-specific viability appraisals and engaging developers and
other in discussions. We might expect to see some profit expectations
beneath this level.



3.8.6 As the study has progressed we have seen some reporting on developers
having to accept reduced profit levels in some instances in what have been
weakening market conditions. However, there is also an argument to be
made about increased risk in such circumstances. In this context we noted at
2.5 that on its summer 2009 Appraisal Tool re-launch the HCA moved its
developers profit guide assumption up to 17.5% of GDV from 15%. In the
current uncertain market conditions we are seeing a range of indicators on
developers profit levels, and these are becoming increasingly difficult to
judge with respect to perception of risk levels. So, on balance, our range of
assumptions is considered to be appropriate with regard to market conditions.
These will need to be kept under review as part of the Councils monitoring
processes, negotiations and delivery experiences. What is appropriate for one
scheme may well not be for another, and the collective costs burden on
schemes will always need to be borne in mind.

3.9 Increase in Planning Obligations Costs

3.9.1 One of the biggest impacts on development viability (other than the proportion
and type of affordable housing) is the level of other wider (i.e. not affordable
housing) planning infrastructure requirements. Appraisals were carried out
assuming varying infrastructure (planning obligations) contribution levels of
10,000 and 20,000 per dwelling (applied to all dwellings). This part of the
work also has a wider potential relevance in that it enables the Council to see
how viability results deteriorate when costs are added. An increase in costs
could come from a wide variety of sources related to planning requirements,
site conditions, scheme specification or a combination of those.

3.9.2 Increased planning infrastructure burdens, as with any costs, have a negative
impact on development viability. We have discussed the effect of additional
costs, profit, affordable housing, etc above. Figure 14 below shows a brief
example of the additional impact that higher planning infrastructure costs may
have on schemes when combined with the cost of affordable housing
provision.



Figure 14: Comparison of Appraisal Results from varying Infrastructure Cost/
(Planning obligations/other costs)

25 Unit Housing Scheme 90/10 Tenure Mix VP4
Appraisal
Type
RLV (/ha)
40 dph
2,500 / Unit
RLV (/ha)
40 dph
10,000 / Unit
RLV (/ha)
40 dph
20,000 / Unit
20%
Affordable
582,040 330,453 0
30%
Affordable
188,360 0 0
35%
Affordable
42,430 0 0
40%
Affordable
0 0 0

25 Unit Housing Scheme 50/50 Tenure Mix VP5
Appraisal
Type
RLV (/ha)
40 dph
2,500 / Unit
RLV (/ha)
40 dph
10,000 / Unit
RLV (/ha)
40 dph
20,000 / Unit
20%
Affordable
1,717,340 1,461,740 1,120,940
30%
Affordable
1,330,765 1,075,165 742,014
35%
Affordable
1,161,294 905,694 570,779
40%
Affordable
1,081,988 826,388 490,646

3.9.3 These results (taken from Appendices II, IIa, IIc and IId show the reduction
in RLV that occurs as the planning infrastructure (or other equivalent) cost
assumptions are increased. We refer to other costs as an alternative here,
because any equivalent increase in the appraisal cost assumptions would
have the same effect. In practice, scheme costs could increase over time for a
variety of reasons, not only planning obligations. Effectively, therefore, these
appraisals reviews added collective cost (whether related to planning
obligations in full, a mix of those and other items, or other items in full).

3.9.4 The trends shown in the example results above are again repeated for all
scheme types. This further emphasises the potential viability issues that could
flow from seeking the highest levels of affordable housing whilst at the same
time increasing the infrastructure burden on sites coming forward, especially
in the event of nil or limited social housing grant. Land value is effectively
wiped out in the above example where the planning infrastructure is increased
to 10,000 per unit on anything above 20% affordable housing. It must be
remembered, however, that the additional infrastructure costs shown above
are in addition to our other base appraisal assumptions including a 90%/10%
tenure split and a Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 cost assumption on all
units. Where the tenure mix improves (from a viability point of view) and at


higher values we see improved figures from those shown (see lower table
section).

3.10 Cumulative Impact on Development Viability

3.10.1 The results discussed within this chapter have shown the individual impact of
one cost variance on the residual land value generated by the base results.
By looking at one scheme type we can begin to see the cumulative impact of
each of those costs (be it tenure variation, grant input, increased planning
infrastructure etc). Figure 15 below shows the impact on the RLV on one
scheme as each of the costs is added.



Figure 15: Cumulative impact of applying cost assumptions over and above
base RLV results (Value Point 4); 25 Unit Housing Scheme

1 2 3 4 5 6
A
Value Point 4
Variations
Residual
Land Value
- 10%
Affordable
Residual
Land Value
- 20%
Affordable
Residual
Land Value
- 30%
Affordable
Residual
Land Value
- 35%
Affordable
Residual
Land Value
- 40%
Affordable
B With Grant, 20/80
Tenure Split,
17.5% Developer's
Profit, CfSH Level
4, 2,500
Infrastructure
1,068,958 968,291 718,821 667,963 617,105
C No Grant, 20/80
Tenure Split,
17.5% Developer's
Profit, CfSH Level
4, 2,500
Infrastructure
1,004,234 872,056 556,584 489,807 423,030
D No Grant, 50/50
Tenure Split,
17.5% Developer's
Profit, CfSH Level
4, 2,500
Infrastructure
930,230 731,590 407,034 270,956 202,802
E No Grant, 90/10
Tenure Split,
17.5% Developer's
Profit, CfSH Level
4, 2,500
Infrastructure
856,225 582,040 188,360 42,430 0
F No Grant, 90/10
Tenure Split, 20%
Developer's Profit,
CfSH Level 4,
2,500
Infrastructure
708,114 437,505 60,826 0 0
G No Grant, 90/10
Tenure Split, 20%
Developer's Profit,
CfSH Level 4,
10,000
Infrastructure
449,852 184,786 0 0 0
H No Grant, 90/10
Tenure Split, 20%
Developer's Profit,
CfSH Level 4,
20,000
Infrastructure
108,765 0 0 0 0
Nb: For broad comparison, data provided by VOA for industrial land within Warrington
13
shows typical
values of 390,000 per hectare.

3.10.2 The results shown in Figure 16 are just one set of possible combinations of
cost areas, but one chosen to show the maximum impact on residual land

13
Valuation Office Agency Property Market Report July 2009


value of combined potential requirements. This area of the results clearly
shows the type of prioritisation that may be needed between affordable
housing requirements and other added cost areas in some circumstances. On
this point, what we would be looking at is results which give similar RLV
outcomes through different potential assumption combinations. Just by way of
illustration, the 30% affordable housing requirement at cell D4 in Figure 16
above indicates an RLV of 407,034, similar to that produced by the appraisal
with 20% affordable housing (F3) but with additional cost areas applied
(437,505). This is showing that on the basis of the cost and values
assumptions used in this study (and assuming the RLV produced is
sufficient), to achieve a broadly similar land value, the affordable housing
requirement can be increased from 20% with a 90/10 tenure split and 20%
developers profit to 30% affordable housing where the tenure split is 50/50
and the developers profit is to 17.5%. In this example, the priority decision
may well need to be taken between a lower proportion of affordable housing,
higher planning infrastructure requirements, change in tenure or a mixture of
those.



4 CONCLUSIONS

4.1 Values, Costs and General Overview

4.1.1 Looking at the Warrington Borough area, a range of property values are seen
within the overall (re-sales dominated) market. Our analysis of the property
currently available confirms other information considered whereby, when
viewed overall, sub-market areas such as the South and Culcheth & Croft
have generally higher house prices than Warrington Central and parts of the
East. This can be regarded as a general picture only, because more localised
variations are also seen.

4.1.2 When comparing our overall market review with the sub-area groups of
locations, we saw the South and Culcheth & Croft having the highest average
values (and values very similar to each other, overall). Beneath those in our
informal hierarchy we saw settlements in the North West sub-area followed by
East and then Central Warrington.

4.1.3 Although owing to the economic climate there is a relatively small amount of
current new build activity, in terms of new property in the Borough, the range
of values appears to be narrower than that seen when considering the overall
(resales dominated) market. For new builds quite a high level of consistency
of values between settlements and neighbourhoods was seen. Again it
appears that the differences occur mainly through the desirability of particular
locations within the settlements or neighbourhoods, and based also on
property and scheme type, rather than between the settlements. As normal
there are local differences even to the extent of street-by-street variations. In
a more active development scenario, we could well see a greater variety of
new build schemes and locations, and therefore values, emerging.

4.1.4 Value Point 1 was selected as a lower end value level, representative mainly
of a further falling market which could reduce current lower end values
further. Although we do not regard Value Point 1 levels as a key part of the
picture currently, values towards the lower parts of our overall range were
seen. This has to be factored in to our overall thinking as the occurrence of
higher values does.

4.1.5 At the time of fixing appraisal assumptions, after considering an adjustment
for advertised asking price, the typical new build values locally are in or close
to the range represented by our Value Points 2 to 5.

4.1.6 The varying property value (house price) levels which are key drivers of the
appraisals support quite a wide range of RLV outcomes when we take our
necessary strategic view and, therefore, give a variable picture of
development viability. However, the tone of results generated here, overall, is
relatively weak when typical value levels as well as higher value levels are


considered. This is a key factor in coming to recommendations which will aim
to strike an appropriate balance between the opposing tensions of affordable
housing need and development viability.

4.1.7 While we have picked out general trends, due to local and even street-by-
street variations, it is not possible to state that any given area or settlement
has consistently higher or lower sales and therefore RLV outcomes than
another on a fixed or reliable basis. While parts of some areas will generally
see the higher value levels, there are favoured areas of all areas where mid
to high end values can also be quite regularly seen. Higher end values (above
the typical range) are normally associated with premium housing products.

4.1.8 This is a dynamic picture and more so at present than at any recent point in
time. Values will sometimes fall outside what we describe as the key part of
the range (currently Value Points 2 to 5). Given the current uncertain state of
the market, the Council will need to monitor value levels particularly with
regard to the frequency of lower end new build values occurring (below Value
Point 4 levels). The low level of activity within the housing market is the
primary current concern, and it may be that it leads to further downward
pressure on property prices.

4.1.9 As per our Value Points approach and reiterated above, the most important
theme to recognise is that a range of values is seen, ultimately dependent on
site-specific factors. Value patterns are blurred. These may be influenced by
factors such as local schooling and other facilities or amenities. When looking
at the overall market, prices are also affected by the local housing stock make
up and profile of recent sales or currently marketed property in each area.

4.1.10 In the Warrington Borough context, therefore, we do not feel it appropriate to
recommend varying policy on affordable housing proportion targets
(percentages) relating to values (as seen through new build property pricing)
as those vary by location within the Borough Councils area. So any policy
distinctions would in our view be related to scheme size and type
(Brownfield/Greenfield) rather than by area. The value patterns are not clear
enough in our view to justify making policy more complex or adopting a
location/area-specific approach based on values. Such an approach may be
difficult to define and link with appropriate geographies. It may well not create
adequate clarity for landowners and the development industry either on such
a basis. We have considered that to be appropriate in only limited instances
elsewhere. We will go on to develop recommendations which link to the
overview that the range of new build values seen fits a simpler approach.

4.1.11 Attempting to vary affordable housing proportions in response to particular
local value levels here could also prejudice affordable housing outcomes on
specific sites or schemes where values exceeded the typical level for that
location.


4.1.12 An affordable housing policy approach within which any variation relates to
scheme type and size (and not to geography in respect of value patterns) is
therefore most appropriate in viability terms. In our view that would lead to the
most clarity and simplest guide to inform landowners, developers and other
stakeholders expectations and plans.

4.1.13 There will always be certain cases where abnormal site costs, particular
overall planning obligations burdens, existing/alternative use value issues (or
a combination of these) mean that affordable housing targets cannot be met.
Those issues are relevant in any area and we advise all local authority clients
accordingly.

4.1.14 At and around section 2.3.13 we discussed the type of market features being
seen. There are difficulties in fully reflecting the potential range of site-specific
level reactions to such market conditions in an overview study. We consider
that a local authoritys most realistic reaction to this will be through operating
a practical and flexible view shorter-term to help secure all round housing
delivery as far as possible, together with having in place monitoring, review
and contingency plans.

4.1.15 It is unlikely to be practical to seek to vary targets in response to uncertain
market conditions which are evolving, the longevity or degree of which cannot
be predicted. In the short-term an open and practical approach to housing
enabling, continuing the type of negotiated approach the Council currently
applies (but related to clear, confirmed targets as a backdrop to that) will be
the key aspect that underpins continued local delivery to an optimal degree in
the challenging conditions. Ambitious joint working between developers,
landowners, RSLs and others will be required.

4.1.16 An alternative approach which attempted to regularly follow market
movements through policy adjustments could, in theory, mean frequent target
adjustments, which would not serve to provide the crucial level of guidance
and clarity that developers and landowners need when first considering
opportunities in relation to the Councils strategic approach.

4.1.17 So it will be vital for the Council to consider this range of factors whilst
continuing to apply a practical, negotiated approach to scheme progression
potentially as influenced by appropriate viability information presented to
them. We consider it much more realistic to seek to react to current and future
short-term market features through that mode than to expect to almost
continually review such information and indeed the wider evidence base.

4.1.18 Periodic reviews of strategic viability information are more likely to be realistic,
economic and useful; possibly in conjunction with reviews of any other
planning obligation requirements being considered or in response to delivery
experiences over a monitoring period which is sufficient to see the impacts


and delivery trends from the policy positions, once settled. Rather than
reviewing viability at set intervals, we consider that it would be prudent to link
viability updating to events or points in time which might include the review of
changes to wider planning policy/obligations, updating work on SPD or similar
(i.e. also consider other events or influences which might impact viability, and
roll those in to reviews).

4.1.19 Various balances need to be addressed in selecting policy positions. That
bigger picture also means the Council:

Ensuring a continued supply of housing sites more generally.

Seeking an appropriate balance between affordable housing needs and
viability.

Delivering wider planning objectives including suitable infrastructure
provision, bearing in mind also the likely direction of travel on wider
scheme costs and obligations.

Considering in parallel the climate change agenda which is setting
specification standards and other aspects which, in some form, are not
going to be optional, and there will be growing focus on this.

Keeping in mind that affordable housing is not just about numbers of
dwellings; it is also about a suitable mix of dwelling types, tenure,
affordability, quality, choice and funding scope.

4.2 Schemes above 15 Unit Threshold

4.2.1 Bearing in mind the range of our findings and the fact that those contain many
poor viability results, as well as being mindful of the national and wider
financial climate (although not solely influenced by that), overall the
parameters for affordable housing are between 20% to 30% as a target. By
this we mean a single percent target set not higher than that level. We
understand that development will continue to come forward across a range of
locations and site types. Where development occurs on previously developed
land and particularly in lower value areas the lower end of these affordable
housing targets represents a suitably challenging target. However, we
understand that there will likely be a focus on strategic Greenfield allocations
in the longer term which will often be linked with higher value scenarios and
different land value expectation.

4.2.2 Taking into account the factors outlined at 4.1.19 and 4.2.1 above, Adams
Integras view is that a policy headline towards the lower end of that range
(20% affordable housing) would be more appropriate than any higher target in
the Borough overall. It is possible, however, that a distinction be drawn


between Greenfield release sites and Brownfield sites where perhaps public
funding is confirmed as available and wider planning obligations are not at
levels beyond those we have assumed. On those there is potential scope to
look towards the upper end of the range (30% affordable housing target). This
might be the case for particular strategic site releases, most likely Greenfield
and only where early engagement with landowners and others is possible
through the allocations processes, enabling matching expectations and
feasibility work.

4.2.3 We consider that the operation of a blanket 35% or higher target position,
even applied as a genuine target accompanied with flexibility, does not fit with
the local values levels and viability picture we have seen. We consider that
the formalisation of a higher target would not strike the right balance between
the obvious housing need and development viability. This is set in the context
of typically increasing wider burdens on schemes, and on the need for
affordable housing to not just be about numbers, but also be about type,
tenure, affordability, quality, funding reliance, and so on.

4.2.4 Taking a strategic view as well as under current market conditions, an
approach based overall on the parameters of 20% to 30% policy targets
would, in our view, be an appropriate one, and in viability terms we consider
that potentially it could be expanded to include sites below the current
threshold within the policy scope (subject to careful consideration of the very
smallest sites). The Council has scope to consider both points within this
range depending on the threshold(s) selected, site type and how the
negotiations will be treated in terms of numbers rounding, dwelling and tenure
mix, and other delivery detail. Being realistically pitched, it would provide
clarity and should also ensure that affordable housing provision locally can
also stay focussed on the right type, mix and quality of homes, without an
over-reliance on social housing grant.

4.2.5 From our results, at the current time it would not be possible to advocate a
higher general target than this (without significant public/gap funding) in our
view. Whilst in the future the Council might revisit this through local market
monitoring, our view is that targets within these parameters and potentially
relating to a wider range of sites are most likely to be appropriate. In looking
for appropriate balance, it must also be remembered that there is a telling
wider evidence base, including on affordable housing needs. That places an
onus upon the Council to be ambitious in regard to affordable housing it is a
top priority.

4.2.6 The Councils clear priority housing need is for affordable (social) rented
accommodation. Depending on location and site viability resulting from a
review of development and infrastructure costs, the Council will always initially
seek to optimise the scope for affordable rented housing wherever possible.
This has to be balanced with deliverability and subsidy/funding availability
issues, as reflected in the HCAs no grant starting point. The Councils


position of seeking up to 90% social rented housing in our view is unlikely to
be viable, certainly at the upper end of the range of affordable housing
proportions indicated, without the input of some form of public subsidy. A
flexible approach may be required by the Council to secure affordable rented
accommodation as a priority in lower numbers if that becomes necessary and
is appropriate on a particular site, in line with a Cascade type approach as
this report mentions.

4.2.7 In all cases the proportions would need to be regarded as targets, with the
relevance of development viability to site specifics acknowledged.

4.2.8 It is also worth reiterating here, that Greenfield release sites can sometimes
offer more potential for affordable housing alongside other planning
requirements and works. The thinking behind this is not that Greenfield
schemes always have lower development costs (in fact, how that comparison
looks will be highly site-specific) but that they are often associated with very
much lower existing/alternative land use value expectations. It will not always
apply, but from this flows the potential for there to be more scope to meet
wider/more significant planning obligations whilst still providing significant land
value uplift. This means that targets might be more readily met alongside
greater collective burdens on such sites, typically, and there might even be
instances where enhanced affordable housing delivery (on a mixed tenure
basis) could be promoted in partnership with site owners and others.

4.2.9 A theme of seeking to maximise delivery from such sites could fit with the
opportunities presented through the planning and consultation processes,
plus preparation of Guidance (including in the form of DPDs, SPD, master
plans or development briefs, etc), for early engagement with landowners and
developers as part of establishing delivery expectations. Those processes
feed in to land value expectations and can mean the consideration of such
sites provides differing opportunities depending on the circumstances.

4.2.10 The Council could therefore consider scope for Greenfield site allocations to
provide optimal affordable housing proportions, potentially at the top of the
range indicated and potentially beyond the targets discussed. This would be
dependent on evidencing needs and assessing overall development viability
bearing in mind planning infrastructure and any abnormal costs (overall costs
burdens). Bearing in mind these processes, there should be a greater
likelihood of a site like this being able to bear a range of cost burdens
alongside affordable housing being delivered to targets.

4.2.11 However, from a viability point of view we are not able to support any widely
applicable target of more than 30% affordable housing.

4.2.12 The results for 40% appraisals are poor even at the higher Value Points,
given the range of wider costs and obligations also assumed to be met. The


results of appraisals carried out assuming 40% affordable housing show very
large reductions in RLVs and as such, a target as high as that is very unlikely
to be workable in the general Warrington context.

4.3 Consideration of schemes below current 15 Unit Threshold

4.3.1 The threshold at which affordable housing is requested is in a sense arbitrary
and not related to any particular science. The threshold-based system tends
to create somewhat arbitrary cut-offs. Alongside this viability assessment and
housing need levels within sub-areas of the Borough, the site supply patterns
and likely delivery from those should inform threshold selection.

4.3.2 We consider that a more equitable approach arises from a wider range of
sites and schemes contributing towards meeting affordable housing needs, all
at an appropriate level. Indeed, the Council has previously sought and
successfully delivered affordable housing on sites below the current
affordable housing threshold.

4.3.3 Having said this, there are viability principles which need to be considered if a
new group of smaller sites is to come within the policy scope. These apply not
just in Warrington, but feature more generally in our viability overview studies.
The greatest reductions in RLVs are seen where affordable housing is
required for the first time in respect of a particular scheme size, which in the
case of Warrington Borough Councils existing approach and potential range
of policy options would be on sites of fewer than 15 dwellings.

4.3.4 In addition, we have commented that the practicalities of delivery on the very
small sites may be more of an issue than viability alone. Issues can be
experienced, for example, with scheme design/integration of affordable
homes with the market housing, sustainable management, dealings with
RSLs, marketing issues and perceptions, isolation of tenants, affordability,
etc.

4.3.5 Relatively dispersed affordable housing stock can also result from an
affordable housing requirement on very small sites, which may be an issue for
RSLs from a management perspective, and this needs to be considered. Our
local authority and RSL clients and contacts have taken varying views on the
sustainability of this.

4.3.6 There may be lower risks, reduced promotion costs and smaller planning
obligations burdens on smaller sites, but conversely, there might not be the
same opportunities for economies of scale. There is a range of factors which
could well balance out or alter outcomes either way dependent on the
circumstances. The outcomes relate to site specifics, crucially including value
levels; it is simply not possible to say that a smaller site will be more or less
viable than a larger one. Viability is principally value rather than site size
driven.


4.3.7 The impact of increasing the affordable housing proportion is, however,
greater on sites below current policy thresholds (where there is already a
requirement for affordable housing currently expressed as 20%).

4.3.8 The degree of impact is then dependent on the sales values for the private
market element which drives the scheme (expressed as a range of Value
Points in this study), grant availability, planning obligations/infrastructure cost
levels and other assumptions. As values increase, broadly there is more
scope to bear affordable housing and other costs.

4.3.9 Bearing in mind the nature of housing supply in the Borough, to which smaller
sites make a significant contribution
14
, we think it appropriate in the
Warrington context to aim to seek a suitably-judged proportion from a wider
range of sites, rather than be over-ambitious with proportion requirements
aimed at narrower bands of sites or on particular site sizes. The seeking of a
carefully judged proportion of affordable housing from the smallest sites
seems particularly relevant at this stage of policy development, given that
many would be captured for the first time under such policy proposals, and
that the change would be made in market conditions which appear likely to
remain uncertain for some time yet. A sensitive approach is necessary in our
view.

4.3.10 As with most of our studies, the findings point towards the potential value of a
sliding scale approach of some form for smaller first time captured sites, in
principle. Whilst we consistently find in all such viability overview studies that
it is not possible to say that smaller or larger sites are more or less viable than
each other, we point out two key features of smaller sites which in many
cases have directed us towards recommending a sliding scale approach.
Firstly, there is the first time impact issue we have discussed. Secondly, the
values generated by the smallest schemes are likely to be increasingly
marginal when compared with existing/alternative uses and with owners
aspirations. Usually, the smaller the development scheme, the lower the
value generated.

4.3.11 However, we have to consider the relevance of such an approach to
Warrington, and whether it would achieve meaningful viability benefits in the
local circumstances. Compared with a flat introduction of a much higher policy
target at say 5 units, a sliding scale provides a more sensitive outcome in
terms of reducing the size of the steps between policy positions. This is why
when we have been dealing with headline targets at 35% to 40% affordable
housing (or sometimes more) we have recommended the implementation of a
sliding scale of some form it avoids the impact of going from 0% to such a

14
The Councils 2009 SHLAA identified 35 sites likely to accommodate between 5 and 14
dwellings with a collective capacity of 308 dwellings.


percentage in one step. It therefore can outweigh the fact that it adds to the
complexity of policy.

4.3.12 In the case of this Borough, we believe that whilst a full graduated sliding
scale approach would be of limited merit, the smallest sites should still be
accompanied by a smaller percentage requirement for affordable housing.

4.3.13 Numbers rounding as well as dwelling mix, tenure type, grant input, etc, will
all affect viability. They need to be viewed together in practice. Numbers
rounding can distort the proportion requirements. This needs to be borne in
mind, for there is little point introducing a position which in fact means the
same outcome as a higher, less viability-sensitive target. Positions need to be
considered in terms of viability outcomes combined with market perceptions
and the actual calculations that will result. Our viability appraisals and results
have respected normal rounding convention (i.e. round down from less than
0.5 of a unit; round up from 0.5 or more). From a practical point of view, on
such small sites the calculation derived from a 20% or lower proportion is
influenced greatly by this factor. Therefore, at a threshold of 5 dwellings, a
10% or 20% proportion would mean effectively 20% affordable housing
assuming on-site provision. In fact, after an equitable approach to numbers
rounding, any proportion from 10% to 25% effectively means one affordable
home provided again assuming on-site provision. With these factors in mind
we consider an appropriate proportion on sites of 5 or more units to be a
target of no more than 20%, applied flexibly where viability issues dictate.

4.3.14 So from 5 to 14 dwellings there could be a single policy position of 20%
affordable housing from sites between 5 and 14 units.

4.3.15 The Council will need to consider the wider issues of need, site supply and
the like alongside our viability findings.

4.3.16 Particularly given current value and market conditions (but also as a longer-
term factor), it is possible that the Council may in some situations need to
consider priority planning obligations. Based on current viability tones, this will
certainly be the case if overall planning obligations costs are to be
significantly increased. These priorities where needed may, for example,
place affordable housing ahead of other contributions or works, or may
require less affordable housing overall but with a greater emphasis on social
rented accommodation.

4.3.17 Our key policy recommendations flowing from this work are set out in the next
Chapter. We will not repeat the wider messages already covered.


5 KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1.1 For the main aspects of setting affordable housing policy thresholds and
proportions we propose that the Council considers the following
recommendations alongside its wider evidence base.

5.1.2 For a scheme size of 15 or more dwellings across the Borough
suggested affordable housing targets of 20% to 30% dependent on the
nature and location of schemes/sites.

5.1.3 The Council will need to consider the likely location of new development
across the Borough as this will influence the affordable housing scope as per
paragraph 4.2.1. For sites on previously developed land and/or in lower
value areas the likely scope is towards the lower end of this range (20%
affordable housing target); for sites on Greenfield and/or higher value
locations the likely scope is towards the upper end (30% affordable
housing target). This provides the Council with options for setting specific
targets within these parameters depending on its further consideration of
where to prioritise development in the Borough.

5.1.4 Between 5 and 14 dwellings, an affordable housing proportion target of
not more than 20% be introduced at this sensitive stage of policy
development, bearing in mind the first time impact.

5.1.5 A 30% affordable housing target could potentially be a suitable target for the
generally and notably higher value areas on sites of 15 or more units but
bearing in mind our notes on the difficulties on accurately defining value areas
and potential policy confusion. The principle of a reduced proportion should
still be applicable on sites of between 5-14 units, at no more than 20%.

5.1.6 A target affordable housing tenure mix with a reduced proportion of
affordable rented tenure than the 90%/10% baseline tested (any proportion
should not be to the exclusion of other tenure models or variations of existing
models being considered intended as a strategic approach and starting
point/target).

5.1.7 In all cases the policy positions should be set out as clear targets, to help
inform land value expectations and form the basis for a continued practical,
negotiated approach. Precise wording of policy is an important aspect,
particularly in relation to the terms associated with the targets. It needs to
create clarity.

5.1.8 Policy wording will need to acknowledge the relevance of considering
development viability on case specifics.



5.1.9 The Council will need to consider the mathematical subtleties of its selected
approach for example, how numbers rounding and net/gross (new dwellings
numbers) application affects the working of the policy positions.

5.1.10 Delivery experiences from all positions will need to be monitored, regardless
of where they are pitched. The Council should have contingency plans in
place for reacting to those experiences.


6 WIDER DISCUSSION

6.1.1 The National indicative minimum (site size) threshold for affordable housing
is regarded as 15 dwellings, as set out by the Governments PPS3 Housing
(November 2006). The PPS3 goes on to say, however, that local authorities
can set lower thresholds where viable and practicable. The results
discussed in this study show that lower thresholds could be considered,
provided that the affordable housing target proportion is not viewed in
isolation and rigidly. It is one factor to be considered alongside the numbers
rounding and other points we have put forward, depending on the Councils
final policy selections.

6.1.2 Where we have mentioned negotiation, that does not necessarily mean an
overall reduction in affordable housing it could mean negotiations over grant
input or changes to the tenure mix to provide an element of cross-subsidy into
a scheme. Similarly, there may need to be a compromise position achievable
rather than moving straight to an assumption that leaves a site contributing
nothing to affordable housing needs, but that allows the affordable housing
delivery on particular sites to react to changing viability and funding
circumstances as more certainty is created with scheme progression.

6.1.3 If the policy targets cannot be met, then landowners and developers will need
to clearly demonstrate why. The final judgement on exactly where this
element of the policy proposals will settle should, in our view, be based on all
the factors viewed together, i.e. alongside the viability outcomes. Included in
these will be the key elements of forecasting of increased affordable housing
units delivery based on the size and number of sites coming forward (site
capture), local housing needs and practical thinking on the consequences of
having small numbers of affordable homes distributed widely across a higher
number of schemes.

6.1.4 Crucially, and regardless of detail, the policies should be worded in clear
terms. They should not be expressed as a minimum level of provision or be
capable of interpretation in an ambiguous way.

6.1.5 It is important that a flexible and negotiated approach to policy application is
adopted to ensure the continued supply of residential development land,
notwithstanding the very high priority that will be given to addressing
affordable housing need. The policy or supporting text would need to make
this flexible approach clear. The aim is to provide clear and robust targets for
guidance to developers and landowners in appraising and bringing forward
sites.

6.1.6 As part of providing clarity of expectations and to aid the smooth working of
the approach, the Council will need to be clear about whether any new policy
positions will be applied to the gross (total, irrespective of any dwellings


existing prior to the scheme) number or net (i.e. deducting for any such
dwellings) number of dwellings being provided by a development scheme.

6.1.7 In our experience, Examination Inspectors have been nervous about gross
policies universally applied particularly to the smallest schemes, because
there can be such a significant difference in implications compared with a net
new dwellings application.

6.1.8 We expect that in site-specific viability discussions, where necessary, the use
of a toolkit (including but not limited to the Housing Corporations Economic
Appraisal Tool re-badged by the HCA in 2009, or developers own
workings) will be encouraged. Developers will be encouraged to work closely
with their RSL partners, who will increasingly be using that type of appraisal
work to support their decisions and approaches for social housing grant in
conjunction with the Council.

6.1.9 The key factors influencing policy should be kept under review - including
housing affordability and needs, site supply, economic trends/housing market
and viability. Our recommendations are considered to be sound for the
current stage of policy development, which is set in a strategic context. Their
impact and the delivery resulting from them will need to be monitored with a
view to longer-term future direction.

6.1.10 The Council should also monitor local property prices and development
activity. This could be carried out by reviewing Land Registry figures, estate
agents views and website information, etc, much as we have done.
Maintaining a level of familiarity with the local market would assist greatly with
scheme specific reviews and ongoing work in general.

6.1.11 It will also be important for the Council to consider contingency plans in the
event of slippage in meeting affordable housing targets (potentially for
example through short-term worsening of housing markets).

6.1.12 The Council will expect developers and landowners to come to the table and
be prepared to explain and justify why, in any relevant cases, the affordable
housing targets and/or other planning obligations requirements cannot be met
given other demands on a scheme. The onus will be on developers to clearly
and fully demonstrate the issues, with evidence to back-up costs associated
with abnormal site complexities and the like.

6.1.13 It is expected that a methodology similar to one we have used will be
appropriate for this process, to explore the relationship between development
costs and values. Again, however, we reiterate that whilst this methodology is
generally accepted, and the assumptions we have used might guide the
Council on starting/indicative parameters, there will be no substitute for site-


specific appraisal work of this type. Such work would take into account
appropriate specific assumptions.

6.1.14 Issues may arise on those sites which have already changed hands or are
committed through option or similar arrangements, where figures may simply
not work when set against the proposed policy requirements. In the same
way, there will be some previous planning consents capable of
implementation (where previous policy positions would have determined
requirements).

6.1.15 Similarly, a degree of difficulty with increasing planning-led affordable housing
supply may be experienced during the adjustment process where there may
be issues whilst developers/landowners get accustomed to the new policies
and expectations are modified. The modelling in this study has been carried
out on the assumption that knowledge of policies exists and that the
landowner/developer information and adjustment process has been
undertaken.

6.1.16 Good practice points to bringing to life through appropriate Supplementary
Planning Documents and/or Development Plan Documents the type of
negotiated approach envisaged and supported by government guidance.

6.1.17 This study has considered planning-led affordable housing in the context of
integrated provision within market-led schemes, secured through planning
obligations usually embodied in a Section 106 agreement. The Council, along
with its partners, should also continue to consider the wider routes to
affordable housing provision.

6.1.18 Housing Association or contractor/developer-led schemes can be successful
in significantly bolstering local provision sometimes on lower value, more
difficult sites, for example as a part of removing non-conforming uses from
older residential areas, recycling unviable former commercial land or making
better use of existing estates.

6.1.19 The various supply sources of affordable housing need to be considered and
encouraged. The use and role of local authority or other publicly-owned land
might also be very valuable in this sense. There is a potential emerging role
for local authorities as key developers of housing again.

6.1.20 In addition the role of exception to policy sites and specific allocations
processes could be considered for rural affordable housing provision.



6.1.21 Housing Associations and others should be encouraged to be proactive in
these areas, and supported by the Council where possible.

End of main study text
Appendices follow
September 2010


Appendices (separately bound from main report)

Appendix I Development Scenarios

Appendix II Base Appraisals
15
Residual Land Value Results
(2,500 per unit Infrastructure Cost)

Appendix IIa Residual Land Value Results - 50%/50% Tenure Mix

Appendix IIb Residual Land Value Results - 20%/80% Tenure Mix

Appendix IIc Residual Land Value Results - 10,000 per unit

Appendix IId Residual Land Value Results - 20,000 per unit

Appendix IIe Residual Land Value Results - With Grant; All Tenure
Mixes

Appendix IIf Residual Land Value Results - 20% Developers Profit
- All Tenure Mixes

Appendix IIg Residual Land Value Results - Cumulative Impact of
Cost Assumptions

Appendix III Warrington Borough Council - Property Values
Report

Appendix IV Details of Stakeholder Consultation Event

Appendix V Glossary

15
Base appraisals assume base build costs; CfSH Level 4; 10% requirement for renewable energy provision; 17.5%
developers profit, 90%/10% tenure mix; 2,500 per unit planning infrastructure costs, nil grant.

Appendix I
Location & Indicative Density Assumed
Warrington
(Central) East Warrington
North & West
Warrington
Brownfield Brownfield Brownfield Brownfield Greenfield Brownfield Greenfield
5 Houses 5 55 40 40 40 30 40 30
5 Flats 5 100 75 75 75 N/A 75 N/A
10 Houses 10 55 40 40 40 30 40 30
10 Flats 10 100 75 75 75 N/A 75 N/A
15 Houses 15 N/A 40 40 40 30 40 30
15 Flats 15 100 75 75 75 N/A 75 N/A
25 Houses 25 N/A 40 40 40 30 40 30
50 Houses 50 55 40 40 40 30 40 30
50 Mixed 50 N/A 55 55 55 40 55 40
75 Mixed 75 N/A 55 55 55 40 55 40
100 Flats 100 100 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
100 Houses 100 55 40 40 40 30 40 30
100 Mixed 100 N/A 55 55 55 40 55 40
10% Affordable Housing 20% Affordable Housing 30% Affordable Housing 35% Affordable Housing 40% Affordable Housing
Private Mix
Affordable
Tenure Split 90%
GN Rent; 10%
Intermediate
Affordable
Tenure Split 50%
GN Rent; 50%
Intermediate
Affordable
Tenure Split 20%
GN Rent; 80%
Intermediate
Private Mix
Affordable
Tenure Split 90%
GN Rent; 10%
Intermediate
Affordable
Tenure Split 50%
GN Rent; 50%
Intermediate
Affordable
Tenure Split 20%
GN Rent; 80%
Intermediate
Private Mix
Affordable
Tenure Split 90%
GN Rent; 10%
Intermediate
Affordable
Tenure Split 50%
GN Rent; 50%
Intermediate
Affordable
Tenure Split 20%
GN Rent; 80%
Intermediate
Private Mix
Affordable
Tenure Split 90%
GN Rent; 10%
Intermediate
Affordable
Tenure Split 50%
GN Rent; 50%
Intermediate
Affordable
Tenure Split 20%
GN Rent; 80%
Intermediate
Private Mix
Affordable
Tenure Split 90%
GN Rent; 10%
Intermediate
Affordable
Tenure Split 50%
GN Rent; 50%
Intermediate
Affordable
Tenure Split 20%
GN Rent; 80%
Intermediate
Survey
Costs (per
site)
Build
Period
(Months)
Site Prep.
5 Houses 2 x 2BH; 3 x 3BH 2 x 2BH; 2 x 3BH 1 x 3BH GN 1 x 3BH GN TBC 2 x 2BH; 2 x 3BH 1 x 3BH GN 1 x 3BH GN TBC 1 x 2BH; 2 x 3BH
1 x 2BH GN; 1 x
3BH GN
1 x 3BH GN; 1 x
2BH Int
TBC 1 x 2BH; 2 x 3BH
1 x 2BH GN, 1 x
3BH GN
1 x 3BH GN; 1 x
2BH Int
TBC 1 x 2BH; 2 x 3BH
1 x 2BH GN, 1 x
3BH GN
1 x 3BH GN; 1 x
2BH Int
TBC 2,500 6 20,000
5 Flats 5 x 2BF 4 x 2BF 1 x 2BF GN 1 x 2BF GN TBC 4 x 2BF 1 x 2BF GN 1 x 2BF GN TBC 3 x 2BF 2 x 2BF GN
1 x 2BF GN; 1 x
2BF Int
TBC 3 x 2BF 2 x 2BF GN
1 x 2BF GN; 1 x
2BF Int
TBC 3 x 2BF 2 x 2BF GN
1 x 2BF GN; 1 x
2BF Int
TBC 2,500 6 20,000
10 Houses
3 x 2BH; 5 x 3BH;
2 x 4BH
3 x 2BH; 4 x 3BH;
2 x 4BH
1 x 3BH GN 1 x 3BH GN TBC
2 x 2BH; 4 x 3BH;
2 x 4BH
1 x 2BH GN, 1 x
3BH GN
1 x 3BH GN; 1 x
2BH Int
TBC
2 x 2BH; 3 x 3BH;
2 x 4BH
1 x 2BH GN, 2 x
3BH GN
2 x 3BH GN; 1 x
2BH Int
TBC
1 x 2BH; 3 x 3BH;
2 x 4BH
2 x 2BH GN, 2 x
3BH GN
2 x 3BH GN; 2 x
2BH Int
TBC
1 x 2BH; 3 x 3BH;
2 x 4BH
2 x 2BH GN, 2 x
3BH GN
2 x 3BH GN; 2 x
2BH Int
TBC 5,000 9 40,000
10 Flats 3 x 1BF; 7 x 2BF 3 x 1BF; 6 x 2BF 1 x 2BF GN 1 x 2BF GN TBC 2 x 1BF; 6 x 2BF
1 x 1BF GN, 1 x
2BF GN
1 x 2BF GN; 1 x
1BF Int
TBC 2 x 1BF; 5 x 2BF
1 x 1BF GN, 2 x
2BF GN
1 x 1BF GN, 1 x
2BF GN; 1 x 2BF
Int
1 x 1BF GN, 3 x
2BF GN
2 x 2BF GN; 1 x
1BF Int, 1 x 2BF Int
1 x 1BF GN, 3 x
2BF GN
2 x 2BF GN; 1 x
TBC 5,000 9 40,000
15 Houses
4 x 2BH; 8 x 3BH;
3 x 4BH
3 x 2BH; 7 x 3BH;
3 x 4BH
1 x 2BH GN, 1 x
3BH GN
1 x 3BH GN; 1 x
2BH Int
TBC
3 x 2BH; 7 x 3BH;
2 x 4BH
1 x 2BH GN, 1 x
3BH GN, 1 x 4BH
GN
1 x 3BH GN, 1 x
4BH GN; 1 x 2BH
Int
TBC
2 x 2BH; 6 x 3BH;
2 x 4BH
2 x 2BH GN, 2 x
3BH GN, 1 x 4BH
GN
2 x 3BH GN, 1 x
4BH GN; 2 x 2BH
Int
TBC
2 x 2BH; 6 x 3BH;
2 x 4BH
2 x 2BH GN, 2 x
3BH GN, 1 x 4BH
GN
2 x 3BH GN, 1 x
4BH GN; 2 x 2BH
Int
TBC
1 x 2BH; 6 x 3BH;
2 x 4BH
2 x 2BH GN, 2 x
3BH GN, 1 x 4BH
GN; 1 x 2BH Int
2 x 3BH GN, 1 x
4BH GN; 3 x 2BH
Int
TBC 7,500 9 60,000
15 Flats 5 x 1BF; 10 x 2BF 4 x 1BF; 9 x 2BF
1 x 1BF GN, 1 x
2BF GN
1 x 2BF GN; 1 x
1BF Int
1 x 1BF GN, 2 x
2BF GN
2 x 2BF GN; 1 x
1BF Int
2 x 1BF GN, 3 x
2BF GN
1 x 1BF GN, 2 x
2BF GN; 1 x 1BF, 1
x 2BF Int
2 x 1BF GN, 3 x
2BF GN
1 x 1BF GN, 2 x
2BF GN; 1 x 1BF, 1
x 2BF Int
2 x 1BF GN, 3 x
2BF GN; 1 x 2BF
Int
1 x 1BF GN, 2 x
2BF GN; 1 x 1BF
Int, 2 x 2BF Int
TBC 7,500 9 60,000
25 Houses
8 x 2BH; 12 x
3BH; 5 x 4BH
6 x 2BH; 11 x
3BH; 5 x 4BH
2 x 2BH GN, 1 x
3BH GN,
1 x 2BH GN, 1 x
3BH GN; 1 x 2BH
Int
1 x 3BH GN, 2 x
2BH Int
4 x 2BH; 11 x
3BH; 5 x 4BH
4 x 2BH GN, 1 x
3BH GN
1 x 3BH GN, 2 x
2BH GN, 2 x 2BH
Int
1 x 3BH GN, 4 x
2BH Int
2 x 2BH, 11 x
3BH, 4 x 4BH
5 x 2BH GN, 1 x
3BH GN, 1 x 4BH
GN, 1 x 2BH Int
2 x 2BH GN, 1 x
3BH GN, 1 x 4BH
GN, 4 x 2BH Int
1 x 3BH GN, 1 x
4BH GN, 6 x 2BH
Int
1 x 2BH, 11 x
3BH, 4 x 4BH
6 x 2BH GN, 1 x
3BH GN, 1 x 4BH
GN, 1 x 2BH Int
3 x 2BH GN, 1 x
3BH GN, 1 x 4BH
GN, 4 x 2BH Int
1 x 3BH GN, 1 x
4BH GN, 7 x 2BH
Int
11 x 3BH, 4 x 4BH
7 x 2BH GN, 1 x
3BH GN, 1 x 4BH
GN; 1 x 2BH Int
3 x 2BH GN, 1 x
3BH GN, 1 x 4BH
GN; 5 x 2BH Int
1 x 3BH GN, 1 x
4BH GN; 8 x 2BH
Int
12,500 12 100,000
50 Houses
16 x 2BH; 24 x
3BH; 10 x 4BH
12 x 2BH, 23 x
3BH, 10 x 4BH
4 x 2BH GN, 1 x
3BH GN
2 x 2BH GN, 1 x
3BH GN, 2 x 2BH
Int
1 x 3BH GN, 4 x
2BH Int
8 x 2BH, 22 x
3BH, 10 x 4BH
7 x 2BH GN, 2 x
3BH GN, 1 x 2BH
Int
3 x 2BH GN, 2 x
3BH GN, 5 x 2BH
Int
2 x 3BH GN, 8 x
2BH Int
4 x 2BH, 22 x
3BH, 9 x 4BH
11 x 2BH GN, 2 x
3BH GN, 1 x 4BH
GN, 1 x 2BH Int
5 x 2BH GN, 2 x
3BH GN, 1 x 4BH
GN, 7 x 2BH Int
2 x 3BH GN, 1 x
4BH GN, 12 x 2BH
Int
2 x 2BH, 21 x
3BH, 9 x 4BH
12 x 2BH GN, 3 x
3BH GN, 1 x 4BH
GN; 2 x 2BH Int
5 x 2BH GN, 3 x
3BH GN, 1 x 4BH
GN; 9 x 2BH Int
3 x 3BH GN, 1 x
4BH GN; 14 x 2BH
Int
22 x 3BH, 8 x 4BH
14 x 2BH GN, 2 x
3BH GN, 2 x 4BH
GN; 2 x 2BH Int
6 x 2BH GN, 2 x
3BH GN, 2 x 4BH
GN; 10 x 2BH Int
2 x 3BH GN, 2 x
4BH GN; 16 x 2BH
Int
25,000 18 200,000
50 Mixed
5 x 1BF; 5 x 2BF;
10 x 2BH; 20 x
3BH; 10 x 4BH
4 x 1BF, 4 x 2BF,
8 x 2BH, 19 x
3BH, 10 x 4BH
1 x 1BF GN, 1 x
2BF GN, 2 x 2BH
GN, 1 x 3BH GN
2 x 2 BH GN, 1 x
3BH GN, 1 x 1BF
Int, 1 x 2BF Int
1 x 3BH GN, 1 x
1BF Int, 1 x 2BF
Int, 2 x 2BH Int
3 x 1 BF, 3 x 2BF,
6 x 2BH, 19 x
3BH, 9 x 4BH
1 x 1BF GN, 2 x
2BF GN, 4 x 2BH
GN, 1 x 3BH GN, 1
x 4BH GN, 1 x 1BF
Int
1 x 1BF GN, 1 x
2BF GN, 1 x 2BH
GN, 1 x 3BH GN, 1
x 4BH GN, 1 x 1BF
Int, 1 x 2BF Int, 3 x
2BH Int
1 x 3BH GN, 1 x
4BH GN, 2 x 1BF
2BH Int
2 x 1BF, 2 x 2BF,
4 x 2BH, 18 x
3BH, 9 x 4BH
2 x 1BF GN, 3 x
2BF GN, 6 x 2BH
GN, 2 x 3BH GN, 1
x 4BH GN; 1 x 1BF
Int
1 x 1BF GN, 2 x
2BF GN, 2 x 2BH
GN, 2 x 3BH GN, 1
x 4BH GN; 2 x 1BF
2BH Int
2 x 3BH GN, 1 x
4BH GN; 3 x 1BF
2BH Int
1 x 1BF, 1 x 2BF,
4 x 2BH, 17 x
3BH, 9 x 4BH
2 x 1BF GN, 4 x
2BF GN, 6 x 2BH
GN, 3 x 3BH GN, 1
x 4BH GN; 2 x 1BF
Int
1 x 1BF GN, 1 x
2BF GN, 3 x 2BH
GN, 3 x 3BH GN, 1
x 4BH GN; 3 x 1BF
2BH Int
3 x 3 BH GN, 1 x
4BH GN; 4 x 1BF
2BH Int
1 x 1BF, 1 x 2BF,
2 x 2BH, 17 x
3BH, 9 x 4BH
2 x 1BF GN, 4 x
2BF GN, 8 x 2BH
GN, 3 x 3BH GN, 1
x 4BH GN; 2 x 1BF
Int
6 x 2BH GN, 3 x
3BH GN, 1 x 4BH
GN; 4 x 1BF Int, 4 x
2BF Int, 2 x 2BH Int
3 x 3BH GN, 1 x
4BH GN; 4 x 1BF
Int, 4 x 2BF GN, 8 x
2BH GN
25,000 18 200,000
100 Flats
30 x 1BF; 70 x
2BF
27 x 1BF; 63 x
2BF
3 x 1BF GN, 6 x
2BF GN; 1 x 2BF
Int
2 x 1BF GN, 4 x
2BF GN; 1 x 1BF
Int, 3 x 2BF Int
24 x 1BF;56 x
2BF
5 x 1BF GN, 13 x
2BF GN; 1 x 1BF
Int, 1 x 2BF Int
3 x 1BF GN, 7 x
2BF GN; 3 x 1BF
Int, 7 x 2BF Int
21 x 1BF;49 x
2BF
8 x 1BF GN, 19 x
2BF GN; 1 x 1BF
Int, 2 x 2BF Int
5 x 1BF GN, 10 x
2BF GN; 4 x 1BF
Int, 11 x 2BF Int
20 x 1BF;45 x
2BF
9 x 1BF GN, 23 x
2BF GN; 1 x 1BF
Int, 2 x 2BF Int
5 x 1BF GN, 13 x
2BF GN; 5 x 1BF
Int, 12 x 2BF Int
18 x 1BF;42 x
2BF
11 x 1BF GN, 25 x
2BF GN; 1 x 1BF
Int, 3 x 2BF Int
6 x 1BF GN, 14 x
2BF GN; 6 x 1BF
Int, 14 x 2BF Int
50,000 24 400,000
100 Houses
32 x 2BH; 48 x
3BH; 20 x 4BH
27 x 2BH; 45 x
3BH; 18 x 4BH
4 x 2BH GN, 3 x
3BH GN, 2 x 4BH
GN; 1 x 2BH Int
3 x 3BH GN, 2 x
4BH GN; 5 x 2BH
Int
22 x 2BH; 41 x
3BH; 17 x 4BH
8 x 2BH GN, 7 x
3BH GN, 3 x 4BH
GN; 2 x 2BH Int
7 x 3BH GN, 3 x
4BH GN; 10 x 2BH
Int
17 x 2BH; 37 x
3BH; 16 x 4BH
12 x 2BH GN, 11 x
3BH GN, 4 x 4BH
GN; 3 x 2BH Int
11 x 3BH GN, 4 x
4BH GN; 15 x 2BH
Int
15 x 2BH; 35 x
3BH; 15 x 4BH
14 x 2BH GN, 13 x
3BH GN, 5 x 4BH
GN; 3 x 2BH Int
13 x 3BH GN, 5 x
4BH GN; 17 x 2BH
Int
12 x 2BH; 34 x
3BH; 14 x 4BH
16 x 2BH GN, 14 x
3BH GN, 6 x 4BH
GN; 4 x 2BH Int
14 x 3BH GN, 6 x
4BH GN; 20 x 2BH
Int
50,000 24 400,000
100 Mixed
10 x 1BF; 10 x
2BF; 20 x 2BH;
40 x 3BH; 20 x
4BH
9 x 1BF; 8 x 2BF;
18 x 2BH; 37 x
3BH; 18 x 4BH
2 x 2BF GN, 2 x
2BH GN, 3 x 3BH
GN, 2 x 4BH GN; 1
x 1BF Int
3 x 3BH GN, 2 x
4BH GN; 1 x 1BF
2BH Int
7 x 1BF; 7 x 2BF;
16 x 2BH; 33 x
3BH; 17 x 4BH
2 x 1BF GN, 2 x
2BF GN, 4 x 2BH
GN, 7 x 3BH GN, 3
x 4BH GN; 1 x 1BF
Int, 1 x 2BF Int
7 x 3BH GN, 3 x
4BH GN; 3 x 1BF
2BH Int
6 x 1BF, 6 x 2BF;
13 x 2BH; 29 x
3BH; 16 x 4BH
3 x 1BF GN, 3 x
2BF GN, 6 x 2BH
GN, 11 x 3BH GN,
4 x 4BH GN; 1 x
1BF Int, 1 x 2BF
Int, 1 x 2BH Int
11 x 3BH GN, 4 x
4BH GN; 4 x 1BF
2BH Int
5 x 1BF, 6 x 2BF;
12 x 2BH; 28 x
3BH; 14 x 4BH
4 x 1BF GN, 3 x
2BF GN, 7 x 2BH
GN, 12 x 3BH GN,
6 x 4BH GN; 1 x
1BF Int, 1 x 2BF
Int, 1 x 2BH Int
12 x 3BH GN, 6 x
4BH GN; 5 x 1BF
2BH Int
5 x 1BF, 5 x 2BF;
10 x 2BH; 26 x
3BH; 14 x 4BH
3 x 1BF GN, 3 x
2BF GN, 10 x 2BH
GN, 14 x 3 BH GN,
6 x 4BH GN; 2 x
14 x 3BH GN, 6 x
4BH GN; 5 x 1BF
Int, 5 x 2BF Int, 10
x 2BH Int
50,000 24 400,000
Value Point 1-Bed Flats 2-Bed Flats 2-Bed Houses 3-Bed Houses 4-Bed Houses / sq m
1 70,000 93,800 105,000 119,000 140,000 1,400
2 84,000 112,560 126,000 142,800 168,000 1,680
3 100,800 135,072 151,200 171,360 201,600 2,016
4 120,960 162,086 181,440 205,632 241,920 2,419
5 145,152 194,504 217,728 246,758 290,304 2,903
6 174,182 233,404 261,274 296,110 348,365 3,484
7 209,019 280,085 313,528 355,332 418,038 4,180
1-Bed Flats 2-Bed Flats 2-Bed Houses 3-Bed Houses 4-Bed Houses
50 67 75 85 100
Other Assumptions: Developments are 2-3 storeys unless stated.
Infrastructure Costs per unit:
Finance (%) 7.0%
Base Build Costs (Flats) 1,000 per sq m
Base Build Costs (Houses) 900 per sq m
Build Period Lead In 6 months
Developer Profit: 17.5% of Gross Development Value - Sample of appraisals at 20% developer's profit on sample of appraisals. Profit on affordable - 6%
Grant Subsidy:
Housing Mix
Affordable Unit Mix: Transferred on a proportional basis (i.e. same proportions as for private mix).
Developer Receipt for
Affordable Units (on-site
provision):
Tenure
Code for Sustainable Homes
Lifetime Homes
Renewables
Density:
Rounding
Notes: The results of our values research will aid in determining the range of value points at which to model the development scenarios (i.e. values to assign to unit
types). We will then attempt to align the value points to the areas above showing results by location and with the effect of movements in the property market
(values moving up and down).
Assume all units comply - Level 4 of CfSH. Costs are approximately 100 per m2 for flats and houses based on Cyrill
Sweet Cost Analysis of the Code for Sustainable Homes July 2008 (assumes medium case scenario for flats and
terraced houses).
Requirement to meet 10% target but assumed cost of achieving this is included as base modelling assumes CfSH Level 4 attainment.
Carry out appraisals without grant and sample with grant. 26,000 per unit for intermediate; 50,000 per unit for affodable rent, regardless of unit size. Source:
WBC
Densities as set out above.
Site Size Appraised
Sizes (sq m) - Gross Internal Area (GIA)
Values (Provisional)
Mathematical convention.
As above but 50/50 & 20/80 modelled on sample basis only (25 and 50 unit schemes)
Allowance to achieve Lifetime Homes Standards included within above build costs and acknowledged within report as
potential variable cost issue (depending on design etc). Approx between 165 and 545 per unit
Dwelling Mix (BF
= Bed Flat; BH =
Bed House
Suggested that AI model on the basis of set costs per unit rather than using the Council's SPD which means very high
per unit figures if all are taken into account. The Council's "achieved S106" levels are far lower. Suggest that all base
appraisals modelled on basis of 2,500 per unit but with sample of appraisals run at 10,000 (intermediate level) and
20,000 per unit which would cover the entire tariff requirement.
GNR = General Needs Rent; IT = Intermediate
BF = Bed Flat; BH = Bed House
Site Size Appraised Number of Units
Percentage Affordable Housing & Tenure Mix
Currently based on negotiation through developers and RSLs. AI to run calculations using Proval
based on normal RSL financial appraisal assumptions (to be checked through liaison with RSL
partners).
Culcheth & Croft South Warrington
As above
Appendix I - Development Scenarios and Key Assumptions Required for Warrington Borough Council Affordable Housing Viability Assessment- On-Site Affordable Housing
Appendix I

Appendix II
Development Scenario /
Threshold Value Point
Residual Land
Value - 0%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 48,846 0 0 0 0 0
4 164,670 60,648 60,648 0 0 0
5 298,099 177,824 177,824 67,112 67,112 67,112
6 462,205 312,324 312,324 183,788 183,788 183,788
7 652,338 476,437 476,437 315,234 315,234 315,234
1 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 91,191 0 0 0 0 0
5 205,731 67,868 67,868 0 0 0
6 337,317 178,022 178,022 11,892 11,892 11,892
7 495,051 304,739 304,739 112,649 112,649 112,649
1 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 108,478 21,404 0 0 0 0
4 344,404 246,877 154,802 50,680 0 0
5 624,912 502,322 398,422 274,554 168,833 168,833
6 965,782 817,446 686,561 538,225 411,583 411,583
7 1,374,826 1,194,014 1,034,473 853,660 694,119 694,119
1 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 157,719 42,695 0 0 0 0
5 363,549 232,504 162,948 24,653 0 0
6 608,035 451,477 368,878 210,234 44,429 44,429
7 905,915 712,461 612,711 423,624 232,859 232,859
1 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 162,424 261 0 0 0 0
4 513,967 326,592 209,086 12,508 12,508 0
5 941,726 711,128 565,842 338,737 338,737 287,666
6 1,455,036 1,175,815 998,547 719,326 719,326 658,673
7 2,071,008 1,730,655 1,514,629 1,174,275 1,174,275 1,101,491
1 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 232,772 60,877 0 0 0 0
5 533,169 334,830 203,193 0 0 0
6 902,111 659,151 497,940 257,636 257,636 207,072
7 1,344,841 1,051,637 858,183 564,979 564,979 499,959
1 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 237,986 4,509 0 0 0 0
4 809,753 535,141 363,775 117,725 26,519 0
5 1,504,529 1,172,471 960,633 662,672 556,753 455,530
6 2,338,259 1,936,083 1,679,375 1,317,701 1,189,347 1,060,992
7 3,338,735 2,848,507 2,535,596 2,095,915 1,939,459 1,783,004
1 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 357,536 0 0 0 0 0
4 1,466,143 1,034,150 646,585 202,825 0 0
5 2,800,894 2,278,448 1,810,132 1,266,308 1,001,475 776,613
6 4,402,596 3,769,696 3,202,953 2,542,800 2,222,642 1,948,805
7 6,324,638 5,553,171 4,863,429 4,058,792 3,669,621 3,335,880
1 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 253,954 0 0 0 0 0
4 1,309,851 888,496 479,838 55,768 0 0
5 2,580,068 2,071,021 1,572,389 1,063,341 789,571 586,088
6 4,104,329 3,489,148 2,885,630 2,270,449 1,940,769 1,694,184
7 5,933,442 5,186,352 4,454,347 3,707,257 3,308,994 3,008,423
1 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 1,041,171 253,098 0 0 0 0
5 2,909,780 1,958,088 956,318 4,819 0 0
6 5,152,112 4,007,885 2,804,297 1,660,071 1,003,728 515,845
7 7,842,909 6,465,359 5,018,068 3,640,518 2,851,414 2,262,969
1 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 518,199 0 0 0 0 0
4 2,651,453 1,798,198 962,121 129,983 0 0
5 5,211,357 4,180,750 3,170,644 2,160,538 1,612,694 1,129,931
6 8,283,242 7,033,292 5,809,475 4,585,659 3,921,080 3,335,708
7 11,969,505 10,447,023 8,956,351 7,465,678 6,655,646 5,943,197
1 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 330,443 0 0 0 0 0
4 2,357,149 1,475,625 704,962 0 0 0
5 4,793,285 3,730,318 2,798,357 1,801,099 1,269,392 790,582
6 7,716,647 6,430,171 5,300,970 4,094,145 3,447,819 2,868,302
7 11,224,682 9,662,848 8,287,208 6,819,911 6,032,079 5,326,358
Source: Adams Integra, February 2010
100 Unit Mixed Scheme
100 Unit Flatted Scheme
Table 1: Summary of Residual Land Value () Appraisals for
All Value Points -
90% General Needs Rent/10% Intermediate Tenure Mix
Planning Infrastructure Level 2,500
Appendix II
Appendix II
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
5,000,000
5,500,000
6,000,000
6,500,000
7,000,000
7,500,000
8,000,000
8,500,000
9,000,000
9,500,000
10,000,000
10,500,000
11,000,000
11,500,000
12,000,000
12,500,000
13,000,000
13,500,000
14,000,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5 Unit Housing
Scheme
5 Unit Flatted
Scheme
10 Unit Housing
Scheme
10 Unit Flatted
Scheme
15 Unit Housing
Scheme
15 Unit Flatted
Scheme
25 Unit Housing
Scheme
50 Unit Housing
Scheme
50 Unit Mixed
Scheme
100 Unit Flatted
Scheme
100 Unit Housing
Scheme
100 Unit Mixed
Scheme
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

L
a
n
d

V
a
l
u
e

(
)
Graph 1: Summary of Residual Land Values at 0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 35% & 40% Affordable Housing
Across All Value Points
Residual Land Value - 0% Affordable Residual Land Value - 10% Affordable Residual Land Value - 20% Affordable Residual Land Value - 30% Affordable Residual Land Value - 35% Affordable Residual Land Value - 40% Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 0%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 6.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 16.8% 7.3% 7.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
5 25.4% 18.0% 18.0% 8.1% 8.1% 8.1%
6 32.8% 26.3% 26.3% 18.6% 18.6% 18.6%
7 38.5% 33.6% 33.6% 26.8% 26.8% 26.8%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 11.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
5 21.2% 8.7% 8.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
6 28.9% 19.1% 19.1% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7%
7 35.3% 27.2% 27.2% 13.4% 13.4% 13.4%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 6.3% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 16.7% 13.0% 8.8% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0%
5 25.3% 22.0% 18.8% 14.2% 9.6% 9.6%
6 32.6% 29.9% 27.1% 23.3% 19.5% 19.5%
7 38.7% 36.4% 34.0% 30.9% 27.5% 27.5%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 10.5% 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
5 20.2% 14.5% 10.9% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0%
6 28.2% 23.5% 20.5% 13.4% 3.3% 3.3%
7 35.0% 30.9% 28.4% 22.6% 14.6% 14.6%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 6.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 16.6% 11.6% 8.0% 0.5% 0.5% 0.0%
5 25.3% 21.1% 18.0% 12.1% 12.1% 10.6%
6 32.6% 29.1% 26.5% 21.5% 21.5% 20.4%
7 38.7% 35.8% 33.6% 29.4% 29.4% 28.5%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 10.5% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
5 20.0% 14.1% 9.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
6 28.1% 23.2% 19.1% 11.4% 11.4% 9.6%
7 35.0% 30.8% 27.4% 20.9% 20.9% 19.4%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 5.6% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 15.8% 11.4% 8.2% 2.9% 0.7% 0.0%
5 24.4% 20.8% 18.1% 13.7% 11.9% 10.1%
6 31.7% 28.6% 26.4% 22.8% 21.3% 19.7%
7 37.7% 35.1% 33.3% 30.3% 29.0% 27.7%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 4.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 14.3% 10.8% 7.2% 2.5% 0.0% 0.0%
5 22.8% 19.9% 16.9% 12.9% 10.7% 8.6%
6 29.8% 27.4% 25.0% 21.6% 19.8% 18.1%
7 35.7% 33.7% 31.7% 28.9% 27.3% 25.9%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 13.4% 9.8% 5.7% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0%
5 22.0% 19.0% 15.6% 11.5% 8.9% 6.9%
6 29.2% 26.7% 23.8% 20.4% 18.3% 16.6%
7 35.2% 33.1% 30.7% 27.8% 26.1% 24.7%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 7.0% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
5 16.2% 11.9% 6.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
6 23.9% 20.4% 15.8% 10.5% 6.8% 3.7%
7 30.3% 27.4% 23.6% 19.1% 16.1% 13.5%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 3.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 12.9% 9.4% 5.5% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0%
5 21.2% 18.3% 15.0% 11.1% 8.7% 6.4%
6 28.0% 25.6% 22.9% 19.7% 17.7% 15.8%
7 33.8% 31.8% 29.5% 26.8% 25.1% 23.5%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 12.1% 8.2% 4.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
5 20.5% 17.2% 13.9% 9.8% 7.3% 4.7%
6 27.4% 24.8% 22.0% 18.6% 16.5% 14.4%
7 33.3% 31.0% 28.8% 25.9% 24.1% 22.4%
Table 1a: Summary of Residual Land Value (as % of GDV) Appraisals for
All Value Points
Appendix II
Appendix II
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
50.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5 Unit Housing
Scheme
5 Unit Flatted
Scheme
10 Unit Housing
Scheme
10 Unit Flatted
Scheme
15 Unit Housing
Scheme
15 Unit Flatted
Scheme
25 Unit Housing
Scheme
50 Unit Housing
Scheme
50 Unit Mixed
Scheme
100 Unit Flatted
Scheme
100 Unit Housing
Scheme
100 Unit Mixed
Scheme
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

L
a
n
d

V
a
l
u
e

(
%

o
f

G
D
V
)
Graph 1a: Summary of Residual Land Values (as % of GDV) at 0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 35% & 40% Affordable Housing Across all Value Points
Residual Land Value - 0% Affordable Residual Land Value - 10% Affordable Residual Land Value - 20% Affordable Residual Land Value - 30% Affordable Residual Land Value - 35% Affordable Residual Land Value - 40% Affordable
Threshold
Value Point Site Size
Residual Land
Value - 0%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
Site Size
Residual Land
Value - 0%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
Site Size
Residual Land
Value - 0%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 0.09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.17 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0.09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.17 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0.09 537,309 0 0 0 0 0 0.13 390,770 0 0 0 0 0 0.17 293,078 0 0 0 0 0
4 0.09 1,811,373 667,130 667,130 0 0 0 0.13 1,317,363 485,185 485,185 0 0 0 0.17 988,022 363,889 363,889 0 0 0
5 0.09 3,279,089 1,956,062 1,956,062 738,236 738,236 738,236 0.13 2,384,792 1,422,590 1,422,590 536,899 536,899 536,899 0.17 1,788,594 1,066,943 1,066,943 402,674 402,674 402,674
6 0.09 5,084,259 3,435,562 3,435,562 2,021,671 2,021,671 2,021,671 0.13 3,697,643 2,498,590 2,498,590 1,470,306 1,470,306 1,470,306 0.17 2,773,232 1,873,943 1,873,943 1,102,730 1,102,730 1,102,730
7 0.09 7,175,716 5,240,803 5,240,803 3,467,573 3,467,573 3,467,573 0.13 5,218,703 3,811,493 3,811,493 2,521,871 2,521,871 2,521,871 0.17 3,914,027 2,858,620 2,858,620 1,891,404 1,891,404 1,891,404
1 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
2 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
3 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
4 0.05 1,823,830 0 0 0 0 0 0.07 1,367,872 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
5 0.05 4,114,610 1,357,362 1,357,362 0 0 0 0.07 3,085,958 1,018,021 1,018,021 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
6 0.05 6,746,333 3,560,446 3,560,446 237,837 237,837 237,837 0.07 5,059,750 2,670,334 2,670,334 178,378 178,378 178,378 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
7 0.05 9,901,014 6,094,770 6,094,770 2,252,981 2,252,981 2,252,981 0.07 7,425,760 4,571,078 4,571,078 1,689,736 1,689,736 1,689,736 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
1 0.18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.33 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0.18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.33 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0.18 596,627 117,720 0 0 0 0 0.25 433,910 85,615 0 0 0 0 0.33 325,433 64,211 0 0 0 0
4 0.18 1,894,224 1,357,823 851,412 278,741 0 0 0.25 1,377,618 987,508 619,208 202,721 0 0 0.33 1,033,213 740,631 464,406 152,041 0 0
5 0.18 3,437,017 2,762,769 2,191,320 1,510,048 928,579 928,579 0.25 2,499,649 2,009,287 1,593,687 1,098,217 675,330 675,330 0.33 1,874,737 1,506,965 1,195,265 823,663 506,498 506,498
6 0.18 5,311,803 4,495,953 3,776,085 2,960,235 2,263,705 2,263,705 0.25 3,863,129 3,269,784 2,746,244 2,152,898 1,646,331 1,646,331 0.33 2,897,347 2,452,338 2,059,683 1,614,674 1,234,748 1,234,748
7 0.18 7,561,545 6,567,074 5,689,600 4,695,129 3,817,654 3,817,654 0.25 5,499,306 4,776,054 4,137,891 3,414,639 2,776,476 2,776,476 0.33 4,124,479 3,582,041 3,103,418 2,560,979 2,082,357 2,082,357
1 0.10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
2 0.10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
3 0.10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
4 0.10 1,577,189 426,949 0 0 0 0 0.13 1,182,892 320,212 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
5 0.10 3,635,489 2,325,036 1,629,475 246,529 0 0 0.13 2,726,616 1,743,777 1,222,107 184,897 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
6 0.10 6,080,346 4,514,775 3,688,776 2,102,340 444,289 444,289 0.13 4,560,259 3,386,081 2,766,582 1,576,755 333,217 333,217 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
7 0.10 9,059,149 7,124,611 6,127,106 4,236,241 2,328,594 2,328,594 0.13 6,794,362 5,343,458 4,595,330 3,177,181 1,746,445 1,746,445 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.50 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.50 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.38 433,130 697 0 0 0 0 0.50 324,848 523 0 0 0 0
4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.38 1,370,580 870,911 557,564 33,355 33,355 0 0.50 1,027,935 653,183 418,173 25,016 25,016 0
5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.38 2,511,269 1,896,341 1,508,913 903,298 903,298 767,109 0.50 1,883,452 1,422,256 1,131,685 677,473 677,473 575,332
6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.38 3,880,097 3,135,506 2,662,793 1,918,202 1,918,202 1,756,461 0.50 2,910,072 2,351,630 1,997,094 1,438,652 1,438,652 1,317,346
7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.38 5,522,689 4,615,079 4,039,010 3,131,400 3,131,400 2,937,310 0.50 4,142,017 3,461,309 3,029,257 2,348,550 2,348,550 2,202,983
1 0.15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.20 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
2 0.15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.20 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
3 0.15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.20 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
4 0.15 1,551,811 405,850 0 0 0 0 0.20 1,163,859 304,387 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
5 0.15 3,554,463 2,232,201 1,354,618 0 0 0 0.20 2,665,847 1,674,151 1,015,964 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
6 0.15 6,014,075 4,394,343 3,319,599 1,717,575 1,717,575 1,380,478 0.20 4,510,556 3,295,757 2,489,700 1,288,181 1,288,181 1,035,359 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
7 0.15 8,965,609 7,010,913 5,721,221 3,766,526 3,766,526 3,333,060 0.20 6,724,206 5,258,185 4,290,916 2,824,895 2,824,895 2,499,795 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 380,777 7,214 0 0 0 0 0.83 285,583 5,410 0 0 0 0
4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 1,295,605 856,225 582,040 188,360 42,430 0 0.83 971,704 642,169 436,530 141,270 31,823 0
5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 2,407,246 1,875,954 1,537,013 1,060,275 890,804 728,848 0.83 1,805,434 1,406,965 1,152,760 795,206 668,103 546,636
6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 3,741,214 3,097,733 2,686,999 2,108,321 1,902,955 1,697,588 0.83 2,805,911 2,323,299 2,015,250 1,581,241 1,427,216 1,273,191
7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 5,341,977 4,557,612 4,056,953 3,353,464 3,103,135 2,852,806 0.83 4,006,482 3,418,209 3,042,715 2,515,098 2,327,351 2,139,604
1 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.67 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.67 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0.91 393,289 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 286,029 0 0 0 0 0 1.67 214,522 0 0 0 0 0
4 0.91 1,612,757 1,137,565 711,244 223,108 0 0 1.25 1,172,914 827,320 517,268 162,260 0 0 1.67 879,686 620,490 387,951 121,695 0 0
5 0.91 3,080,984 2,506,293 1,991,145 1,392,938 1,101,622 854,274 1.25 2,240,715 1,822,759 1,448,106 1,013,046 801,180 621,290 1.67 1,680,536 1,367,069 1,086,079 759,785 600,885 465,968
6 0.91 4,842,855 4,146,665 3,523,248 2,797,080 2,444,906 2,143,685 1.25 3,522,077 3,015,756 2,562,363 2,034,240 1,778,114 1,559,044 1.67 2,641,557 2,261,817 1,921,772 1,525,680 1,333,585 1,169,283
7 0.91 6,957,101 6,108,488 5,349,772 4,464,671 4,036,584 3,669,468 1.25 5,059,710 4,442,537 3,890,743 3,247,034 2,935,697 2,668,704 1.67 3,794,783 3,331,903 2,918,057 2,435,275 2,201,773 2,001,528
1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 279,350 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 203,163 0 0 0 0 0
4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 1,440,836 977,346 527,822 61,344 0 0 1.25 1,047,881 710,797 383,871 44,614 0 0
5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 2,838,075 2,278,123 1,729,628 1,169,675 868,529 644,697 1.25 2,064,054 1,656,816 1,257,911 850,673 631,657 468,870
6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 4,514,762 3,838,063 3,174,193 2,497,494 2,134,846 1,863,603 1.25 3,283,463 2,791,318 2,308,504 1,816,359 1,552,615 1,355,347
7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 6,526,786 5,704,987 4,899,782 4,077,983 3,639,894 3,309,265 1.25 4,746,754 4,149,081 3,563,478 2,965,806 2,647,195 2,406,738
1 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
4 1.00 1,041,171 253,098 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
5 1.00 2,909,780 1,958,088 956,318 4,819 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
6 1.00 5,152,112 4,007,885 2,804,297 1,660,071 1,003,728 515,845 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
7 1.00 7,842,909 6,465,359 5,018,068 3,640,518 2,851,414 2,262,969 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
1 1.82 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.33 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 1.82 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.33 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 1.82 285,009 0 0 0 0 0 2.50 207,280 0 0 0 0 0 3.33 155,460 0 0 0 0 0
4 1.82 1,458,299 989,009 529,167 71,491 0 0 2.50 1,060,581 719,279 384,849 51,993 0 0 3.33 795,436 539,459 288,636 38,995 0 0
5 1.82 2,866,246 2,299,413 1,743,854 1,188,296 886,982 621,462 2.50 2,084,543 1,672,300 1,268,258 864,215 645,078 451,972 3.33 1,563,407 1,254,225 951,193 648,161 483,808 338,979
6 1.82 4,555,783 3,868,310 3,195,211 2,522,112 2,156,594 1,834,639 2.50 3,313,297 2,813,317 2,323,790 1,834,263 1,568,432 1,334,283 3.33 2,484,973 2,109,988 1,742,843 1,375,698 1,176,324 1,000,712
7 1.82 6,583,228 5,745,863 4,925,993 4,106,123 3,660,605 3,268,759 2.50 4,787,802 4,178,809 3,582,540 2,986,271 2,662,258 2,377,279 3.33 3,590,851 3,134,107 2,686,905 2,239,704 1,996,694 1,782,959
1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.82 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.50 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.82 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.50 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.82 181,744 0 0 0 0 0 2.50 132,177 0 0 0 0 0
4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.82 1,296,432 811,594 387,729 0 0 0 2.50 942,860 590,250 281,985 0 0 0
5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.82 2,636,306 2,051,675 1,539,096 990,605 698,166 434,820 2.50 1,917,314 1,492,127 1,119,343 720,440 507,757 316,233
6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.82 4,244,156 3,536,594 2,915,534 2,251,780 1,896,300 1,577,566 2.50 3,086,659 2,572,068 2,120,388 1,637,658 1,379,128 1,147,321
7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.82 6,173,575 5,314,567 4,557,964 3,750,951 3,317,643 2,929,497 2.50 4,489,873 3,865,139 3,314,883 2,727,964 2,412,831 2,130,543
Source: Adams Integra, February 2010 Value <= than lowest industrial value (c280,000) Value <= than lowest industrial value (c280,000) Value <= than agricultural value (c20,000)
KEY: Value between minimumand maximumindustrial value (280,001 to 475,000) Value between minimumand maximumindustrial value (280,001 to 475,000) Value between agricultural and minimumindustrial value (20,001 to 280,000)
Value >= Typical industrial value (475,000) Value >= Typical industrial value (475,000) Value between minimumand maximumindustrial value (280,001 to 475,000)
Value >= Typical industrial value (475,000)
Source: VOA Property Market Report July 2009
Culceth & Croft and South Warrington - Greenfield Sites
East Warrington, North & West Warrington, Culceth & Croft and South Warrington - Brownfield Sites
Warrington (Central) - Brownfield Sites
Table 1b: Summary of Residual Land Value ( per Ha) Appraisals for
All Value Points
Appendix II

Appendix IIa
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0
4 60,648 60,648 16,773 16,773 16,773
5 177,824 177,824 125,700 125,700 125,700
6 312,324 312,324 251,039 251,039 251,039
7 476,437 476,437 402,895 402,895 402,895
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0
4 0 0 0 0 0
5 67,868 67,868 20,834 20,834 20,834
6 178,022 178,022 123,380 123,380 123,380
7 304,739 304,739 243,970 243,970 243,970
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 21,404 0 0 0 0
4 246,877 203,441 99,810 55,935 55,935
5 502,322 456,484 332,616 281,545 281,545
6 817,446 756,793 608,457 547,804 547,804
7 1,194,014 1,121,230 940,417 867,634 867,634
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0
4 42,695 13,445 0 0 0
5 232,504 197,755 117,559 12,777 12,777
6 451,477 410,621 314,130 196,962 196,962
7 712,461 663,939 547,691 409,689 409,689
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 41,673 0 0 0 0
4 374,247 252,518 110,768 110,768 66,893
5 768,591 623,306 454,860 454,860 403,790
6 1,246,047 1,068,779 859,790 859,790 799,137
7 1,817,412 1,601,386 1,347,789 1,347,789 1,275,006
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0
4 89,256 0 0 0 0
5 368,934 238,000 123,111 123,111 76,077
6 700,464 539,253 407,523 407,523 352,775
7 1,102,865 909,411 744,641 744,641 679,621
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 45,120 0 0 0 0
4 581,393 457,244 254,397 169,347 126,751
5 1,228,823 1,073,338 831,728 725,809 676,242
6 2,004,957 1,817,123 1,524,323 1,395,969 1,336,489
7 2,933,587 2,705,755 2,351,154 2,194,698 2,123,322
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 75,478 0 0 0 0
4 1,123,007 824,299 468,076 291,328 151,212
5 2,386,708 2,026,651 1,591,086 1,380,383 1,209,651
6 3,902,011 3,467,585 2,939,747 2,685,747 2,478,068
7 5,716,620 5,190,327 4,549,139 4,241,692 3,989,675
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0
4 984,172 678,190 344,110 201,139 81,335
5 2,186,831 1,818,794 1,408,950 1,235,803 1,094,000
6 3,628,884 3,184,923 2,685,775 2,480,617 2,307,610
7 5,355,591 4,820,504 4,213,419 3,965,374 3,752,317
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0
4 413,641 0 0 0 0
5 2,149,711 1,500,697 821,194 389,927 95,431
6 4,238,564 3,459,016 2,642,149 2,119,804 1,765,920
7 6,743,667 5,806,716 4,823,490 4,196,676 3,770,523
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0
4 1,968,616 1,302,957 637,298 271,882 0
5 4,388,380 3,585,903 2,783,427 2,339,398 1,960,449
6 7,287,059 6,317,009 5,346,959 4,809,264 4,350,775
7 10,760,500 9,583,304 8,406,108 7,752,814 7,197,104
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0
4 1,695,112 1,058,877 414,229 38,797 0
5 3,995,266 3,228,098 2,445,711 1,996,400 1,642,823
6 6,750,414 5,822,735 4,876,792 4,331,226 3,904,715
7 10,051,619 8,925,267 7,777,000 7,113,812 6,596,924
All Value Points -
Appendix IIa
Appendix IIa
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
5,000,000
5,500,000
6,000,000
6,500,000
7,000,000
7,500,000
8,000,000
8,500,000
9,000,000
9,500,000
10,000,000
10,500,000
11,000,000
11,500,000
12,000,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5 Unit Housing
Scheme
5 Unit Flatted
Scheme
10 Unit Housing
Scheme
10 Unit Flatted
Scheme
15 Unit Housing
Scheme
15 Unit Flatted
Scheme
25 Unit Housing
Scheme
50 Unit Housing
Scheme
50 Unit Mixed
Scheme
100 Unit Flatted
Scheme
100 Unit Housing
Scheme
100 Unit Mixed
Scheme
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

L
a
n
d

V
a
l
u
e

(
)
Graph 2: Summary of Residual Land Values at 10%, 20%, 30%, 35% & 40% Affordable Housing
Residual Land Value - 10% Affordable Residual Land Value - 20% Affordable Residual Land Value - 30% Affordable Residual Land Value - 35% Affordable Residual Land Value - 40% Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 7.3% 7.3% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2%
5 18.0% 18.0% 14.0% 14.0% 14.0%
6 26.3% 26.3% 23.3% 23.3% 23.3%
7 33.6% 33.6% 31.3% 31.3% 31.3%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
5 8.7% 8.7% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%
6 19.1% 19.1% 14.8% 14.8% 14.8%
7 27.2% 27.2% 24.3% 24.3% 24.3%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 13.0% 11.1% 6.0% 3.5% 3.5%
5 22.0% 20.8% 16.6% 14.7% 14.7%
6 29.9% 28.8% 25.3% 23.9% 23.9%
7 36.4% 35.6% 32.7% 31.6% 31.6%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 3.2% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
5 14.5% 12.8% 8.3% 1.0% 1.0%
6 23.5% 22.2% 18.5% 13.0% 13.0%
7 30.9% 29.9% 26.9% 22.5% 22.5%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 13.1% 9.4% 4.5% 4.5% 2.8%
5 22.4% 19.4% 15.5% 15.5% 14.2%
6 30.2% 27.7% 24.4% 24.4% 23.4%
7 36.7% 34.7% 32.0% 32.0% 31.2%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 4.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
5 15.3% 10.7% 6.0% 6.0% 3.9%
6 24.2% 20.2% 16.7% 16.7% 15.1%
7 31.7% 28.4% 25.4% 25.4% 24.2%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 12.2% 10.0% 6.0% 4.2% 3.2%
5 21.5% 19.7% 16.5% 14.8% 14.1%
6 29.3% 27.8% 25.2% 23.8% 23.3%
7 35.7% 34.5% 32.4% 31.3% 30.9%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 11.6% 9.0% 5.5% 3.5% 1.9%
5 20.6% 18.4% 15.5% 14.0% 12.6%
6 28.0% 26.3% 23.9% 22.7% 21.6%
7 34.2% 32.9% 30.9% 29.9% 29.0%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 10.7% 7.8% 4.2% 2.6% 1.1%
5 19.8% 17.4% 14.5% 13.1% 11.9%
6 27.4% 25.5% 23.0% 21.9% 20.9%
7 33.7% 32.2% 30.1% 29.3% 28.5%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 3.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
5 12.9% 9.7% 5.7% 2.9% 0.7%
6 21.2% 18.5% 15.3% 13.0% 11.2%
7 28.1% 26.0% 23.3% 21.4% 20.0%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 10.2% 7.2% 3.8% 1.7% 0.0%
5 18.9% 16.5% 13.7% 12.0% 10.4%
6 26.2% 24.2% 22.0% 20.5% 19.3%
7 32.3% 30.7% 28.8% 27.7% 26.6%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 9.2% 6.1% 2.6% 0.3% 0.0%
5 18.1% 15.6% 12.7% 10.8% 9.2%
6 25.6% 23.5% 21.1% 19.5% 18.2%
7 31.7% 30.1% 28.1% 26.8% 25.8%
All Value Points
Appendix IIa
Appendix IIa
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
50.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5 Unit Housing
Scheme
5 Unit Flatted
Scheme
10 Unit Housing
Scheme
10 Unit Flatted
Scheme
15 Unit Housing
Scheme
15 Unit Flatted
Scheme
25 Unit Housing
Scheme
50 Unit Housing
Scheme
50 Unit Mixed
Scheme
100 Unit Flatted
Scheme
100 Unit Housing
Scheme
100 Unit Mixed
Scheme
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

L
a
n
d

V
a
l
u
e

(
%

o
f

G
D
V
)
Graph 2a: Summary of Residual Land Values (as % of GDV) at 10%, 20%, 30%, 35% & 40% Affordable Housing Across all Value Points
Residual Land Value - 10% Affordable Residual Land Value - 20% Affordable Residual Land Value - 30% Affordable Residual Land Value - 35% Affordable Residual Land Value - 40% Affordable
Threshold
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
Site Size
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
Site Size
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 0.09 0 0 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0 0 0.17 0 0 0 0 0
2 0.09 0 0 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0 0 0.17 0 0 0 0 0
3 0.09 0 0 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0 0 0.17 0 0 0 0 0
4 0.09 667,130 667,130 184,504 184,504 184,504 0.13 485,185 485,185 134,185 134,185 134,185 0.17 363,889 363,889 100,638 100,638 100,638
5 0.09 1,956,062 1,956,062 1,382,702 1,382,702 1,382,702 0.13 1,422,590 1,422,590 1,005,601 1,005,601 1,005,601 0.17 1,066,943 1,066,943 754,201 754,201 754,201
6 0.09 3,435,562 3,435,562 2,761,430 2,761,430 2,761,430 0.13 2,498,590 2,498,590 2,008,313 2,008,313 2,008,313 0.17 1,873,943 1,873,943 1,506,234 1,506,234 1,506,234
7 0.09 5,240,803 5,240,803 4,431,844 4,431,844 4,431,844 0.13 3,811,493 3,811,493 3,223,160 3,223,160 3,223,160 0.17 2,858,620 2,858,620 2,417,370 2,417,370 2,417,370
1 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
2 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
3 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
4 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
5 0.05 1,357,362 1,357,362 416,679 416,679 416,679 0.07 1,018,021 1,018,021 312,510 312,510 312,510 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
6 0.05 3,560,446 3,560,446 2,467,592 2,467,592 2,467,592 0.07 2,670,334 2,670,334 1,850,694 1,850,694 1,850,694 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
7 0.05 6,094,770 6,094,770 4,879,399 4,879,399 4,879,399 0.07 4,571,078 4,571,078 3,659,550 3,659,550 3,659,550 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
1 0.18 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0.33 0 0 0 0 0
2 0.18 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0.33 0 0 0 0 0
3 0.18 117,720 0 0 0 0 0.25 85,615 0 0 0 0 0.33 64,211 0 0 0 0
4 0.18 1,357,823 1,118,923 548,955 307,642 307,642 0.25 987,508 813,762 399,240 223,740 223,740 0.33 740,631 610,322 299,430 167,805 167,805
5 0.18 2,762,769 2,510,660 1,829,388 1,548,500 1,548,500 0.25 2,009,287 1,825,934 1,330,464 1,126,182 1,126,182 0.33 1,506,965 1,369,451 997,848 844,636 844,636
6 0.18 4,495,953 4,162,362 3,346,512 3,012,921 3,012,921 0.25 3,269,784 3,027,172 2,433,827 2,191,215 2,191,215 0.33 2,452,338 2,270,379 1,825,370 1,643,411 1,643,411
7 0.18 6,567,074 6,166,765 5,172,294 4,771,984 4,771,984 0.25 4,776,054 4,484,920 3,761,668 3,470,534 3,470,534 0.33 3,582,041 3,363,690 2,821,251 2,602,901 2,602,901
1 0.10 0 0 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
2 0.10 0 0 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
3 0.10 0 0 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
4 0.10 426,949 134,449 0 0 0 0.13 320,212 100,837 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
5 0.10 2,325,036 1,977,545 1,175,594 127,774 127,774 0.13 1,743,777 1,483,159 881,695 95,830 95,830 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
6 0.10 4,514,775 4,106,210 3,141,299 1,969,615 1,969,615 0.13 3,386,081 3,079,657 2,355,975 1,477,211 1,477,211 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
7 0.10 7,124,611 6,639,388 5,476,907 4,096,886 4,096,886 0.13 5,343,458 4,979,541 4,107,680 3,072,665 3,072,665 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.38 0 0 0 0 0 0.50 0 0 0 0 0
2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.38 0 0 0 0 0 0.50 0 0 0 0 0
3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.38 111,129 0 0 0 0 0.50 83,347 0 0 0 0
4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.38 997,993 673,382 295,380 295,380 178,380 0.50 748,495 505,037 221,535 221,535 133,785
5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.38 2,049,577 1,662,148 1,212,961 1,212,961 1,076,772 0.50 1,537,183 1,246,611 909,720 909,720 807,579
6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.38 3,322,792 2,850,078 2,292,773 2,292,773 2,131,032 0.50 2,492,094 2,137,559 1,719,580 1,719,580 1,598,274
7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.38 4,846,432 4,270,362 3,594,105 3,594,105 3,400,016 0.50 3,634,824 3,202,772 2,695,579 2,695,579 2,550,012
1 0.15 0 0 0 0 0 0.20 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
2 0.15 0 0 0 0 0 0.20 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
3 0.15 0 0 0 0 0 0.20 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
4 0.15 595,038 0 0 0 0 0.20 446,279 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
5 0.15 2,459,559 1,586,665 820,740 820,740 507,179 0.20 1,844,670 1,189,998 615,555 615,555 380,384 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
6 0.15 4,669,763 3,595,019 2,716,817 2,716,817 2,351,833 0.20 3,502,322 2,696,265 2,037,613 2,037,613 1,763,875 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
7 0.15 7,352,434 6,062,742 4,964,273 4,964,273 4,530,807 0.20 5,514,326 4,547,057 3,723,205 3,723,205 3,398,105 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0
2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0
3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 72,191 0 0 0 0 0.83 54,143 0 0 0 0
4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 930,230 731,590 407,034 270,956 202,802 0.83 697,672 548,692 305,276 203,217 152,101
5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 1,966,117 1,717,340 1,330,765 1,161,294 1,081,988 0.83 1,474,588 1,288,005 998,073 870,971 811,491
6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 3,207,931 2,907,396 2,438,916 2,233,550 2,138,382 0.83 2,405,948 2,180,547 1,829,187 1,675,162 1,603,786
7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 4,693,739 4,329,208 3,761,847 3,511,517 3,397,316 0.83 3,520,304 3,246,906 2,821,385 2,633,638 2,547,987
1 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 1.67 0 0 0 0 0
2 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 1.67 0 0 0 0 0
3 0.91 83,026 0 0 0 0 1.25 60,382 0 0 0 0 1.67 45,287 0 0 0 0
4 0.91 1,235,307 906,729 514,883 320,461 166,333 1.25 898,405 659,439 374,461 233,062 120,970 1.67 673,804 494,580 280,845 174,797 90,727
5 0.91 2,625,378 2,229,316 1,750,195 1,518,421 1,330,616 1.25 1,909,366 1,621,321 1,272,869 1,104,307 967,721 1.67 1,432,025 1,215,991 954,652 828,230 725,791
6 0.91 4,292,212 3,814,343 3,233,722 2,954,322 2,725,874 1.25 3,121,609 2,774,068 2,351,798 2,148,598 1,982,454 1.67 2,341,207 2,080,551 1,763,848 1,611,448 1,486,841
7 0.91 6,288,282 5,709,359 5,004,052 4,665,862 4,388,642 1.25 4,573,296 4,152,261 3,639,311 3,393,354 3,191,740 1.67 3,429,972 3,114,196 2,729,483 2,545,015 2,393,805
1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0
2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0
3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0
4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 1,082,590 746,009 378,521 221,253 89,468 1.25 787,338 542,552 275,288 160,911 65,068
5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 2,405,514 2,000,674 1,549,845 1,359,384 1,203,401 1.25 1,749,465 1,455,035 1,127,160 988,643 875,200
6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 3,991,772 3,503,415 2,954,353 2,728,679 2,538,371 1.25 2,903,107 2,547,938 2,148,620 1,984,494 1,846,088
7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 5,891,150 5,302,554 4,634,761 4,361,911 4,127,549 1.25 4,284,473 3,856,403 3,370,735 3,172,299 3,001,854
1 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
4 1.00 413,641 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
5 1.00 2,149,711 1,500,697 821,194 389,927 95,431 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
6 1.00 4,238,564 3,459,016 2,642,149 2,119,804 1,765,920 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
7 1.00 6,743,667 5,806,716 4,823,490 4,196,676 3,770,523 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
1 1.82 0 0 0 0 0 2.50 0 0 0 0 0 3.33 0 0 0 0 0
2 1.82 0 0 0 0 0 2.50 0 0 0 0 0 3.33 0 0 0 0 0
3 1.82 0 0 0 0 0 2.50 0 0 0 0 0 3.33 0 0 0 0 0
4 1.82 1,082,739 716,626 350,514 149,535 0 2.50 787,446 521,183 254,919 108,753 0 3.33 590,585 390,887 191,189 81,565 0
5 1.82 2,413,609 1,972,247 1,530,885 1,286,669 1,078,247 2.50 1,755,352 1,434,361 1,113,371 935,759 784,180 3.33 1,316,514 1,075,771 835,028 701,819 588,135
6 1.82 4,007,882 3,474,355 2,940,827 2,645,095 2,392,926 2.50 2,914,823 2,526,804 2,138,784 1,923,706 1,740,310 3.33 2,186,118 1,895,103 1,604,088 1,442,779 1,305,233
7 1.82 5,918,275 5,270,817 4,623,360 4,264,048 3,958,407 2.50 4,304,200 3,833,322 3,362,443 3,101,126 2,878,842 3.33 3,228,150 2,874,991 2,521,833 2,325,844 2,159,131
1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.82 0 0 0 0 0 2.50 0 0 0 0 0
2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.82 0 0 0 0 0 2.50 0 0 0 0 0
3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.82 0 0 0 0 0 2.50 0 0 0 0 0
4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.82 932,312 582,382 227,826 21,338 0 2.50 678,045 423,551 165,692 15,519 0
5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.82 2,197,397 1,775,454 1,345,141 1,098,020 903,552 2.50 1,598,107 1,291,239 978,284 798,560 657,129
6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.82 3,712,728 3,202,504 2,682,236 2,382,174 2,147,593 2.50 2,700,166 2,329,094 1,950,717 1,732,490 1,561,886
7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.82 5,528,390 4,908,897 4,277,350 3,912,597 3,628,308 2.50 4,020,648 3,570,107 3,110,800 2,845,525 2,638,769
East Warrington, North & West Warrington, Culceth & Croft and South Warrington -
Brownfield Sites
All Value Points
Appendix IIa

Appendix IIb
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 85,731 16,462 0 0 0
4 627,646 545,035 347,865 306,129 264,393
5 1,285,175 1,186,042 944,432 894,865 845,298
6 2,073,831 1,954,871 1,662,071 1,602,591 1,543,111
7 3,018,667 2,875,914 2,521,313 2,449,937 2,378,561
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 151,962 0 0 0 0
4 1,211,864 957,585 685,393 510,467 417,505
5 2,494,967 2,189,040 1,861,735 1,651,032 1,534,429
6 4,034,327 3,666,058 3,270,537 3,016,537 2,875,015
7 5,880,069 5,435,500 4,957,761 4,650,314 4,480,021
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 61,350 0 0 0 0
4 1,073,029 818,295 581,474 428,423 348,243
5 2,295,090 1,988,734 1,703,757 1,514,003 1,418,779
6 3,761,199 3,390,817 3,047,687 2,818,826 2,704,557
7 5,519,040 5,071,468 4,657,066 4,379,787 4,242,664
All Value Points -
Appendix IIb
Appendix IIb
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
5,000,000
5,500,000
6,000,000
6,500,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
25 Unit Housing Scheme 50 Unit Housing Scheme 50 Unit Mixed Scheme
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

L
a
n
d

V
a
l
u
e

(
)
Residual Land Value - 10% Affordable Residual Land Value - 20% Affordable Residual Land Value - 30% Affordable
Residual Land Value - 35% Affordable Residual Land Value - 40% Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 2.1% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 13.0% 11.7% 8.0% 7.2% 6.3%
5 22.2% 21.2% 18.2% 17.5% 16.9%
6 29.9% 29.1% 26.7% 26.2% 25.7%
7 36.3% 35.7% 33.7% 33.4% 33.0%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 12.4% 10.3% 7.7% 6.0% 5.0%
5 21.2% 19.5% 17.5% 16.1% 15.3%
6 28.6% 27.3% 25.7% 24.5% 23.9%
7 34.7% 33.7% 32.5% 31.6% 31.1%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 11.5% 9.2% 6.9% 5.2% 4.3%
5 20.5% 18.7% 16.8% 15.4% 14.7%
6 28.0% 26.5% 25.1% 23.9% 23.4%
7 34.2% 33.1% 31.9% 31.0% 30.6%
All Value Points
Appendix IIb
Appendix IIb
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
50.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

L
a
n
d

V
a
l
u
e

(
%

o
f

G
D
V
)
Graph 3a: Summary of Residual Land Values (as % of GDV) at 10%, 20%, 30%, 35% & 40% Affordable Housing
Across all Value Points
Threshold
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
Site Size
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
Site Size
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0
2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0
3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 137,169 26,339 0 0 0 0.83 102,877 19,754 0 0 0
4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 1,004,234 872,056 556,584 489,807 423,030 0.83 753,175 654,042 417,438 367,355 317,272
5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 2,056,280 1,897,667 1,511,091 1,431,784 1,352,478 0.83 1,542,210 1,423,250 1,133,318 1,073,838 1,014,358
6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 3,318,129 3,127,793 2,659,313 2,564,145 2,468,977 0.83 2,488,597 2,345,845 1,994,485 1,923,109 1,851,733
7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 4,829,867 4,601,463 4,034,101 3,919,900 3,805,698 0.83 3,622,400 3,451,097 3,025,576 2,939,925 2,854,273
1 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 1.67 0 0 0 0 0
2 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 1.67 0 0 0 0 0
3 0.91 167,158 0 0 0 0 1.25 121,569 0 0 0 0 1.67 91,177 0 0 0 0
4 0.91 1,333,050 1,053,343 753,932 561,514 459,255 1.25 969,491 766,068 548,314 408,374 334,004 1.67 727,118 574,551 411,236 306,280 250,503
5 0.91 2,744,464 2,407,944 2,047,908 1,816,135 1,687,872 1.25 1,995,974 1,751,232 1,489,388 1,320,825 1,227,543 1.67 1,496,980 1,313,424 1,117,041 990,619 920,658
6 0.91 4,437,760 4,032,664 3,597,590 3,318,190 3,162,516 1.25 3,227,462 2,932,847 2,616,429 2,413,229 2,300,012 1.67 2,420,596 2,199,635 1,962,322 1,809,922 1,725,009
7 0.91 6,468,076 5,979,050 5,453,537 5,115,346 4,928,024 1.25 4,704,055 4,348,400 3,966,209 3,720,252 3,584,017 1.67 3,528,041 3,261,300 2,974,656 2,790,189 2,688,013
1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0
2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0
3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 67,485 0 0 0 0 1.25 49,080 0 0 0 0
4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 1,180,332 900,125 639,621 471,265 383,067 1.25 858,423 654,636 465,179 342,738 278,594
5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 2,524,599 2,187,608 1,874,132 1,665,403 1,560,657 1.25 1,836,072 1,590,987 1,363,005 1,211,202 1,135,023
6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 4,137,319 3,729,898 3,352,456 3,100,709 2,975,013 1.25 3,008,959 2,712,653 2,438,150 2,255,061 2,163,646
7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 6,070,944 5,578,615 5,122,772 4,817,765 4,666,930 1.25 4,415,232 4,057,174 3,725,653 3,503,829 3,394,131
Brownfield Sites Culceth & Croft and South Warrington - Greenfield Sites
All Value Points
Appendix IIb

Appendix IIc
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0
4 379,301 206,533 0 0 0
5 1,012,721 800,883 502,922 401,138 294,116
6 1,776,333 1,519,625 1,157,951 1,029,597 901,242
7 2,688,757 2,375,846 1,936,165 1,779,709 1,623,254
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0
4 727,250 343,224 0 0 0
5 1,971,548 1,503,232 959,408 694,575 474,606
6 3,462,796 2,896,053 2,235,900 1,915,742 1,641,905
7 5,246,271 4,556,529 3,751,892 3,362,721 3,028,980
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0
4 581,596 173,241 0 0 0
5 1,764,121 1,265,489 756,441 482,671 282,096
6 3,182,248 2,578,730 1,963,549 1,633,869 1,387,284
7 4,879,452 4,147,447 3,400,357 3,002,094 2,701,523
All Value Points -
Appendix IIc
Appendix IIc
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
5,000,000
5,500,000
6,000,000
6,500,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

L
a
n
d

V
a
l
u
e

(
)
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 8.1% 4.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
5 18.0% 15.1% 10.4% 8.6% 6.5%
6 26.3% 23.9% 20.0% 18.4% 16.7%
7 33.2% 31.2% 28.0% 26.6% 25.2%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 7.6% 3.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
5 17.2% 14.1% 9.8% 7.4% 5.3%
6 25.2% 22.6% 19.0% 17.1% 15.2%
7 31.8% 29.7% 26.7% 25.1% 23.5%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 6.4% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
5 16.2% 12.5% 8.1% 5.5% 3.3%
6 24.3% 21.3% 17.7% 15.4% 13.6%
7 31.1% 28.6% 25.5% 23.7% 22.2%
All Value Points
Appendix IIc
Appendix IIc
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
50.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

L
a
n
d

V
a
l
u
e

(
%

o
f

G
D
V
)
Threshold
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
Site Size
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
Site Size
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0
2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0
3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0
4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 606,882 330,453 0 0 0 0.83 455,161 247,840 0 0 0
5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 1,620,354 1,281,413 804,675 641,821 470,586 0.83 1,215,265 961,060 603,506 481,366 352,939
6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 2,842,133 2,431,399 1,852,721 1,647,355 1,441,988 0.83 2,131,599 1,823,550 1,389,541 1,235,516 1,081,491
7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 4,302,012 3,801,353 3,097,864 2,847,535 2,597,206 0.83 3,226,509 2,851,015 2,323,398 2,135,651 1,947,904
1 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 1.67 0 0 0 0 0
2 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 1.67 0 0 0 0 0
3 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 1.67 0 0 0 0 0
4 0.91 417,231 227,187 0 0 0 1.25 581,800 274,579 0 0 0 1.67 436,350 205,934 0 0 0
5 0.91 1,113,993 880,972 553,214 441,252 323,528 1.25 1,577,239 1,202,586 767,526 555,660 379,685 1.67 1,182,929 901,939 575,645 416,745 284,764
6 0.91 1,953,966 1,671,587 1,273,746 1,132,556 991,367 1.25 2,770,236 2,316,843 1,788,720 1,532,594 1,313,524 1.67 2,077,677 1,737,632 1,341,540 1,149,445 985,143
7 0.91 2,957,633 2,613,430 2,129,782 1,957,680 1,785,579 1.25 4,197,017 3,645,223 3,001,514 2,690,177 2,423,184 1.67 3,147,763 2,733,917 2,251,135 2,017,633 1,817,388
1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0
2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0
3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0
4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 639,756 190,565 0 0 0 1.25 465,277 138,593 0 0 0
5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 1,940,533 1,392,038 832,085 530,939 310,306 1.25 1,411,296 1,012,391 605,153 386,137 225,677
6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 3,500,473 2,836,603 2,159,904 1,797,256 1,526,013 1.25 2,545,798 2,062,984 1,570,839 1,307,095 1,109,827
7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 5,367,397 4,562,192 3,740,393 3,302,304 2,971,675 1.25 3,903,561 3,317,958 2,720,286 2,401,675 2,161,218
Brownfield Sites
All Value Points
Appendix IIc
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0
4 426,036 295,829 95,858 4,652 0
5 1,069,073 913,588 671,978 566,059 516,492
6 1,845,207 1,657,373 1,364,573 1,236,219 1,176,739
7 2,773,837 2,546,005 2,191,404 2,034,948 1,963,572
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0
4 816,107 517,399 161,236 0 0
5 2,079,808 1,719,751 1,284,186 1,073,483 902,751
6 3,595,111 3,160,685 2,632,847 2,378,847 2,171,168
7 5,409,720 4,883,427 4,242,239 3,934,792 3,682,775
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0
4 677,272 375,158 35,065 0 0
5 1,879,931 1,511,894 1,102,050 928,903 787,100
6 3,321,984 2,878,023 2,378,875 2,173,717 2,000,710
7 5,048,691 4,513,604 3,906,519 3,658,474 3,445,417
All Value Points -
Appendix IIc
Appendix IIc
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
5,000,000
5,500,000
6,000,000
6,500,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

L
a
n
d

V
a
l
u
e

(
)
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 8.9% 6.5% 2.3% 0.1% 0.0%
5 18.7% 16.7% 13.3% 11.6% 10.8%
6 26.9% 25.3% 22.5% 21.1% 20.5%
7 33.8% 32.5% 30.2% 29.0% 28.5%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 8.4% 5.6% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0%
5 17.9% 15.7% 12.5% 10.9% 9.4%
6 25.8% 24.0% 21.4% 20.1% 18.9%
7 32.4% 30.9% 28.8% 27.7% 26.8%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 7.3% 4.3% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0%
5 17.0% 14.5% 11.3% 9.8% 8.6%
6 25.0% 23.0% 20.4% 19.2% 18.2%
7 31.7% 30.1% 27.9% 27.0% 26.1%
All Value Points
Appendix IIc
Appendix IIc
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
50.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

L
a
n
d

V
a
l
u
e

(
%

o
f

G
D
V
)
Threshold
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
Site Size
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
Site Size
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0
2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0
3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0
4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 681,657 473,327 153,373 7,443 0 0.83 511,243 354,995 115,030 5,582 0
5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 1,710,517 1,461,740 1,075,165 905,694 826,388 0.83 1,282,888 1,096,305 806,373 679,271 619,791
6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 2,952,331 2,651,796 2,183,316 1,977,950 1,882,782 0.83 2,214,248 1,988,847 1,637,487 1,483,462 1,412,086
7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 4,438,139 4,073,608 3,506,247 3,255,917 3,141,716 0.83 3,328,604 3,055,206 2,629,685 2,441,938 2,356,287
1 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 1.67 0 0 0 0 0
2 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 1.67 0 0 0 0 0
3 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 1.67 0 0 0 0 0
4 0.91 897,717 569,139 177,360 0 0 1.25 652,885 413,919 128,989 0 0 1.67 489,664 310,440 96,742 0 0
5 0.91 2,287,788 1,891,726 1,412,605 1,180,831 993,026 1.25 1,663,846 1,375,801 1,027,349 858,787 722,201 1.67 1,247,885 1,031,851 770,512 644,090 541,651
6 0.91 3,954,622 3,476,753 2,896,132 2,616,732 2,388,284 1.25 2,876,089 2,528,548 2,106,278 1,903,078 1,736,934 1.67 2,157,067 1,896,411 1,579,708 1,427,308 1,302,701
7 0.91 5,950,692 5,371,769 4,666,462 4,328,272 4,051,052 1.25 4,327,776 3,906,741 3,393,791 3,147,834 2,946,220 1.67 3,245,832 2,930,056 2,545,343 2,360,875 2,209,665
1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0
2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0
3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0
4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 745,000 412,674 38,572 0 0 1.25 541,818 300,126 28,052 0 0
5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 2,067,924 1,663,084 1,212,255 1,021,794 865,811 1.25 1,503,945 1,209,515 881,640 743,123 629,680
6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 3,654,182 3,165,825 2,616,763 2,391,089 2,200,781 1.25 2,657,587 2,302,418 1,903,100 1,738,974 1,600,568
7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 5,553,560 4,964,964 4,297,171 4,024,321 3,789,959 1.25 4,038,953 3,610,883 3,125,215 2,926,779 2,756,334
Brownfield Sites
All Value Points
Appendix IIc
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0
4 472,770 389,298 190,296 147,699 106,164
5 1,125,425 1,026,292 784,682 735,115 685,548
6 1,914,081 1,795,121 1,502,321 1,442,841 1,383,361
7 2,858,917 2,716,164 2,361,563 2,290,187 2,218,811
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0
4 904,964 650,685 382,435 209,928 110,730
5 2,188,067 1,882,140 1,554,835 1,344,132 1,227,529
6 3,727,427 3,359,158 2,963,637 2,709,637 2,568,115
7 5,573,169 5,128,600 4,650,861 4,343,414 4,173,121
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0
4 766,129 511,395 277,434 121,985 39,326
5 1,988,190 1,681,834 1,396,857 1,207,103 1,111,879
6 3,454,299 3,083,917 2,740,787 2,511,926 2,397,657
7 5,212,140 4,764,568 4,350,166 4,072,887 3,935,764
All Value Points -
Appendix IIc
Appendix IIc
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
5,000,000
5,500,000
6,000,000
6,500,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

L
a
n
d

V
a
l
u
e

(
)
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 9.8% 8.3% 4.4% 3.5% 2.5%
5 19.5% 18.3% 15.1% 14.4% 13.7%
6 27.6% 26.7% 24.1% 23.6% 23.0%
7 34.3% 33.7% 31.6% 31.2% 30.8%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 9.2% 7.0% 4.3% 2.5% 1.3%
5 18.6% 16.8% 14.6% 13.1% 12.2%
6 26.4% 25.0% 23.3% 22.0% 21.4%
7 32.9% 31.8% 30.5% 29.5% 28.9%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 8.2% 5.8% 3.3% 1.5% 0.5%
5 17.7% 15.8% 13.8% 12.3% 11.5%
6 25.7% 24.1% 22.5% 21.3% 20.8%
7 32.3% 31.1% 29.8% 28.9% 28.4%
All Value Points
Appendix IIc
Appendix IIc
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
50.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

L
a
n
d

V
a
l
u
e

(
%

o
f

G
D
V
)
Threshold
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
Site Size
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
Site Size
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0
2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0
3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0
4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 756,432 622,877 304,473 236,319 169,863 0.83 567,324 467,158 228,355 177,239 127,397
5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 1,800,680 1,642,067 1,255,491 1,176,184 1,096,878 0.83 1,350,510 1,231,550 941,618 882,138 822,658
6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 3,062,529 2,872,193 2,403,713 2,308,545 2,213,377 0.83 2,296,897 2,154,145 1,802,785 1,731,409 1,660,033
7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 4,574,267 4,345,863 3,778,501 3,664,300 3,550,098 0.83 3,430,700 3,259,397 2,833,876 2,748,225 2,662,573
1 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 1.67 0 0 0 0 0
2 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 1.67 0 0 0 0 0
3 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 1.67 0 0 0 0 0
4 0.91 995,460 715,753 420,679 230,921 121,803 1.25 723,971 520,548 305,948 167,943 88,584 1.67 542,978 390,411 229,461 125,957 66,438
5 0.91 2,406,874 2,070,354 1,710,318 1,478,545 1,350,282 1.25 1,750,454 1,505,712 1,243,868 1,075,305 982,023 1.67 1,312,840 1,129,284 932,901 806,479 736,518
6 0.91 4,100,170 3,695,074 3,260,000 2,980,600 2,824,926 1.25 2,981,942 2,687,327 2,370,909 2,167,709 2,054,492 1.67 2,236,456 2,015,495 1,778,182 1,625,782 1,540,869
7 0.91 6,130,486 5,641,460 5,115,947 4,777,756 4,590,434 1.25 4,458,535 4,102,880 3,720,689 3,474,732 3,338,497 1.67 3,343,901 3,077,160 2,790,516 2,606,049 2,503,873
1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0
2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0
3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0
4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 842,742 562,535 305,177 134,184 43,258 1.25 612,903 409,116 221,947 97,588 31,460
5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 2,187,009 1,850,018 1,536,542 1,327,813 1,223,067 1.25 1,590,552 1,345,467 1,117,485 965,682 889,503
6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 3,799,729 3,392,308 3,014,866 2,763,119 2,637,423 1.25 2,763,439 2,467,133 2,192,630 2,009,541 1,918,126
7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 5,733,354 5,241,025 4,785,182 4,480,175 4,329,340 1.25 4,169,712 3,811,654 3,480,133 3,258,309 3,148,611
Brownfield Sites
All Value Points
Appendix IIc

Appendix IId
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0
4 167,466 0 0 0 0
5 799,721 587,883 292,942 189,753 81,338
6 1,563,333 1,306,625 944,951 816,597 688,242
7 2,475,757 2,162,846 1,723,165 1,566,709 1,410,254
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0
4 321,363 0 0 0 0
5 1,562,348 1,094,032 550,208 288,348 63,034
6 3,053,596 2,486,853 1,826,700 1,506,542 1,232,705
7 4,837,071 4,147,329 3,342,692 2,953,521 2,619,780
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0
4 177,784 0 0 0 0
5 1,354,921 856,289 350,858 76,533 0
6 2,773,048 2,169,530 1,554,349 1,224,669 978,084
7 4,470,252 3,738,247 2,991,157 2,592,894 2,292,323
All Value Points -
Appendix IId
Appendix IId
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
5,000,000
5,500,000
6,000,000
6,500,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

L
a
n
d

V
a
l
u
e

(
)
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 3.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
5 14.2% 11.1% 6.1% 4.1% 1.8%
6 23.1% 20.5% 16.3% 14.6% 12.8%
7 30.5% 28.4% 24.9% 23.4% 21.9%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 3.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
5 13.6% 10.2% 5.6% 3.1% 0.7%
6 22.2% 19.4% 15.5% 13.4% 11.4%
7 29.3% 27.0% 23.8% 22.0% 20.3%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
5 12.4% 8.5% 3.8% 0.9% 0.0%
6 21.2% 17.9% 14.0% 11.6% 9.6%
7 28.5% 25.8% 22.5% 20.5% 18.8%
All Value Points
Appendix IId
Appendix IId
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
50.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

L
a
n
d

V
a
l
u
e

(
%

o
f

G
D
V
)
Threshold
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
Site Size
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
Site Size
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0
2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0
3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0
4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 267,945 0 0 0 0 0.83 200,959 0 0 0 0
5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 1,279,554 940,613 468,707 303,605 130,140 0.83 959,665 705,460 351,530 227,703 97,605
6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 2,501,333 2,090,599 1,511,921 1,306,555 1,101,188 0.83 1,875,999 1,567,950 1,133,941 979,916 825,891
7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 3,961,212 3,460,553 2,757,064 2,506,735 2,256,406 0.83 2,970,909 2,595,415 2,067,798 1,880,051 1,692,304
1 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 1.67 0 0 0 0 0
2 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 1.67 0 0 0 0 0
3 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 1.67 0 0 0 0 0
4 0.91 353,499 0 0 0 0 1.25 257,090 0 0 0 0 1.67 192,818 0 0 0 0
5 0.91 1,718,583 1,203,435 605,228 317,182 69,338 1.25 1,249,879 875,226 440,166 230,678 50,428 1.67 937,409 656,419 330,125 173,009 37,821
6 0.91 3,358,955 2,735,538 2,009,370 1,657,196 1,355,975 1.25 2,442,876 1,989,483 1,461,360 1,205,234 986,164 1.67 1,832,157 1,492,112 1,096,020 903,925 739,623
7 0.91 5,320,778 4,562,062 3,676,961 3,248,874 2,881,758 1.25 3,869,657 3,317,863 2,674,154 2,362,817 2,095,824 1.67 2,902,243 2,488,397 2,005,615 1,772,113 1,571,868
1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0
2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0
3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0
4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 195,562 0 0 0 0 1.25 142,227 0 0 0 0
5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 1,490,413 941,918 385,944 84,186 0 1.25 1,083,936 685,031 280,687 61,226 0
6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 3,050,353 2,386,483 1,709,784 1,347,136 1,075,893 1.25 2,218,438 1,735,624 1,243,479 979,735 782,467
7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 4,917,277 4,112,072 3,290,273 2,852,184 2,521,555 1.25 3,576,201 2,990,598 2,392,926 2,074,315 1,833,858
KEY: Value between minimum and maximum industrial value (280,001 to 475,000) Value between minimum and maximum industrial value (280,001 to 475,000) Value between agricultural and minimum industrial value (20,001 to 280,000)
Value >= Typical industrial value (475,000) Value >= Typical industrial value (475,000) Value between minimum and maximum industrial value (280,001 to 475,000)
Brownfield Sites
All Value Points
Appendix IId
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0
4 215,164 83,104 0 0 0
5 856,073 700,588 463,759 356,737 306,654
6 1,632,207 1,444,373 1,151,573 1,023,219 963,739
7 2,560,837 2,333,005 1,978,404 1,821,948 1,750,572
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0
4 411,145 112,707 0 0 0
5 1,670,608 1,310,551 874,986 664,283 493,551
6 3,185,911 2,751,485 2,223,647 1,969,647 1,761,968
7 5,000,520 4,474,227 3,833,039 3,525,592 3,273,575
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0
4 270,865 0 0 0 0
5 1,470,731 1,102,694 692,850 519,703 381,837
6 2,912,784 2,468,823 1,969,675 1,764,517 1,591,510
7 4,639,491 4,104,404 3,497,319 3,249,274 3,036,217
All Value Points -
Appendix IId
Appendix IId
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
5,000,000
5,500,000
6,000,000
6,500,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

L
a
n
d

V
a
l
u
e

(
)
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 4.5% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
5 15.0% 12.8% 9.2% 7.3% 6.4%
6 23.8% 22.1% 19.0% 17.5% 16.8%
7 31.2% 29.7% 27.3% 26.0% 25.4%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 4.2% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
5 14.4% 11.9% 8.5% 6.7% 5.1%
6 22.9% 20.9% 18.1% 16.6% 15.3%
7 29.9% 28.3% 26.0% 24.9% 23.8%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
5 13.3% 10.6% 7.1% 5.5% 4.2%
6 22.0% 19.7% 16.9% 15.6% 14.4%
7 29.2% 27.4% 25.0% 24.0% 23.0%
All Value Points
Appendix IId
Appendix IId
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
50.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

L
a
n
d

V
a
l
u
e

(
%

o
f

G
D
V
)
Threshold
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
Site Size
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
Site Size
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0
2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0
3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0
4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 344,262 132,966 0 0 0 0.83 258,196 99,725 0 0 0
5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 1,369,717 1,120,940 742,014 570,779 490,646 0.83 1,027,288 840,705 556,511 428,084 367,984
6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 2,611,531 2,310,996 1,842,516 1,637,150 1,541,982 0.83 1,958,648 1,733,247 1,381,887 1,227,862 1,156,486
7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 4,097,339 3,732,808 3,165,447 2,915,117 2,800,916 0.83 3,073,004 2,799,606 2,374,085 2,186,338 2,100,687
1 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 1.67 0 0 0 0 0
2 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 1.67 0 0 0 0 0
3 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 1.67 0 0 0 0 0
4 0.91 452,260 123,978 0 0 0 1.25 328,916 90,166 0 0 0 1.67 246,687 67,624 0 0 0
5 0.91 1,837,668 1,441,606 962,485 730,711 542,906 1.25 1,336,486 1,048,441 699,989 531,427 394,841 1.67 1,002,365 786,331 524,992 398,570 296,131
6 0.91 3,504,502 3,026,633 2,446,012 2,166,612 1,938,164 1.25 2,548,729 2,201,188 1,778,918 1,575,718 1,409,574 1.67 1,911,547 1,650,891 1,334,188 1,181,788 1,057,181
7 0.91 5,500,572 4,921,649 4,216,342 3,878,152 3,600,932 1.25 4,000,416 3,579,381 3,066,431 2,820,474 2,618,860 1.67 3,000,312 2,684,536 2,299,823 2,115,355 1,964,145
1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0
2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0
3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0
4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 297,951 0 0 0 0 1.25 216,692 0 0 0 0
5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 1,617,804 1,212,964 762,135 571,674 420,021 1.25 1,176,585 882,155 554,280 415,763 305,470
6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 3,204,062 2,715,705 2,166,643 1,940,969 1,750,661 1.25 2,330,227 1,975,058 1,575,740 1,411,614 1,273,208
7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 5,103,440 4,514,844 3,847,051 3,574,201 3,339,839 1.25 3,711,593 3,283,523 2,797,855 2,599,419 2,428,974
Brownfield Sites
All Value Points
Appendix IId
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0
4 257,551 177,669 0 0 0
5 912,425 813,292 571,682 522,115 477,471
6 1,701,081 1,582,121 1,289,321 1,229,841 1,170,361
7 2,645,917 2,503,164 2,148,563 2,077,187 2,005,811
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0
4 495,764 244,000 0 0 0
5 1,778,867 1,472,940 1,145,635 934,932 818,329
6 3,318,227 2,949,958 2,554,437 2,300,437 2,158,915
7 5,163,969 4,719,400 4,241,661 3,934,214 3,763,921
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0
4 360,647 106,453 0 0 0
5 1,578,990 1,272,634 987,657 797,903 702,679
6 3,045,099 2,674,717 2,331,587 2,102,726 1,988,457
7 4,802,940 4,355,368 3,940,966 3,663,687 3,526,564
All Value Points -
Appendix IId
Appendix IId
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
5,000,000
5,500,000
6,000,000
6,500,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

L
a
n
d

V
a
l
u
e

(
)
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 5.3% 3.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
5 15.8% 14.5% 11.0% 10.2% 9.5%
6 24.5% 23.5% 20.7% 20.1% 19.5%
7 31.8% 31.0% 28.8% 28.3% 27.8%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 5.1% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
5 15.1% 13.1% 10.8% 9.1% 8.2%
6 23.5% 21.9% 20.1% 18.7% 17.9%
7 30.5% 29.3% 27.8% 26.7% 26.1%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 3.9% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
5 14.1% 11.9% 9.7% 8.1% 7.3%
6 22.7% 20.9% 19.2% 17.9% 17.2%
7 29.8% 28.4% 27.0% 26.0% 25.5%
All Value Points
Appendix IId
Appendix IId
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
50.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

L
a
n
d

V
a
l
u
e

(
%

o
f

G
D
V
)
Threshold
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
Site Size
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
Site Size
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0
2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0
3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0
4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 412,082 284,270 0 0 0 0.83 309,061 213,202 0 0 0
5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 1,459,880 1,301,267 914,691 835,384 763,953 0.83 1,094,910 975,950 686,018 626,538 572,965
6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 2,721,729 2,531,393 2,062,913 1,967,745 1,872,577 0.83 2,041,297 1,898,545 1,547,185 1,475,809 1,404,433
7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 4,233,467 4,005,063 3,437,701 3,323,500 3,209,298 0.83 3,175,100 3,003,797 2,578,276 2,492,625 2,406,973
1 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 1.67 0 0 0 0 0
2 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 1.67 0 0 0 0 0
3 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 1.67 0 0 0 0 0
4 0.91 545,340 268,400 0 0 0 1.25 396,611 195,200 0 0 0 1.67 297,458 146,400 0 0 0
5 0.91 1,956,754 1,620,234 1,260,198 1,028,425 900,162 1.25 1,423,094 1,178,352 916,508 747,945 654,663 1.67 1,067,320 883,764 687,381 560,959 490,998
6 0.91 3,650,050 3,244,954 2,809,880 2,530,480 2,374,806 1.25 2,654,582 2,359,967 2,043,549 1,840,349 1,727,132 1.67 1,990,936 1,769,975 1,532,662 1,380,262 1,295,349
7 0.91 5,680,366 5,191,340 4,665,827 4,327,636 4,140,314 1.25 4,131,175 3,775,520 3,393,329 3,147,372 3,011,137 1.67 3,098,381 2,831,640 2,544,996 2,360,529 2,258,353
1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0
2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0
3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0
4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 396,712 117,099 0 0 0 1.25 288,518 85,163 0 0 0
5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 1,736,889 1,399,898 1,086,422 877,693 772,947 1.25 1,263,192 1,018,107 790,125 638,322 562,143
6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 3,349,609 2,942,188 2,564,746 2,312,999 2,187,303 1.25 2,436,079 2,139,773 1,865,270 1,682,181 1,590,766
7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 5,283,234 4,790,905 4,335,062 4,030,055 3,879,220 1.25 3,842,352 3,484,294 3,152,773 2,930,949 2,821,251
Brownfield Sites
All Value Points
Appendix IId

Appendix IIe
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 64,020 0 0 0 0
4 596,921 467,648 269,466 205,880 136,738
5 1,239,230 1,071,899 829,992 746,326 662,661
6 1,991,047 1,787,007 1,492,857 1,390,837 1,288,817
7 2,914,464 2,664,755 2,306,102 2,181,248 2,056,393
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 92,887 0 0 0 0
4 1,132,898 833,839 482,444 315,442 170,398
5 2,385,326 2,013,863 1,576,659 1,365,928 1,183,559
6 3,873,083 3,398,054 2,865,028 2,585,992 2,386,484
7 5,677,237 5,097,550 4,445,465 4,105,641 3,861,095
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0
4 958,997 610,805 262,659 61,161 0
5 2,147,251 1,720,056 1,287,239 1,042,412 881,680
6 3,556,214 3,038,312 2,490,197 2,171,802 1,975,809
7 5,266,831 4,637,566 3,970,954 3,586,235 3,346,373
All Value Points -
With Grant
Appendix IIe
Appendix IIe
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
5,000,000
5,500,000
6,000,000
6,500,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

L
a
n
d

V
a
l
u
e

(
)
With Grant
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 12.5% 10.2% 6.4% 5.0% 3.4%
5 21.6% 19.6% 16.4% 15.2% 13.9%
6 29.1% 27.5% 24.8% 23.8% 22.7%
7 35.6% 34.2% 32.1% 31.2% 30.3%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 11.7% 9.1% 5.6% 3.8% 2.1%
5 20.5% 18.4% 15.4% 13.8% 12.4%
6 27.9% 26.0% 23.5% 22.1% 21.0%
7 34.1% 32.5% 30.5% 29.3% 28.4%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 10.4% 7.1% 3.3% 0.8% 0.0%
5 19.5% 16.7% 13.4% 11.4% 9.9%
6 27.0% 24.7% 21.8% 19.9% 18.7%
7 33.4% 31.4% 29.1% 27.5% 26.5%
All Value Points
With Grant
Appendix IIe
Appendix IIe
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
50.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

L
a
n
d

V
a
l
u
e

(
%

o
f

G
D
V
)
With Grant
Threshold
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
Site Size
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
Site Size
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0
2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0
3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 102,432 0 0 0 0 0.83 76,824 0 0 0 0
4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 955,074 748,237 431,146 329,408 218,780 0.83 716,306 561,178 323,360 247,056 164,085
5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 1,982,769 1,715,039 1,327,987 1,194,122 1,060,257 0.83 1,487,077 1,286,279 995,991 895,592 795,193
6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 3,185,675 2,859,211 2,388,571 2,225,339 2,062,107 0.83 2,389,256 2,144,409 1,791,428 1,669,004 1,546,580
7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 4,663,143 4,263,608 3,689,764 3,489,996 3,290,229 0.83 3,497,357 3,197,706 2,767,323 2,617,497 2,467,671
1 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 1.67 0 0 0 0 0
2 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 1.67 0 0 0 0 0
3 0.91 102,176 0 0 0 0 1.25 74,310 0 0 0 0 1.67 55,732 0 0 0 0
4 0.91 1,246,188 917,223 530,688 346,986 187,437 1.25 906,319 667,071 385,955 252,354 136,318 1.67 679,739 500,303 289,466 189,265 102,239
5 0.91 2,623,859 2,215,249 1,734,324 1,502,520 1,301,915 1.25 1,908,261 1,611,090 1,261,327 1,092,742 946,847 1.67 1,431,196 1,208,318 945,995 819,557 710,136
6 0.91 4,260,392 3,737,859 3,151,531 2,844,591 2,625,133 1.25 3,098,467 2,718,443 2,292,022 2,068,793 1,909,188 1.67 2,323,850 2,038,832 1,719,017 1,551,595 1,431,891
7 0.91 6,244,960 5,607,305 4,890,012 4,516,205 4,247,205 1.25 4,541,789 4,078,040 3,556,372 3,284,512 3,088,876 1.67 3,406,342 3,058,530 2,667,279 2,463,384 2,316,657
1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0
2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0
3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0
4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 1,054,897 671,885 288,925 67,278 0 1.25 767,198 488,644 210,127 48,929 0
5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 2,361,977 1,892,061 1,415,963 1,146,653 969,848 1.25 1,717,801 1,376,045 1,029,791 833,930 705,344
6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 3,911,835 3,342,143 2,739,217 2,388,983 2,173,390 1.25 2,844,971 2,430,650 1,992,157 1,737,442 1,580,647
7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 5,793,514 5,101,322 4,368,050 3,944,858 3,681,010 1.25 4,213,465 3,710,052 3,176,763 2,868,988 2,677,098
Brownfield Sites
All Value Points
Planning Infrastructure Level 2,500 - With Grant
Appendix IIe
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 92,041 9,405 0 0 0
4 632,510 534,004 377,344 309,599 277,813
5 1,285,146 1,163,730 967,739 884,073 846,323
6 2,047,767 1,900,447 1,663,016 1,560,996 1,515,696
7 2,984,959 2,805,744 2,517,586 2,392,731 2,338,371
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 145,251 0 0 0 0
4 1,201,268 970,579 687,555 551,486 443,285
5 2,473,536 2,190,282 1,841,287 1,674,661 1,536,398
6 3,982,049 3,615,986 3,191,925 2,967,372 2,822,348
7 5,812,666 5,368,408 4,851,752 4,579,642 4,402,811
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 51,475 0 0 0 0
4 1,058,272 791,823 509,234 421,821 357,442
5 2,268,665 1,946,526 1,598,840 1,484,452 1,401,028
6 3,702,928 3,314,748 2,866,581 2,707,940 2,604,179
7 5,444,445 4,976,294 4,430,386 4,238,162 4,108,200
All Value Points -
With Grant
Appendix IIe
Appendix IIe
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
5,000,000
5,500,000
6,000,000
6,500,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

L
a
n
d

V
a
l
u
e

(
)
With Grant
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 2.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 13.1% 11.5% 8.6% 7.3% 6.6%
5 22.2% 20.9% 18.5% 17.4% 16.9%
6 29.6% 28.6% 26.7% 25.7% 25.4%
7 36.0% 35.2% 33.7% 32.9% 32.7%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 12.3% 10.4% 7.8% 6.4% 5.3%
5 21.1% 19.5% 17.4% 16.3% 15.3%
6 28.4% 27.0% 25.3% 24.3% 23.6%
7 34.5% 33.5% 32.1% 31.3% 30.8%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 11.4% 9.0% 6.1% 5.2% 4.4%
5 20.3% 18.4% 16.0% 15.2% 14.6%
6 27.7% 26.1% 24.1% 23.3% 22.8%
7 34.0% 32.7% 31.0% 30.4% 30.1%
All Value Points
With Grant
Appendix IIe
Appendix IIe
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
50.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

L
a
n
d

V
a
l
u
e

(
%

o
f

G
D
V
)
With Grant
Threshold
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
Site Size
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
Site Size
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0
2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0
3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 147,265 15,048 0 0 0 0.83 110,449 11,286 0 0 0
4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 1,012,016 854,407 603,751 495,358 444,500 0.83 759,012 640,805 452,813 371,519 333,375
5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 2,056,234 1,861,968 1,548,382 1,414,517 1,354,117 0.83 1,542,175 1,396,476 1,161,287 1,060,888 1,015,588
6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 3,276,427 3,040,715 2,660,826 2,497,594 2,425,114 0.83 2,457,320 2,280,536 1,995,619 1,873,195 1,818,835
7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 4,775,934 4,489,190 4,028,138 3,828,370 3,741,394 0.83 3,581,951 3,366,893 3,021,103 2,871,278 2,806,045
1 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 1.67 0 0 0 0 0
2 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 1.67 0 0 0 0 0
3 0.91 159,776 0 0 0 0 1.25 116,201 0 0 0 0 1.67 87,151 0 0 0 0
4 0.91 1,321,395 1,067,637 756,310 606,635 487,614 1.25 961,015 776,463 550,044 441,189 354,628 1.67 720,761 582,348 412,533 330,892 265,971
5 0.91 2,720,889 2,409,310 2,025,416 1,842,127 1,690,037 1.25 1,978,828 1,752,225 1,473,030 1,339,729 1,229,118 1.67 1,484,121 1,314,169 1,104,772 1,004,797 921,839
6 0.91 4,380,254 3,977,584 3,511,118 3,264,109 3,104,583 1.25 3,185,639 2,892,789 2,553,540 2,373,898 2,257,878 1.67 2,389,230 2,169,591 1,915,155 1,780,423 1,693,409
7 0.91 6,393,932 5,905,249 5,336,928 5,037,606 4,843,092 1.25 4,650,133 4,294,727 3,881,402 3,663,714 3,522,249 1.67 3,487,599 3,221,045 2,911,051 2,747,785 2,641,687
1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0
2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0
3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 56,622 0 0 0 0 1.25 41,180 0 0 0 0
4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 1,164,099 871,006 560,158 464,003 393,186 1.25 846,618 633,459 407,387 337,457 285,953
5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 2,495,531 2,141,179 1,758,724 1,632,897 1,541,130 1.25 1,814,932 1,557,221 1,279,072 1,187,561 1,120,822
6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 4,073,221 3,646,223 3,153,239 2,978,735 2,864,597 1.25 2,962,343 2,651,799 2,293,265 2,166,352 2,083,343
7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 5,988,890 5,473,923 4,873,424 4,661,978 4,519,020 1.25 4,355,556 3,981,035 3,544,309 3,390,530 3,286,560
East Warrington, North & West Warringotn, Culceth & Croft and South Warrington -
Brownfield Sites
All Value Points
Appendix IIe
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 120,061 65,446 0 0 0
4 668,099 605,182 449,263 417,477 385,691
5 1,331,062 1,255,561 1,059,570 1,021,820 984,070
6 2,104,487 2,013,886 1,776,456 1,731,156 1,685,855
7 3,055,453 2,946,733 2,658,575 2,604,215 2,549,855
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 198,544 32,505 0 0 0
4 1,269,639 1,073,135 858,480 722,412 643,826
5 2,561,745 2,322,596 2,061,811 1,895,185 1,801,026
6 4,091,015 3,779,435 3,464,340 3,239,787 3,149,246
7 5,948,095 5,571,552 5,190,325 4,918,215 4,809,098
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 105,306 0 0 0 0
4 1,126,642 925,284 742,076 619,303 558,867
5 2,356,874 2,112,044 1,888,850 1,738,179 1,665,656
6 3,811,894 3,515,946 3,223,511 3,018,104 2,931,077
7 5,579,874 5,221,623 4,868,055 4,618,920 4,514,487
All Value Points -
With Grant
Appendix IIe
Appendix IIe
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
5,000,000
5,500,000
6,000,000
6,500,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

L
a
n
d

V
a
l
u
e

(
)
With Grant
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 3.0% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 13.7% 12.7% 10.1% 9.5% 8.9%
5 22.8% 22.1% 19.8% 19.4% 18.9%
6 30.1% 29.6% 27.8% 27.5% 27.2%
7 36.5% 36.1% 34.8% 34.5% 34.3%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 2.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 12.9% 11.3% 9.5% 8.2% 7.4%
5 21.6% 20.4% 18.9% 17.9% 17.3%
6 28.8% 27.8% 26.7% 25.7% 25.4%
7 35.0% 34.2% 33.3% 32.6% 32.4%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 12.0% 10.3% 8.6% 7.3% 6.7%
5 20.9% 19.5% 18.2% 17.2% 16.7%
6 28.2% 27.2% 26.0% 25.1% 24.7%
7 34.4% 33.6% 32.7% 32.0% 31.8%
All Value Points
With Grant
Appendix IIe
Appendix IIe
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
50.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

L
a
n
d

V
a
l
u
e

(
%

o
f

G
D
V
)
With Grant
Threshold
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
Site Size
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
Site Size
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0
2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0
3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 192,098 104,714 0 0 0 0.83 144,074 78,535 0 0 0
4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 1,068,958 968,291 718,821 667,963 617,105 0.83 801,718 726,218 539,116 500,972 462,829
5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 2,129,698 2,008,898 1,695,312 1,634,912 1,574,511 0.83 1,597,274 1,506,674 1,271,484 1,226,184 1,180,884
6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 3,367,178 3,222,218 2,842,329 2,769,849 2,697,369 0.83 2,525,384 2,416,664 2,131,747 2,077,387 2,023,026
7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 4,888,726 4,714,773 4,253,720 4,166,744 4,079,768 0.83 3,666,544 3,536,080 3,190,290 3,125,058 3,059,826
1 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 1.67 0 0 0 0 0
2 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 1.67 0 0 0 0 0
3 0.91 218,398 35,755 0 0 0 1.25 158,835 26,004 0 0 0 1.67 119,126 19,503 0 0 0
4 0.91 1,396,603 1,180,448 944,328 794,653 708,208 1.25 1,015,711 858,508 686,784 577,929 515,061 1.67 761,783 643,881 515,088 433,447 386,296
5 0.91 2,817,920 2,554,856 2,267,992 2,084,704 1,981,129 1.25 2,049,396 1,858,077 1,649,449 1,516,148 1,440,821 1.67 1,537,047 1,393,558 1,237,087 1,137,111 1,080,616
6 0.91 4,500,117 4,157,378 3,810,774 3,563,766 3,464,170 1.25 3,272,812 3,023,548 2,771,472 2,591,829 2,519,397 1.67 2,454,609 2,267,661 2,078,604 1,943,872 1,889,547
7 0.91 6,542,904 6,128,707 5,709,358 5,410,036 5,290,008 1.25 4,758,476 4,457,241 4,152,260 3,934,572 3,847,279 1.67 3,568,857 3,342,931 3,114,195 2,950,929 2,885,459
1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0
2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0
3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 115,836 0 0 0 0 1.25 84,245 0 0 0 0
4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 1,239,307 1,017,812 816,283 681,233 614,754 1.25 901,314 740,227 593,661 495,442 447,094
5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 2,592,562 2,323,249 2,077,735 1,911,997 1,832,222 1.25 1,885,499 1,689,635 1,511,080 1,390,543 1,332,525
6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 4,193,084 3,867,541 3,545,862 3,319,915 3,224,184 1.25 3,049,516 2,812,757 2,578,809 2,414,483 2,344,861
7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 6,137,862 5,743,785 5,354,860 5,080,812 4,965,936 1.25 4,463,899 4,177,298 3,894,444 3,695,136 3,611,590
Brownfield Sites
All Value Points
Appendix IIe

Appendix IIf
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0
4 442,571 273,441 38,016 0 0
5 1,055,913 853,350 570,847 474,457 372,121
6 1,796,213 1,550,635 1,207,511 1,084,722 961,933
7 2,680,663 2,381,108 1,963,688 1,813,910 1,664,132
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0
4 843,339 479,777 46,587 0 0
5 2,049,476 1,604,027 1,083,961 833,087 618,025
6 3,494,929 2,955,627 2,323,984 2,020,576 1,758,499
7 5,223,451 4,566,638 3,796,213 3,427,142 3,107,513
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0
4 706,199 313,997 0 0 0
5 1,852,264 1,375,431 887,291 625,519 435,434
6 3,226,640 2,649,281 2,059,189 1,743,906 1,508,013
7 4,871,343 4,170,728 3,453,744 3,072,759 2,785,017
All Value Points -
20% Developer's Profit
Appendix IIf
Appendix IIf
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
5,000,000
5,500,000
6,000,000
6,500,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

L
a
n
d

V
a
l
u
e

(
)
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 9.4% 6.2% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0%
5 18.7% 16.1% 11.8% 10.2% 8.3%
6 26.6% 24.4% 20.9% 19.4% 17.8%
7 33.1% 31.2% 28.4% 27.1% 25.8%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 8.8% 5.4% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0%
5 17.9% 15.0% 11.0% 8.9% 6.9%
6 25.4% 23.1% 19.8% 18.0% 16.3%
7 31.7% 29.7% 27.0% 25.5% 24.1%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 7.8% 3.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
5 17.0% 13.6% 9.6% 7.1% 5.1%
6 24.7% 21.9% 18.5% 16.5% 14.8%
7 31.1% 28.8% 25.9% 24.2% 22.8%
All Value Points
Appendix IIf
Appendix IIf
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
50.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

L
a
n
d

V
a
l
u
e

(
%

o
f

G
D
V
)
Threshold
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
Site Size
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
Site Size
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0
2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0
3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0
4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 708,114 437,505 60,826 0 0 0.83 531,086 328,129 45,620 0 0
5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 1,689,460 1,365,360 913,355 759,131 595,393 0.83 1,267,095 1,024,020 685,016 569,349 446,545
6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 2,873,940 2,481,015 1,932,018 1,735,555 1,539,093 0.83 2,155,455 1,860,762 1,449,013 1,301,667 1,154,320
7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 4,289,061 3,809,773 3,141,900 2,902,256 2,662,612 0.83 3,216,796 2,857,329 2,356,425 2,176,692 1,996,959
1 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 1.67 0 0 0 0 0
2 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 1.67 0 0 0 0 0
3 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 1.67 0 0 0 0 0
4 0.91 486,829 300,785 41,818 0 0 1.25 674,672 383,822 37,270 0 0 1.67 506,004 287,866 27,952 0 0
5 0.91 1,161,504 938,685 627,932 521,903 409,333 1.25 1,639,581 1,283,222 867,169 666,469 494,420 1.67 1,229,686 962,416 650,377 499,852 370,815
6 0.91 1,975,834 1,705,698 1,328,262 1,193,194 1,058,127 1.25 2,795,943 2,364,502 1,859,188 1,616,461 1,406,799 1.67 2,096,957 1,773,376 1,394,391 1,212,346 1,055,100
7 0.91 2,948,729 2,619,219 2,160,056 1,995,301 1,830,546 1.25 4,178,761 3,653,311 3,036,971 2,741,714 2,486,010 1.67 3,134,071 2,739,983 2,277,728 2,056,285 1,864,508
1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0
2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0
3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0
4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 776,819 345,397 0 0 0 1.25 564,959 251,198 0 0 0
5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 2,037,491 1,512,974 976,020 688,071 478,978 1.25 1,481,811 1,100,345 709,833 500,415 348,347
6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 3,549,304 2,914,209 2,265,107 1,918,297 1,658,814 1.25 2,581,312 2,119,425 1,647,351 1,395,125 1,206,410
7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 5,358,477 4,587,801 3,799,119 3,380,035 3,063,519 1.25 3,897,074 3,336,582 2,762,996 2,458,207 2,228,014
All Value Points
Planning Infrastructure Level 2,500 - 20% Developers Profit
Appendix IIf
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0
4 484,261 366,910 180,730 95,375 56,374
5 1,112,265 966,054 739,903 638,622 593,693
6 1,865,087 1,688,383 1,414,133 1,291,344 1,237,429
7 2,765,743 2,551,267 2,218,927 2,069,149 2,004,451
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0
4 932,196 652,545 314,538 152,626 15,076
5 2,157,735 1,820,546 1,408,740 1,211,995 1,051,063
6 3,627,244 3,220,259 2,720,932 2,483,681 2,287,762
7 5,386,900 4,893,536 4,286,560 3,999,213 3,761,308
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0
4 801,876 514,059 199,912 60,764 0
5 1,968,075 1,621,836 1,232,900 1,071,751 938,858
6 3,366,376 2,948,574 2,474,515 2,283,754 2,121,439
7 5,040,582 4,536,885 3,959,907 3,729,138 3,528,912
All Value Points -
Appendix IIf
Appendix IIf
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
5,000,000
5,500,000
6,000,000
6,500,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

L
a
n
d

V
a
l
u
e

(
)
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 10.2% 8.1% 4.3% 2.3% 1.4%
5 19.5% 17.7% 14.6% 13.1% 12.4%
6 27.2% 25.8% 23.4% 22.0% 21.5%
7 33.7% 32.5% 30.6% 29.5% 29.1%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 9.6% 7.1% 3.7% 1.9% 0.2%
5 18.6% 16.6% 13.7% 12.3% 11.0%
6 26.0% 24.4% 22.1% 21.0% 19.9%
7 32.2% 31.0% 29.1% 28.2% 27.3%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 8.7% 5.9% 2.5% 0.8% 0.0%
5 17.8% 15.6% 12.7% 11.4% 10.2%
6 25.4% 23.6% 21.2% 20.2% 19.3%
7 31.7% 30.3% 28.3% 27.5% 26.8%
All Value Points
Appendix IIf
Appendix IIf
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
50.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

L
a
n
d

V
a
l
u
e

(
%

o
f

G
D
V
)
Threshold
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
Site Size
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
Site Size
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0
2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0
3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0
4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 774,818 587,055 289,168 152,600 90,198 0.83 581,114 440,291 216,876 114,450 67,649
5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 1,779,623 1,545,687 1,183,845 1,021,795 949,909 0.83 1,334,717 1,159,265 887,884 766,346 712,431
6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 2,984,139 2,701,412 2,262,613 2,066,151 1,979,887 0.83 2,238,104 2,026,059 1,696,960 1,549,613 1,484,915
7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 4,425,188 4,082,027 3,550,283 3,310,638 3,207,122 0.83 3,318,891 3,061,521 2,662,712 2,482,979 2,405,341
1 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 1.67 0 0 0 0 0
2 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 1.67 0 0 0 0 0
3 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 1.67 0 0 0 0 0
4 0.91 1,025,416 717,800 345,991 167,889 16,584 1.25 745,757 522,036 251,630 122,101 12,061 1.67 559,318 391,527 188,723 91,576 9,046
5 0.91 2,373,509 2,002,601 1,549,614 1,333,194 1,156,169 1.25 1,726,188 1,456,437 1,126,992 969,596 840,850 1.67 1,294,641 1,092,328 845,244 727,197 630,638
6 0.91 3,989,969 3,542,285 2,993,025 2,732,049 2,516,538 1.25 2,901,796 2,576,207 2,176,745 1,986,945 1,830,210 1.67 2,176,347 1,932,155 1,632,559 1,490,209 1,372,657
7 0.91 5,925,590 5,382,889 4,715,216 4,399,135 4,137,439 1.25 4,309,520 3,914,829 3,429,248 3,199,371 3,009,047 1.67 3,232,140 2,936,122 2,571,936 2,399,528 2,256,785
1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0
2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0
3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0
4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 882,063 565,465 219,903 66,841 0 1.25 641,500 411,247 159,930 48,612 0
5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 2,164,882 1,784,020 1,356,190 1,178,926 1,032,743 1.25 1,574,460 1,297,469 986,320 857,401 751,086
6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 3,703,014 3,243,431 2,721,966 2,512,130 2,333,583 1.25 2,693,101 2,358,859 1,979,612 1,827,003 1,697,151
7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 5,544,641 4,990,573 4,355,897 4,102,052 3,881,803 1.25 4,032,466 3,629,508 3,167,925 2,983,311 2,823,129
All Value Points
Appendix IIf
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 1,415 0 0 0 0
4 530,514 460,378 270,548 237,515 198,904
5 1,168,617 1,078,758 852,607 807,678 762,749
6 1,933,961 1,826,131 1,551,881 1,497,966 1,444,051
7 2,850,822 2,721,427 2,389,086 2,324,388 2,259,690
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0
4 1,021,053 785,831 533,437 373,999 283,972
5 2,265,995 1,982,935 1,679,388 1,482,644 1,375,841
6 3,759,560 3,418,732 3,051,721 2,814,471 2,684,709
7 5,550,349 5,138,709 4,695,182 4,407,835 4,251,655
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0
4 890,733 654,164 439,294 290,288 222,097
5 2,076,334 1,791,776 1,527,706 1,349,951 1,263,636
6 3,498,692 3,154,467 2,836,427 2,621,963 2,518,386
7 5,204,031 4,787,849 4,403,553 4,143,551 4,019,258
All Value Points -
Appendix IIf
Appendix IIf
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
5,000,000
5,500,000
6,000,000
6,500,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

L
a
n
d

V
a
l
u
e

(
)
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 11.0% 9.9% 6.2% 5.6% 4.8%
5 20.2% 19.3% 16.4% 15.8% 15.2%
6 27.9% 27.2% 24.9% 24.5% 24.0%
7 34.2% 33.8% 32.0% 31.7% 31.3%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 10.4% 8.4% 6.0% 4.4% 3.4%
5 19.3% 17.7% 15.8% 14.5% 13.7%
6 26.7% 25.4% 24.0% 22.9% 22.3%
7 32.8% 31.9% 30.7% 29.9% 29.5%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 9.5% 7.4% 5.2% 3.5% 2.8%
5 18.5% 16.8% 15.1% 13.8% 13.1%
6 26.0% 24.7% 23.3% 22.3% 21.8%
7 32.3% 31.2% 30.2% 29.4% 29.0%
All Value Points
Appendix IIf
Appendix IIf
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
50.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

L
a
n
d

V
a
l
u
e

(
%

o
f

G
D
V
)
Threshold
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
Site Size
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
Site Size
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0
2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0
3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 2,263 0 0 0 0 0.83 1,697 0 0 0 0
4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 848,822 736,605 432,876 380,024 318,246 0.83 636,617 552,454 324,657 285,018 238,685
5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 1,869,787 1,726,013 1,364,172 1,292,285 1,220,399 0.83 1,402,340 1,294,510 1,023,129 969,214 915,299
6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 3,094,337 2,921,809 2,483,010 2,396,746 2,310,482 0.83 2,320,753 2,191,357 1,862,257 1,797,560 1,732,862
7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 4,561,316 4,354,282 3,822,538 3,719,021 3,615,504 0.83 3,420,987 3,265,712 2,866,903 2,789,266 2,711,628
1 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 1.67 0 0 0 0 0
2 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 1.67 0 0 0 0 0
3 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 1.67 0 0 0 0 0
4 0.91 1,123,159 864,414 586,781 411,399 312,369 1.25 816,843 628,665 426,750 299,199 227,177 1.67 612,632 471,498 320,062 224,399 170,383
5 0.91 2,492,594 2,181,229 1,847,327 1,630,908 1,513,426 1.25 1,812,796 1,586,348 1,343,511 1,186,115 1,100,673 1.67 1,359,597 1,189,761 1,007,633 889,586 825,505
6 0.91 4,135,516 3,760,606 3,356,893 3,095,918 2,953,180 1.25 3,007,648 2,734,986 2,441,377 2,251,577 2,147,768 1.67 2,255,736 2,051,239 1,831,033 1,688,682 1,610,826
7 0.91 6,105,384 5,652,580 5,164,700 4,848,619 4,676,820 1.25 4,440,279 4,110,967 3,756,146 3,526,268 3,401,324 1.67 3,330,209 3,083,225 2,817,109 2,644,701 2,550,993
1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0
2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0
3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0
4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 979,806 719,580 483,223 319,317 244,307 1.25 712,586 523,331 351,435 232,231 177,678
5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 2,283,968 1,970,954 1,680,477 1,484,946 1,390,000 1.25 1,661,067 1,433,421 1,222,165 1,079,960 1,010,909
6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 3,848,561 3,469,914 3,120,069 2,884,160 2,770,225 1.25 2,798,953 2,523,574 2,269,141 2,097,571 2,014,709
7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 5,724,434 5,266,633 4,843,909 4,557,906 4,421,184 1.25 4,163,225 3,830,279 3,522,843 3,314,841 3,215,407
All Value Points
Appendix IIf
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0
4 499,789 377,314 196,111 130,954 66,462
5 1,122,672 964,616 738,168 659,139 580,111
6 1,851,177 1,658,267 1,382,667 1,286,212 1,189,758
7 2,746,620 2,510,267 2,173,875 2,055,698 1,937,522
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0
4 942,088 662,085 333,931 177,238 34,456
5 2,156,354 1,807,758 1,394,312 1,197,539 1,024,971
6 3,598,317 3,150,728 2,646,212 2,383,926 2,196,179
7 5,347,516 4,800,759 4,182,887 3,863,162 3,632,729
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0
4 776,700 451,326 117,961 0 0
5 1,928,495 1,523,098 1,111,189 878,360 726,537
6 3,293,706 2,801,963 2,278,936 1,974,940 1,789,638
7 4,951,822 4,353,946 3,717,442 3,349,999 3,122,967
All Value Points -
20% Developer's Profit, With Grant
Appendix IIf
Appendix IIf
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
5,000,000
5,500,000
6,000,000
6,500,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

L
a
n
d

V
a
l
u
e

(
)
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 10.5% 8.3% 4.6% 3.2% 1.7%
5 19.6% 17.7% 14.6% 13.4% 12.1%
6 27.1% 25.5% 23.0% 22.0% 20.9%
7 33.5% 32.2% 30.2% 29.4% 28.5%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 9.7% 7.2% 3.9% 2.1% 0.4%
5 18.6% 16.5% 13.6% 12.1% 10.7%
6 25.9% 24.1% 21.7% 20.4% 19.3%
7 32.1% 30.6% 28.7% 27.6% 26.7%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 8.5% 5.2% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0%
5 17.5% 14.8% 11.6% 9.6% 8.2%
6 25.0% 22.8% 20.0% 18.1% 16.9%
7 31.4% 29.5% 27.2% 25.7% 24.7%
All Value Points
Appendix IIf
Appendix IIf
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
50.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

L
a
n
d

V
a
l
u
e

(
%

o
f

G
D
V
)
Threshold
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
Site Size
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
Site Size
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0
2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0
3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0
4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 799,663 603,703 313,777 209,526 106,338 0.83 599,747 452,777 235,333 157,144 79,754
5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 1,796,275 1,543,385 1,181,068 1,054,623 928,178 0.83 1,347,206 1,157,539 885,801 790,967 696,134
6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 2,961,883 2,653,228 2,212,268 2,057,940 1,903,612 0.83 2,221,412 1,989,921 1,659,201 1,543,455 1,427,709
7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 4,394,592 4,016,427 3,478,200 3,289,117 3,100,035 0.83 3,295,944 3,012,320 2,608,650 2,466,838 2,325,026
1 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 1.67 0 0 0 0 0
2 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 1.67 0 0 0 0 0
3 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 1.67 0 0 0 0 0
4 0.91 1,036,297 728,293 367,324 194,961 37,901 1.25 753,670 529,668 267,145 141,790 27,565 1.67 565,253 397,251 200,359 106,343 20,673
5 0.91 2,371,989 1,988,534 1,533,743 1,317,293 1,127,469 1.25 1,725,083 1,446,206 1,115,450 958,031 819,977 1.67 1,293,812 1,084,655 836,587 718,524 614,983
6 0.91 3,958,148 3,465,801 2,910,833 2,622,318 2,415,797 1.25 2,878,653 2,520,583 2,116,970 1,907,141 1,756,943 1.67 2,158,990 1,890,437 1,587,727 1,430,355 1,317,707
7 0.91 5,882,268 5,280,835 4,601,175 4,249,478 3,996,002 1.25 4,278,013 3,840,607 3,346,309 3,090,529 2,906,183 1.67 3,208,510 2,880,455 2,509,732 2,317,897 2,179,637
1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0
2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0
3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0
4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 854,370 496,459 129,757 0 0 1.25 621,360 361,061 94,369 0 0
5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 2,121,345 1,675,408 1,222,308 966,196 799,191 1.25 1,542,796 1,218,478 888,951 702,688 581,229
6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 3,623,077 3,082,159 2,506,830 2,172,434 1,968,601 1.25 2,634,965 2,241,570 1,823,149 1,579,952 1,431,710
7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 5,447,004 4,789,341 4,089,186 3,684,999 3,435,264 1.25 3,961,457 3,483,157 2,973,954 2,679,999 2,498,374
All Value Points
Planning Infrastructure Level 2,500 - 20% Developers Profit - With Grant
Appendix IIf
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 7,725 0 0 0 0
4 535,378 449,233 300,027 241,056 212,600
5 1,168,587 1,056,447 875,914 796,886 763,774
6 1,907,897 1,771,707 1,552,827 1,456,372 1,416,637
7 2,817,115 2,651,256 2,385,359 2,267,182 2,219,500
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0
4 1,010,458 798,825 535,599 415,446 309,752
5 2,244,563 1,984,177 1,658,941 1,506,273 1,377,810
6 3,707,282 3,368,660 2,973,110 2,765,306 2,632,043
7 5,482,946 5,071,617 4,589,174 4,337,163 4,174,445
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0
4 875,975 627,692 366,302 283,687 231,486
5 2,049,908 1,749,568 1,422,790 1,320,399 1,245,885
6 3,440,421 3,078,399 2,655,320 2,511,078 2,418,008
7 5,129,436 4,692,675 4,176,873 4,001,927 3,884,794
All Value Points -
Appendix IIf
Appendix IIf
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
5,000,000
5,500,000
6,000,000
6,500,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

L
a
n
d

V
a
l
u
e

(
)
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 11.1% 9.6% 6.9% 5.7% 5.1%
5 20.2% 19.0% 16.8% 15.6% 15.2%
6 27.6% 26.6% 24.9% 24.0% 23.7%
7 34.0% 33.3% 31.9% 31.2% 31.0%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 10.3% 8.5% 6.0% 4.8% 3.7%
5 19.1% 17.7% 15.7% 14.7% 13.7%
6 26.4% 25.2% 23.5% 22.6% 22.0%
7 32.6% 31.6% 30.3% 29.6% 29.2%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 9.4% 7.1% 4.4% 3.5% 2.9%
5 18.4% 16.5% 14.2% 13.5% 13.0%
6 25.7% 24.3% 22.3% 21.6% 21.2%
7 32.0% 30.9% 29.3% 28.8% 28.4%
All Value Points
Appendix IIf
Appendix IIf
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
50.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

L
a
n
d

V
a
l
u
e

(
%

o
f

G
D
V
)
Threshold
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
Site Size
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
Site Size
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0
2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0
3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 12,360 0 0 0 0 0.83 9,270 0 0 0 0
4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 856,605 718,773 480,043 385,690 340,160 0.83 642,453 539,080 360,032 289,267 255,120
5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 1,869,740 1,690,315 1,401,463 1,275,018 1,222,038 0.83 1,402,305 1,267,736 1,051,097 956,263 916,528
6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 3,052,634 2,834,731 2,484,523 2,330,195 2,266,619 0.83 2,289,476 2,126,048 1,863,392 1,747,646 1,699,964
7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 4,507,383 4,242,010 3,816,574 3,627,491 3,551,200 0.83 3,380,538 3,181,507 2,862,430 2,720,619 2,663,400
1 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 1.67 0 0 0 0 0
2 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 1.67 0 0 0 0 0
3 0.91 8,497 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 1.67 0 0 0 0 0
4 0.91 588,916 494,156 330,029 265,162 233,860 1.25 808,367 639,060 428,479 332,356 247,801 1.67 606,275 479,295 321,360 249,267 185,851
5 0.91 1,285,446 1,162,092 963,506 876,575 840,151 1.25 1,795,651 1,587,342 1,327,153 1,205,018 1,102,248 1.67 1,346,738 1,190,506 995,365 903,764 826,686
6 0.91 2,098,686 1,948,877 1,708,109 1,602,009 1,558,300 1.25 2,965,826 2,694,928 2,378,488 2,212,245 2,105,634 1.67 2,224,369 2,021,196 1,783,866 1,659,184 1,579,226
7 0.91 3,098,826 2,916,382 2,623,895 2,493,900 2,441,450 1.25 4,386,356 4,057,294 3,671,339 3,469,731 3,339,556 1.67 3,289,767 3,042,970 2,753,504 2,602,298 2,504,667
1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0
2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0
3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0
4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 963,573 690,461 402,932 312,055 254,634 1.25 700,780 502,154 293,042 226,949 185,189
5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 2,254,899 1,924,525 1,565,069 1,452,439 1,370,473 1.25 1,639,927 1,399,655 1,138,232 1,056,319 996,708
6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 3,784,463 3,386,239 2,920,852 2,762,185 2,659,808 1.25 2,752,337 2,462,719 2,124,256 2,008,862 1,934,406
7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 5,642,380 5,161,942 4,594,561 4,402,119 4,273,274 1.25 4,103,549 3,754,140 3,341,499 3,201,541 3,107,835
All Value Points
Appendix IIf
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 35,745 0 0 0 0
4 570,967 515,779 371,945 344,064 316,183
5 1,214,503 1,148,278 967,745 934,633 901,520
6 1,964,616 1,885,146 1,666,266 1,626,531 1,586,796
7 2,887,609 2,792,245 2,526,348 2,478,666 2,430,984
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 34,915 0 0 0 0
4 1,078,828 901,381 706,525 582,088 511,669
5 2,332,773 2,116,491 1,879,465 1,726,797 1,642,438
6 3,816,248 3,532,109 3,245,525 3,037,721 2,958,940
7 5,618,375 5,274,761 4,927,746 4,675,736 4,580,732
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0
4 944,346 761,152 595,367 482,593 434,057
5 2,138,118 1,915,086 1,712,800 1,574,127 1,510,513
6 3,549,387 3,279,597 3,012,251 2,821,241 2,744,905
7 5,264,865 4,938,004 4,614,542 4,382,685 4,291,081
All Value Points -
Appendix IIf
Appendix IIf
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
5,000,000
5,500,000
6,000,000
6,500,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

L
a
n
d

V
a
l
u
e

(
)
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 11.7% 10.9% 8.3% 7.8% 7.3%
5 20.8% 20.2% 18.1% 17.7% 17.4%
6 28.1% 27.7% 26.1% 25.9% 25.6%
7 34.5% 34.2% 33.0% 32.9% 32.7%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 10.9% 9.5% 7.8% 6.6% 5.9%
5 19.7% 18.6% 17.3% 16.3% 15.8%
6 26.9% 26.0% 25.0% 24.1% 23.9%
7 33.0% 32.3% 31.6% 31.0% 30.8%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 10.0% 8.4% 6.9% 5.7% 5.2%
5 18.9% 17.7% 16.5% 15.6% 15.2%
6 26.3% 25.3% 24.3% 23.4% 23.2%
7 32.5% 31.8% 31.0% 30.4% 30.2%
All Value Points
Appendix IIf
Appendix IIf
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
50.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

L
a
n
d

V
a
l
u
e

(
%

o
f

G
D
V
)
Threshold
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
Site Size
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
Site Size
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0
2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0
3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 57,192 0 0 0 0 0.83 42,894 0 0 0 0
4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 913,546 825,246 595,113 550,503 505,893 0.83 685,160 618,935 446,334 412,877 379,420
5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 1,943,205 1,837,245 1,548,392 1,495,412 1,442,432 0.83 1,457,404 1,377,934 1,161,294 1,121,559 1,081,824
6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 3,143,386 3,016,234 2,666,026 2,602,450 2,538,874 0.83 2,357,540 2,262,176 1,999,519 1,951,837 1,904,155
7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 4,620,175 4,467,592 4,042,157 3,965,865 3,889,574 0.83 3,465,131 3,350,694 3,031,617 2,974,399 2,917,181
1 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 1.67 0 0 0 0 0
2 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 1.67 0 0 0 0 0
3 0.91 39,320 0 0 0 0 1.25 27,932 0 0 0 0 1.67 20,949 0 0 0 0
4 0.91 628,063 567,357 409,140 378,471 347,801 1.25 863,063 721,104 565,220 465,671 409,335 1.67 647,297 540,828 423,915 349,253 307,002
5 0.91 1,335,953 1,263,106 1,064,520 1,028,096 991,672 1.25 1,866,218 1,693,193 1,503,572 1,381,437 1,313,951 1.67 1,399,664 1,269,895 1,127,679 1,036,078 985,463
6 0.91 2,161,078 2,073,661 1,832,893 1,789,184 1,745,476 1.25 3,052,999 2,825,687 2,596,420 2,430,177 2,367,152 1.67 2,289,749 2,119,265 1,947,315 1,822,633 1,775,364
7 0.91 3,176,370 3,071,470 2,778,983 2,726,532 2,674,082 1.25 4,494,700 4,219,809 3,942,197 3,740,589 3,664,586 1.67 3,371,025 3,164,856 2,956,648 2,805,441 2,748,439
1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0
2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0
3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0
4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 1,038,780 837,268 654,904 530,852 477,462 1.25 755,476 608,922 476,294 386,074 347,245
5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 2,351,930 2,106,595 1,884,080 1,731,539 1,661,565 1.25 1,710,494 1,532,069 1,370,240 1,259,301 1,208,411
6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 3,904,326 3,607,556 3,313,476 3,103,365 3,019,396 1.25 2,839,510 2,623,677 2,409,801 2,256,993 2,195,924
7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.91 5,791,352 5,431,804 5,075,997 4,820,953 4,720,190 1.25 4,211,892 3,950,403 3,691,634 3,506,148 3,432,865
All Value Points
Appendix IIf

Appendix IIg
Value Point 4 Variations
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
With Grant, 20/80 Tenure
Split, 17.5% Developer's
Profit, CfSH Level 4, 2,500
Infrastructure
668,099 605,182 449,263 417,477 385,691
No Grant, 20/80 Tenure Split,
17.5% Developer's Profit,
CfSH Level 4, 2,500
Infrastructure
627,646 545,035 347,865 306,129 264,393
CfSH Level 4, 2,500
Infrastructure
581,393 457,244 254,397 169,347 126,751
CfSH Level 4, 2,500
Infrastructure
535,141 363,775 117,725 26,519 0
20% Developer's Profit, CfSH
Level 4, 2,500 Infrastructure
442,571 273,441 38,016 0 0
Level 4, 10,000
Infrastructure
281,157 115,492 0 0 0
Level 4, 20,000
Infrastructure
67,978 0 0 0 0
Table 19: Summary of Residual Land Value ()
Appraisals for Value Point 4 Variations
Development Scenario/Threshold -
Appendix IIg
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
Infrastructure
13.7% 12.7% 10.1% 9.5% 8.9%
CfSH Level 4, 2,500
Infrastructure
13.0% 11.7% 8.0% 7.2% 6.3%
CfSH Level 4, 2,500
Infrastructure
12.2% 10.0% 6.0% 4.2% 3.2%
CfSH Level 4, 2,500
Infrastructure
11.4% 8.2% 2.9% 0.7% 0.0%
Level 4, 2,500 Infrastructure
9.4% 6.2% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0%
Level 4, 10,000
Infrastructure
6.0% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Level 4, 20,000
Infrastructure
1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Table 19a: Summary of Residual Land Value (as % of GDV) Appraisals for Value
Point 4 Variations
Appendix IIg
Residual Land
Value - 10%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 20%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 30%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 35%
Affordable
Residual Land
Value - 40%
Affordable
Infrastructure
1,060,474 960,606 713,116 662,662 612,208
No Grant, 20/80 Tenure
Infrastructure
996,264 865,135 552,167 485,920 419,672
Infrastructure
922,847 725,783 403,804 268,806 201,192
Infrastructure
849,430 577,420 186,866 42,093 0
Split, 20% Developer's
Infrastructure
702,494 434,033 60,344 0 0
Infrastructure
446,282 183,320 0 0 0
Infrastructure
107,902 0 0 0 0
Table 19b: Summary of Residual Land Value ( per Ha)
Appraisals for Value Point 4 Variations
Appendix IIg

Appendix III

1

Appendix III

Supplementary Property Prices Report for
Warrington Borough Council

Affordable Housing Financial Viability Assessment

Introduction
Adams Integra was asked to prepare an affordable housing financial viability assessment on behalf
of Warrington Borough Council. This meant undertaking an informed assessment of economic
viability, as impacted by a range of potential affordable housing requirements (alongside other
obligations).

To underpin the viability study and as a key part of our methodology, research was required to
determine the level of new build housing values within the Borough. As context for the viability
study work, we needed to understand the level and range of values encountered, and likely to be
seen as we move ahead, so as to make judgements as to the figures most appropriate to use in
our appraisal modelling. We use a Values Points methodology. That looks at how viability varies as
the key driver of the new build property values vary by location (or scheme type) and/or with time
(i.e. as potentially influenced by varying market conditions).

In addition to new build pricing and for general background purposes and to add to the data,
desktop research was also undertaken to enable us to consider the state of the overall housing
market in the Borough including existing (i.e. overall/re-sale market) values. The context of the
national and regional pictures is also outlined.

The initial desktop research involved looking at an overview of values in different locations across
the Borough using property websites (for example, RightMove). Adams Integras interpretation of
the data is shown below, indicating the variation in values across the area. This process enabled
us to develop a wider understanding of the local market, and to verify and supplement the new
build property values research. It is acknowledged that much of this information is marketing price
based. We acknowledge this, but combined with taking soundings from local agents and others,
and making allowances in arriving at the range of values we apply, we consider this to give us a
more up-to-date and dynamic picture than we get through relying on historic data which often does
not clearly reflect property types and sizes, or latest knowledge and experience of market
conditions. The key lies in selecting an appropriate range of values at which to study viability.

Stakeholder consultation was also carried out but information is not included here see Appendix
IV for details.

Wider market overview information has also been included, as drawn from market reports provided
by the organisations such as the RICS and Land Registry.

The study process meant fixing assumptions in November/December 2009, so those were
necessarily supported by such information as was available up to that date. Market reporting is
included as available at that point, and that is set out first see below. However, Adams Integra
has been aware of market conditions throughout the study period. On closing the study, therefore,
we have provided updated general market information and comment as well.

2
As this part of the work was kept open while the study proceeded, this Appendix may contain some
incomplete information where details were not available or not received during that time. This is not
an exhaustive piece of property market research, but aimed to sweep up information as was
readily available.

Housing Market Overview
In this section the italic text is attributed to a range of sources as stated in each case.
Accompanying notes or comments by Adams Integra are not in italics.
Emphasis using Bold text is by Adams Integra.

Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS)

In January 2010 The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) published a Housing Market
Survey for December 2009; its monthly update and the latest one available at the point fixing our
assumptions for this study. The headline they ran with read: Prices still rising but at a slightly
more modest pace.

It found that: 30% more surveyors saw price increases rather than price decreases in December,
down from 35% and that The gap between new buyer enquiries and new instructions continues to
narrow but is still consistent with further house price gains and Average completed sales per
surveyor climbed to its highest level in December since March 2008.

It went on to state: The December housing market survey shows the gap between new buyer
enquiries and new instructions to estate agents continuing to narrow. However, for the time being
the increase in demand still appears to be outstripping the increase in supply, albeit at a more
modest pace than previously.

And: On the demand side, new buyer enquiries increased for the fourteenth consecutive month.
However, with the net balance falling to +20, enquiries rose at the slowest pace since January
2009. Other demand indicators are also losing some momentum although they remain in positive
territory. The newly agreed sales balance slipped to +22 from +24 while the sales expectations net
balance dropped to +6. On the other hand, the actual level of average completed sales per
surveyor edged up fractionally to 19.1, the highest reading since March 2008.

On the supply side, the rebound in the prices witnessed over the last five months (according to the
price balance) appears to have drawn some vendors back to the sales market. New vendor
instructions increased for the seventh consecutive month but the net balance reading was
unchanged from last month at +17. This was the highest reading since May 2007. Meanwhile the
average stock of unsold property on surveyors books increased slightly to 62.5, having slipped
back in the previous month. Stocks levels are still 19% below year ago levels and well down (31%)
on their February 2008 peak.

Looking at the data from a regional perspective: modest majorities of surveyors saw price rises in
Wales, Yorkshire and Humberside and the North West.

The survey also includes surveyors (involved in residential estate agency) market comments. The
following are examples provided by firms operating in the North West:

3
November and December have seen activity levels quietly fall due to the approach of Christmas.
We did, however, see a sharp decline in enquiries due to the flooding in Cumbria which was widely
reported in the media. Values seem to be holding at good levels.

Seasonal downturn not as severe as expected. Lack of availability of mortgage funds still causing
problems within property chains.

Little change from November but typical of the season, enquiries have reduced and there are few
new instruction.

The market has quietened down in line with normal for this time of year.

Enquiries and sales have decreased over last six weeks but we hope this is just a seasonal
adjustment. The focus is now 2010 and we hope to see an improvement in number of properties
coming to the market.

A general slowing down in activity in the run up to Christmas although exchange activity has
increased ahead of the Stamp Duty increase at the end of December.

After a reasonably busy autumn, there has not been enough strength in the market to sustain
sales through the last 6 weeks. So things are quiet again. Instructions still very slow.

Confidence continues to grow with particular interest from first time buyers and shared ownership
and equity schemes. Cash buyers are purchasing now before prices increase substantially.

Source: RICS Economics December 2009 RICS Housing Market Survey

Land Registry - House Price Index December 2009 (released 29 January 2010)

England & Wales - Monthly change 0.1%; annual change 2.5%; average price 161,783
North West - Monthly change -1.4%; annual change -0.9%; average price 117,959
Warrington - Monthly change 1.2%; annual change 2.0%; average price 144,494

Decembers data shows the first positive annual house price change since May 2008. The figure
now stands at 2.5 per cent. The monthly change is 0.1 per cent, which is the eight month in a row
in which the monthly change has been above zero.The number of sales per month has
increased since last year, with an average of 58,000 transactions (per month) between July 2009
and October 2009, compared to an average of 46,655 in the same period a year before.

Other Housing Market Sources December 2010

Interest rates:
The Bank of England Base Rate remains at a historically low 0.5%. Despite this, finance for
property (mortgages for purchase, and development finance) remains very constrained and is not
generally available on favourable terms relative to this interest rates backdrop.

4
Mortgage approvals:
As at 19 November 2009, the Council of Mortgage Lenders mortgage Lending for house purchase
and remortgage
1
website page stated as a headline:

Gross Mortgage Lending up 5% in October
October gross mortgage lending was an estimated 13.5 billion, a 5% rise from 12.9 billion in
September but down 27% on 18.5 billion in October 2008, according to the Council of Mortgage
Lenders. This is typical seasonal activity between September and October - the average monthly
rise over the last decade has been 5%.
The annual comparison should start to improve a little in the coming months as underlying lending
volumes dropped sharply in the latter part of 2008 and early 2009.
The October outcome is in line with our updated forecast for gross lending of around 141 billion
for 2009 as a whole. We expect some seasonal slowdown over the remainder of this year.
There has been a significant change in the type of lending taking place from the start of the year.
House purchase activity has picked up significantly. In contrast, remortgaging has dropped to
decade-low levels as many borrowers have little incentive to refinance when they move onto low
reversion rates, and others find themselves unable to do so due to equity constraints.
The coming months are likely to be dominated by seasonal factors rather than underlying change.
Source: Council of Mortgage Lenders website 19 November 2009: www.cml.org.uk

Housing Market Overview Updated August 2010

Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS)

In July 2010 the RICS published a Housing Market Survey for June 2010 the latest available
prior to publication of this study. The headline they ran with read Weaker demand and
increasing supply hits price expectations.

The Survey comments that New instructions continue to rise, while new buyer enquiries decline
and that Price expectations turn negative, but sales outlook remains positive and London and
Scotland remain clear outperformers.
The HMS went on to state that Buyer interest fell for the first time since the beginning of this year
while property coming onto the market increased at the fastest pace since May 2007. One of the
factors driving the sharp increase in instructions was the abolition of HIPs in May. Reflecting the
increase in new vendor instructions, the average stock of property on surveyors books increased
by 8.1% on the month to 66.6 per surveyor. Meanwhile, the average number of completed sales
only rose by 0.8% on the month to 16.7 per surveyor. As a result, the sales to stock ratio a key
indicator of market slack fell to 25%, the lowest level since June 2009.

1
http://www.cml.org.uk/cml/media/press/2468
5

Surveyors in the North West area provided the following comments:

European financial crisis, as described in such detail by various pundits, is a continuing threat to
stability, particularly in the housing market.

We predict a static market for the rest of the year.

Increase in stock following the scrapping of HIPs. However, with the emergency budget pending
the buyers are cautious. We are confident of an improved summer trading period.

Enquiries have dropped off since the high point in March 2010; however sales have remained
steady in the 150,000 price range. Yields are decreasing slightly as investors start to dip a toe in
the water, and theres plenty of competition for well priced property.

The emergency budget has undoubtedly undermined what little confidence there was in the
market and things have slowed down again. The world cup usually has an effect on the market too
and again this seems to have caused reduced buyer activity.

Land Registry - House Price Index June 2010 (released 28 July 2010)

England & Wales - Monthly change 0.1%; annual change 8.4%; average price 166,072
North West - Monthly change -1.1%; annual change 4.0%; average price 119,254
Warrington - Monthly change 1.6%; annual change 8.2%; average price 147,784

The Land Registry data for June shows a positive, but fairly flat, monthly house price movement of
0.1 per cent. The average value of a property in England and Wales is now 166,072. The annual
change now stands at 8.4 per cent, which is a fall from the figures seen in the previous 2 months of
April and May. However, it is also the eighth month in a row in which the figure has been above
zero. House prices are now around the same levels they were in the summer of 2006. Sales
volumes averaged 44,114 per month from January to April 2010. In comparison to this, during the
same months last year, the figure was lower at 32,041.

Other Housing Market Sources July 2010

Mortgage approvals:
As at 12 July 2010, the Council of Mortgage Lenders mortgage Lending for house purchase and
remortgage
2
website page stated as a headline:

Movers spend lowest ever average proportion of income on their mortgages
Borrowers moving home in May saw their mortgage interest payments accounting for the lowest
proportion of their income in 35 years, according to new data from the Council of Mortgage
Lenders. And house purchase lending rose from a year ago for the 11th consecutive month. But
with the challenging economic backdrop, government spending cuts and forthcoming tax increases
the positive trend is likely to tail off in the second half of this year. Monthly comparisons with a year
earlier will probably be near zero or modestly negative over the coming months. This is
because we had an improving market in the second half of 2009 as the stamp duty holiday came to
an end.

2
http://www.cml.org.uk/cml/media/press/2468
6
House purchase lending rose modestly in May. The 42,000 loans (worth 6 billion) were up 2% in
volume and 3% in value on April and 15% in volume and 28% in value from a year earlier.
CML director general Michael Coogan commented:
House purchase lending continues its recovery but positive comparisons with equivalent months a
year ago look unlikely to continue. Activity picked up in the second half of 2009 due to the stamp
duty holiday but with the government's austerity drive picking up momentum we are unlikely to see
a repeat of those buoyant numbers this year. Our forecast for gross lending in 2010 may now be
looking a little optimistic.
Source: Council of Mortgage Lenders website 12 July 2010: www.cml.org.uk
7
Resale Property Values in Warrington December 2009

The tables below show the marketing (or, where available, subject to contract sale) price of various
types of property within Warrington Borough. The settlement areas have formed the basis for this
part of the research.

The information was collected from www.rightmove.co.uk. It is likely that actual sales values were
lower than the figures set out below, as is acknowledged in our study, however, this exercise
served to add to our understanding of local value levels and patterns. We prefer to source
information in this way, because it is not historic and relates to recognised property types, rather
than just being generically categorised (as is, for example, Land Registry House Price data).

For each location reviewed there are two tables. The first table shows the average price of each
dwelling type. The second table shows the information in terms of average, minimum, 1
st
quartile,
median (2
nd
quartile), 3
rd
quartile and maximum price. This is so that the range of values, as well as
typical value levels, within the overall market can be better understood. Summary tables follow that
also show the average asking price by settlement area and by sub-area groups (as provided by
Warrington Borough Council.

Warrington Centre

1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed 4 Bed
Detached - 144,950 -
Semi-Detached 109,950 120,950 149,950
Terraced 88,430 127,055 189,975
Flats 70,805 100,744
High Value Flats - -
High Value Houses - - -

Overall
Average Minimum
1st
Quartile Median
3rd
Quartile Maximum
1-Bed Flat 70,805 49,950 59,950 69,950 79,999 94,950
2-Bed Flats 100,744 69,950 80,000 109,950 112,950 135,950
2-Bed Houses 88,996 69,950 84,950 89,950 94,988 109,950
3-Bed Houses 126,312 89,950 99,950 118,000 144,950 189,950
4-Bed Houses 176,633 149,950 157,450 164,950 189,975 215,000
High Value Flats - - - - - -
High Value Houses - - - - - -
November 2009, www.rightmove.co.uk

8
Bewsey

Semi-Detached 122,950 79,973 -
Terraced - 99,950 149,950
Flats - -

Overall
Average Minimum
1st
Quartile Median
3rd
Quartile Maximum
1-Bed Flat - - - - - -
2-Bed Flats - - - - - -
2-Bed Houses 122,950 122,950 122,950 122,950 122,950 122,950
3-Bed Houses 126,041 79,950 89,973 129,950 158,748 174,950
4-Bed Houses 149,950 149,950 149,950 149,950 149,950 149,950

Burtonwood

Detached - - 295,475
Semi-Detached 84,950 - 159,950
Terraced 87,500 104,542 159,950
Flats - -
High Value Houses - 369,950 575,000

Overall
Average Minimum
1st
Quartile Median
3rd
Quartile Maximum
1-Bed Flat - - - - - -
2-Bed Flats - - - - - -
2-Bed Houses 86,650 84,950 84,975 85,000 87,500 90,000
3-Bed Houses 104,542 59,950 68,588 97,225 137,450 162,950
4-Bed Houses 250,300 159,950 172,963 220,975 319,987 389,950
High Value Houses 472,475 369,950 421,213 472,475 523,738 575,000

9
Winwick

Detached 284,950 293,167 331,083
Semi-Detached 146,475 210,180 225,000
Terraced 149,650 212,380 -
Flats - 159,950

Overall
Average Minimum
1st
Quartile Median
3rd
Quartile Maximum
1-Bed Flat - - - - - -
2-Bed Flats 159,950 159,950 159,950 159,950 159,950 159,950
2-Bed Houses 171,142 140,000 145,738 148,475 157,213 284,950
3-Bed Houses 241,988 150,000 206,700 227,000 252,000 395,000
4-Bed Houses 320,475 225,000 284,988 334,950 349,988 389,950

Westbrook

Detached - 171,475 268,719
Semi-Detached - 200,000 -
Terraced 140,000 167,500 179,975
Flats 155,000 113,725

Overall
Average Minimum
1st
Quartile Median
3rd
Quartile Maximum
1-Bed Flat 155,000 155,000 155,000 155,000 155,000 155,000
2-Bed Flats 113,725 107,500 110,613 113,725 116,838 119,950
2-Bed Houses 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000
3-Bed Houses 177,613 167,500 167,875 171,475 181,213 200,000
4-Bed Houses 250,970 144,950 231,200 249,950 290,000 315,000

10
Whittle Hall

Detached - 187,950 250,959
Semi-Detached 133,150 153,975 239,950
Terraced - 175,200 169,950
Flats - 117,950

Overall
Average Minimum
1st
Quartile Median
3rd
Quartile Maximum
1-Bed Flat - - - - - -
2-Bed Flats 117,950 89,950 103,950 117,950 131,950 145,950
2-Bed Houses 133,150 125,000 128,475 131,950 137,225 142,500
3-Bed Houses 177,136 153,000 162,450 169,950 189,950 209,950
4-Bed Houses 237,814 169,950 232,450 239,950 254,973 279,950

Great Sankey

Detached - 183,004 246,173
Semi-Detached 145,000 138,951 180,671
Terraced 109,607 120,650 179,950
Flats 74,806 134,950

Overall
Average Minimum
1st
Quartile Median
3rd
Quartile Maximum
1-Bed Flat 74,806 52,750 68,713 79,950 81,200 85,950
2-Bed Flats 134,950 134,950 134,950 134,950 134,950 134,950
2-Bed Houses 114,031 89,950 98,713 118,725 121,200 145,000
3-Bed Houses 146,731 95,000 129,950 139,950 164,950 249,950
4-Bed Houses 233,374 154,950 199,950 230,000 249,950 399,950

11
Chapleford Urban Village

Detached - - -
Semi-Detached - - -
Terraced - 189,950 182,315
Flats - 119,950

Overall
Average Minimum
1st
Quartile Median
3rd
Quartile Maximum
1-Bed Flat - - - - - -
2-Bed Flats 119,950 119,950 119,950 119,950 119,950 119,950
2-Bed Houses - - - - - -
3-Bed Houses 189,950 189,950 189,950 189,950 189,950 189,950
4-Bed Houses 182,315 174,995 177,473 179,950 185,975 192,000

Penketh

Detached - 191,393 182,000
Semi-Detached 178,950 146,182 170,792
Terraced 120,479 179,950 -
Flats 117,475 111,000

Overall
Average Minimum
1st
Quartile Median
3rd
Quartile Maximum
1-Bed Flat 117,475 85,000 101,238 117,475 133,713 149,950
2-Bed Flats 111,000 92,000 101,500 111,000 120,500 130,000
2-Bed Houses 127,788 105,950 115,000 116,250 128,700 178,950
3-Bed Houses 156,484 120,000 138,113 148,950 173,713 225,000
4-Bed Houses 172,393 144,950 167,475 174,950 180,975 189,950

12
Old Hall

Detached - 178,300 244,963
Semi-Detached 114,975 146,475 -
Terraced 115,000 - -
Flats 69,950 89,950

Overall
Average Minimum
1st
Quartile Median
3rd
Quartile Maximum
1-Bed Flat 69,950 59,950 64,950 69,950 74,950 79,950
2-Bed Flats 89,950 89,950 89,950 89,950 89,950 89,950
2-Bed Houses 114,983 114,950 114,975 115,000 115,000 115,000
3-Bed Houses 165,570 127,950 163,950 165,000 178,950 192,000
4-Bed Houses 244,963 200,000 226,213 239,950 258,700 299,950

Callands

Semi-Detached 113,550 126,960 -
Terraced 94,975 123,000 -
Flats - -

Overall
Average Minimum
1st
Quartile Median
3rd
Quartile Maximum
1-Bed Flat - - - - - -
2-Bed Flats - - - - - -
2-Bed Houses 108,243 90,000 101,950 104,950 116,950 124,950
3-Bed Houses 126,300 119,950 120,750 126,475 129,950 134,950
4-Bed Houses 232,050 189,950 203,088 238,725 249,950 279,999

13
Dallam

Detached - - -
Terraced 71,450 77,843 -
Flats - -

Overall
Average Minimum
1st
Quartile Median
3rd
Quartile Maximum
1-Bed Flat - - - - - -
2-Bed Flats - - - - - -
2-Bed Houses 71,450 59,950 65,700 71,450 77,200 82,950
3-Bed Houses 82,647 67,500 76,225 80,000 86,000 116,000
4-Bed Houses - - - - - -

Collins Green

Terraced 94,950 93,475 -
Flats - -

Overall
Average Minimum
1st
Quartile Median
3rd
Quartile Maximum
1-Bed Flat - - - - - -
2-Bed Flats - - - - - -
2-Bed Houses 94,950 94,950 94,950 94,950 94,950 94,950
3-Bed Houses 141,713 93,000 93,713 136,950 184,950 199,950
4-Bed Houses - - - - - -

14
Howley

Semi-Detached 109,950 130,000 -
Terraced 76,213 189,950 189,975
Flats 61,338 97,370

Overall
Average Minimum
1st
Quartile Median
3rd
Quartile Maximum
1-Bed Flat 61,338 52,950 54,450 57,450 64,338 77,500
2-Bed Flats 97,370 69,950 75,000 93,000 112,950 135,950
2-Bed Houses 82,960 69,950 75,000 79,950 79,950 109,950
3-Bed Houses 154,967 130,000 137,475 144,950 167,450 189,950
4-Bed Houses 189,975 164,950 177,463 189,975 202,488 215,000

Paddington

Detached 105,000 130,000 265,000
Semi-Detached 109,137 142,802 235,000
Terraced 100,488 125,870 210,000
Flats 71,725 89,950
High Value Houses - 249,950 -

Overall
Average Minimum
1st
Quartile Median
3rd
Quartile Maximum
1-Bed Flat 71,725 44,950 61,488 73,500 83,737 94,950
2-Bed Flats 89,950 89,950 89,950 89,950 89,950 89,950
2-Bed Houses 103,415 79,950 94,950 99,950 109,950 135,000
3-Bed Houses 137,224 94,950 124,475 134,950 154,950 174,950
4-Bed Houses 236,667 210,000 222,500 235,000 250,000 265,000

15
Cinnamon Brow

Detached - 169,070 203,107
Semi-Detached 119,967 136,393 180,963
Terraced 99,950 191,113 -
Flats - -

Overall
Average Minimum
1st
Quartile Median
3rd
Quartile Maximum
1-Bed Flat - - - - - -
2-Bed Flats - - - - - -
2-Bed Houses 114,963 99,950 111,238 117,475 121,200 124,950
3-Bed Houses 162,376 99,950 139,950 159,950 174,950 300,000
4-Bed Houses 198,186 124,950 176,212 192,450 217,000 299,950

Longbarn

Detached 99,995 157,828 210,686
Semi-Detached 114,689 130,203 149,960
Terraced 88,915 133,300 -
Flats 59,950 99,150

Overall
Average Minimum
1st
Quartile Median
3rd
Quartile Maximum
1-Bed Flat 59,950 59,950 59,950 59,950 59,950 59,950
2-Bed Flats 99,150 78,950 89,950 99,950 109,950 116,950
2-Bed Houses 101,067 62,500 89,213 99,950 119,950 139,950
3-Bed Houses 137,340 95,000 119,725 130,000 154,998 189,950
4-Bed Houses 185,383 119,950 157,462 164,975 223,488 270,000

16
Woolston

Detached - 163,975 276,633
Semi-Detached 108,570 148,465 164,950
Terraced 99,950 139,950 -
Flats - -

Overall
Average Minimum
1st
Quartile Median
3rd
Quartile Maximum
1-Bed Flat - - - - - -
2-Bed Flats - - - - - -
2-Bed Houses 107,133 99,950 101,200 107,475 110,000 117,950
3-Bed Houses 151,192 115,000 139,975 149,950 162,500 219,500
4-Bed Houses 265,465 164,950 226,250 274,975 294,950 389,950

Risley

Terraced - - -
Flats - -

Overall
Average Minimum
1st
Quartile Median
3rd
Quartile Maximum
1-Bed Flat - - - - - -
2-Bed Flats - - - - - -
2-Bed Houses - - - - - -
3-Bed Houses 189,950 179,950 184,950 189,950 194,950 199,950
4-Bed Houses 287,475 249,950 268,713 287,475 306,238 325,000

17
Birchwood

Detached 139,983 177,718 222,718
Semi-Detached 115,731 136,662 -
Terraced 105,750 96,059 129,500
Flats 59,963 61,950

Overall
Average Minimum
1st
Quartile Median
3rd
Quartile Maximum
1-Bed Flat 59,963 49,950 53,700 54,975 61,238 79,950
2-Bed Flats 61,950 54,950 58,450 61,950 65,450 68,950
2-Bed Houses 115,892 90,000 103,963 112,475 129,750 145,000
3-Bed Houses 146,588 79,950 111,213 142,500 174,950 254,950
4-Bed Houses 214,950 129,500 211,213 217,500 227,500 255,000

Croft

Detached 215,000 233,317 331,490
Semi-Detached 169,950 243,317 237,475
Terraced 235,000 - -
Flats - -

Overall
Average Minimum
1st
Quartile Median
3rd
Quartile Maximum
1-Bed Flat - - - - - -
2-Bed Flats - - - - - -
2-Bed Houses 206,650 169,950 192,475 215,000 225,000 235,000
3-Bed Houses 238,317 179,950 220,000 242,475 249,988 300,000
4-Bed Houses 304,629 175,000 274,950 300,000 341,250 425,000

18
Culcheth

Detached - 262,475 368,676
Semi-Detached 173,700 177,479 287,700
Terraced 156,233 165,938 322,475
Flats 120,000 186,633

Overall
Average Minimum
1st
Quartile Median
3rd
Quartile Maximum
1-Bed Flat 120,000 120,000 120,000 120,000 120,000 120,000
2-Bed Flats 186,633 164,950 179,975 195,000 197,475 199,950
2-Bed Houses 163,220 129,950 139,963 156,250 173,738 229,950
3-Bed Houses 196,804 100,000 149,988 182,500 249,950 299,950
4-Bed Houses 345,132 174,950 291,250 350,000 396,238 475,000

Glazebury

Detached - 205,000 248,750
Semi-Detached 152,475 174,535 -
Terraced 132,475 174,475 -
Flats - 220,500
High Value Houses - - 724,975

Overall
Average Minimum
1st
Quartile Median
3rd
Quartile Maximum
1-Bed Flat - - - - - -
2-Bed Flats 220,500 205,000 212,750 220,500 228,250 236,000
2-Bed Houses 139,142 124,950 131,237 137,475 143,713 160,000
3-Bed Houses 180,063 138,950 160,975 189,950 199,998 210,000
4-Bed Houses 248,750 247,500 248,125 248,750 249,375 250,000

19
Hollins Green

Detached - 150,000 349,995
Semi-Detached 160,475 158,777 175,000
Terraced 142,475 249,950 -
Flats - -

Overall
Average Minimum
1st
Quartile Median
3rd
Quartile Maximum
1-Bed Flat - - - - - -
2-Bed Flats - - - - - -
2-Bed Houses 154,475 110,000 141,238 147,450 151,488 229,950
3-Bed Houses 170,548 134,995 149,998 159,950 174,473 249,950
4-Bed Houses 262,498 175,000 218,749 262,498 306,246 349,995

Glazebrook

Detached 155,000 299,950 -
Terraced 134,995 144,973 -
Flats - -

Overall
Average Minimum
1st
Quartile Median
3rd
Quartile Maximum
1-Bed Flat - - - - - -
2-Bed Flats - - - - - -
2-Bed Houses 144,998 134,995 139,996 144,998 149,999 155,000
3-Bed Houses 182,477 139,995 167,500 175,000 175,000 299,950
4-Bed Houses - - - - - -

20
Latchford

Semi-Detached 101,467 113,532 139,317
Terraced 103,968 108,019 -
Flats 80,986 95,957

Overall
Average Minimum
1st
Quartile Median
3rd
Quartile Maximum
1-Bed Flat 80,986 60,000 74,000 79,000 89,975 99,950
2-Bed Flats 95,957 69,950 71,450 84,000 117,450 139,950
2-Bed Houses 103,747 74,950 86,200 97,250 118,713 169,950
3-Bed Houses 111,874 72,950 94,450 108,475 121,338 185,000
4-Bed Houses 139,317 118,000 124,000 130,000 149,975 169,950

Hatton

Detached - 405,000 392,475
Semi-Detached - 264,950 279,950
Terraced - - -
Flats - -

Overall
Average Minimum
1st
Quartile Median
3rd
Quartile Maximum
1-Bed Flat - - - - - -
2-Bed Flats - - - - - -
2-Bed Houses - - - - - -
3-Bed Houses 358,317 264,950 324,975 385,000 405,000 425,000
4-Bed Houses 354,967 279,950 334,950 389,950 392,475 395,000

21
Stretton

Semi-Detached - 245,000 299,950
Terraced - - -
Flats - -

Overall
Average Minimum
1st
Quartile Median
3rd
Quartile Maximum
1-Bed Flat - - - - - -
2-Bed Flats - - - - - -
2-Bed Houses - - - - - -
3-Bed Houses 245,000 245,000 245,000 245,000 245,000 245,000
4-Bed Houses 383,317 299,950 337,475 375,000 425,000 475,000

Walton

Detached - 249,950 399,950
Terraced - 231,225 -
Flats - -

Overall
Average Minimum
1st
Quartile Median
3rd
Quartile Maximum
1-Bed Flat - - - - - -
2-Bed Flats - - - - - -
2-Bed Houses - - - - - -
3-Bed Houses 238,973 179,950 232,475 245,000 247,475 289,950
4-Bed Houses 399,950 399,950 399,950 399,950 399,950 399,950

22
Stockton Heath

Semi-Detached - 222,350 355,940
Terraced 166,046 182,263 304,950
Flats - 157,475

Overall
Average Minimum
1st
Quartile Median
3rd
Quartile Maximum
1-Bed Flat - - - - - -
2-Bed Flats 157,475 155,000 156,238 157,475 158,713 159,950
2-Bed Houses 166,046 134,950 151,238 164,950 175,000 200,000
3-Bed Houses 207,773 130,000 164,950 195,000 229,950 375,000
4-Bed Houses 355,327 220,000 315,000 339,950 425,000 449,950

Appleton

Detached - 321,869 440,983
Semi-Detached 162,475 223,709 228,970
Terraced 137,450 173,606 330,000
Flats 66,500 140,000
High Value Flats - 285,000

Overall
Average Minimum
1st
Quartile Median
3rd
Quartile Maximum
1-Bed Flat 66,500 66,500 66,500 66,500 66,500 66,500
2-Bed Flats 140,000 115,000 130,000 135,000 145,000 175,000
2-Bed Houses 149,963 119,950 142,450 152,450 159,963 175,000
3-Bed Houses 222,295 125,000 167,225 205,000 257,475 450,000
4-Bed Houses 406,334 199,950 325,000 395,000 485,000 695,000
High Value Flats 285,000 285,000 285,000 285,000 285,000 285,000
High Value Houses 894,279 725,000 774,975 885,000 975,000 1,150,000

23
Grappenhall & Grappenhall Heys

Detached - 254,975 361,213
Semi-Detached 141,665 208,098 309,979
Terraced 223,725 217,986 299,950
Flats 135,000 146,142

Overall
Average Minimum
1st
Quartile Median
3rd
Quartile Maximum
1-Bed Flat 135,000 135,000 135,000 135,000 135,000 135,000
2-Bed Flats 146,142 85,000 138,988 147,450 168,738 184,950
2-Bed Houses 188,556 110,000 154,975 164,995 242,475 250,000
3-Bed Houses 217,353 136,000 179,988 219,725 240,000 365,000
4-Bed Houses 320,237 215,000 262,475 299,950 369,950 499,950

Thelwall

Detached - 295,000 334,980
Semi-Detached - 223,150 205,000
Terraced - - -
Flats - -

Overall
Average Minimum
1st
Quartile Median
3rd
Quartile Maximum
1-Bed Flat - - - - - -
2-Bed Flats - - - - - -
2-Bed Houses - - - - - -
3-Bed Houses 241,113 169,950 186,213 232,500 272,250 340,000
4-Bed Houses 313,317 205,000 277,450 317,475 365,000 395,000

24
Lymm

Detached 225,000 312,422 448,490
Semi-Detached 157,450 231,520 338,831
Terraced 189,755 242,868 281,633
Flats 103,641 157,123
High Value Houses 350,000 592,500 908,750

Overall
Average Minimum
1st
Quartile Median
3rd
Quartile Maximum
1-Bed Flat 103,641 84,950 86,211 93,473 114,238 145,000
2-Bed Flats 157,123 115,000 128,738 156,475 169,950 229,998
2-Bed Houses 188,478 134,950 162,950 180,000 204,975 285,000
3-Bed Houses 244,274 145,000 186,000 232,500 277,125 449,500
4-Bed Houses 372,399 210,000 282,450 354,975 452,213 645,000
High Value Houses 738,571 350,000 592,500 725,000 855,000 1,200,000

Appleton Thorn

Terraced - - -
Flats - -

Overall
Average Minimum
1st
Quartile Median
3rd
Quartile Maximum
1-Bed Flat - - - - - -
2-Bed Flats - - - - - -
2-Bed Houses - - - - - -
3-Bed Houses 182,980 169,950 169,950 175,000 175,000 225,000
4-Bed Houses 437,100 310,000 335,000 425,000 549,950 585,000

25
Average Asking Price Analysis By Settlement Area

The table below collates the average prices of the different property types for each of the locations
considered above.

Rank Settlement
1 Bed
Flats
2 Bed
Flats
2 Bed
House
3 Bed
House
4 Bed
House
All
Properties
1 Appleton Thorn - - - 182,980 437,100 346,343
2
Appleton 66,500 140,000 149,963 222,295 406,334
287,189
3 Thelwall - - - 241,113 313,317 272,057
4 Croft - - 206,650 238,317 304,629 261,391
5 Lymm 103,641 157,123 188,478 244,274 372,399 256,098
6 Culcheth 120,000 186,633 163,220 196,804 345,132 253,017
7 Winwick - 159,950 171,142 241,988 320,475 250,405
8 Walton - - - 238,973 399,950 249,034
9
Grappenhall & Grappenhall
Heys 135,000 146,142 188,556 217,353 320,237 232,706
10 Stockton Heath - 157,475 166,046 207,773 355,327 227,667
11 Westbrook 155,000 113,725 140,000 177,613 250,970 207,922
12 Whittle Hall - 117,950 133,150 177,136 237,814 184,719
13 Glazebury - 220,500 139,142 180,063 248,750 178,764
14 Hollins Green - - 154,475 170,548 262,498 176,379
15 Glazebrook - - 144,998 182,477 - 175,663
16 Cinnamon Brow - - 114,963 162,376 198,186 172,956
17 Woolston - - 107,133 151,192 265,465 169,881
18 Great Sankey 74,806 134,950 114,031 146,731 233,374 163,629
19 Burtonwood - - 86,650 104,542 250,300 159,267
20 Old Hall 69,950 89,950 114,983 165,570 244,963 158,833
21 Callands - - 108,243 126,300 232,050 153,042
22 Penketh 117,475 111,000 127,788 156,484 172,393 151,065
23 Birchwood 59,963 61,950 115,892 146,588 214,950 143,564
24 Longbarn 59,950 99,150 101,067 137,340 185,383 131,293
25 Bewsey - - 122,950 126,041 149,950 128,354
26 Paddington 71,725 89,950 103,415 137,224 236,667 125,540
27 Latchford 80,986 95,957 103,747 111,874 139,317 107,633
28 Howley 61,338 97,370 82,960 154,967 189,975 104,834
29 Warrington Centre 70,805 100,744 88,996 126,312 176,633 100,039
30 Dallam - - 71,450 82,647 - 81,329
- Overall 80,546 131,249 123,201 171,629 299,794 185,299

26
Sub-Area Analysis Average Asking Price

Central

Semi-Detached 103,588 114,206 141,975
Terraced 95,513 114,562 189,975
Flats 75,259 98,650
Bungalows - - -

Overall Average Minimum 1st Quartile Median 3rd Quartile Maximum
1-Bed Flats 75,259 49,950 65,250 78,250 84,963 99,950
2-Bed Flats 98,650 69,950 74,488 101,475 114,700 139,950
2-Bed Houses 95,962 69,950 84,950 92,250 99,950 169,950
3-Bed Houses 114,632 72,950 94,995 109,950 124,950 189,950
4-Bed Houses 157,975 118,000 134,988 157,450 168,700 215,000
2-Bed Bungalows - - - - - -

Culcheth & Croft

Detached 215,000 329,422 419,374
Semi-Detached 167,100 184,850 276,539
Terraced 154,754 168,783 322,475
Flats 120,000 200,180
Bungalows 190,588 431,709 492,250

1-Bed Flats 120,000 120,000 120,000 120,000 120,000 120,000
2-Bed Flats 200,180 164,950 195,000 199,950 205,000 236,000
2-Bed Houses 162,474 124,950 137,450 155,000 172,475 235,000
3-Bed Houses 237,056 100,000 161,488 205,000 261,250 649,950
4-Bed Houses 386,500 174,950 299,950 360,000 475,000 750,000
2-Bed Bungalows 190,588 145,000 155,000 172,950 225,000 249,950
3-Bed Bungalows 431,709 194,950 219,975 475,000 587,475 800,000
4-Bed Bungalows 492,250 299,000 412,250 462,500 542,500 745,000

27
East

Detached 144,271 202,934 245,544
Semi-Detached 114,447 145,809 173,354
Terraced 99,316 121,914 179,863
Flats 64,004 92,035
Bungalows 141,210 222,693 324,980

1-Bed Flats 64,004 44,950 54,950 59,950 77,500 94,950
2-Bed Flats 92,035 54,950 75,000 89,950 109,950 135,950
2-Bed Houses 108,858 62,500 95,500 105,725 119,713 229,950
3-Bed Houses 156,773 79,950 129,000 149,950 169,950 650,000
4-Bed Houses 227,879 119,950 178,749 216,000 261,250 399,995
2-Bed Bungalows 141,210 12,950 129,950 141,950 160,000 205,000
3-Bed Bungalows 222,693 159,500 189,950 208,725 248,713 350,000
4-Bed Bungalows 324,980 239,950 249,950 285,000 300,000 550,000

North West

Detached 284,950 211,414 267,215
Semi-Detached 126,372 139,931 182,147
Terraced 112,206 129,999 174,077
Flats 86,792 119,015
Bungalows 145,382 227,071 297,308

1-Bed Flats 86,792 52,750 69,950 79,950 85,000 155,000
2-Bed Flats 119,015 89,950 95,875 119,950 133,713 159,950
2-Bed Houses 121,494 59,950 101,950 117,500 135,975 284,950
3-Bed Houses 156,323 59,950 128,475 149,950 174,950 575,000
4-Bed Houses 245,000 144,950 193,475 234,950 279,950 540,000
2-Bed Bungalows 145,382 89,950 124,950 139,950 162,450 224,950
3-Bed Bungalows 227,071 120,000 168,713 197,475 249,800 650,000
4-Bed Bungalows 297,308 159,950 169,713 257,000 378,713 550,000
28
South

Detached 286,667 326,453 513,010
Semi-Detached 152,121 222,286 321,910
Terraced 179,604 212,701 293,182
Flats 102,918 156,966
Bungalows 255,812 331,583 366,271

1-Bed Flats 102,918 66,500 84,950 93,473 123,750 145,000
2-Bed Flats 156,966 85,000 135,000 155,000 169,950 285,000
2-Bed Houses 182,232 110,000 154,950 175,000 199,950 350,000
3-Bed Houses 233,392 125,000 179,950 222,500 249,988 675,000
4-Bed Houses 426,245 199,950 299,950 392,475 475,000 1,200,000
2-Bed Bungalows 255,812 169,950 227,424 267,500 281,213 335,000
3-Bed Bungalows 331,583 184,450 274,250 330,000 382,475 485,000
4-Bed Bungalows 366,271 229,950 327,500 330,000 401,975 545,000

The table below is derived from the above information and shows the average asking price by
property type within Warrington Borough by sub-area as provided by Warrington Borough Council.

Average Asking Prices Analysis by Sub Area - Flats and Houses
Settlement
1 Bed
Flats
2 Bed
Flats
2 Bed
House
3 Bed
House
4 Bed
House
All
Properties
South 102,918 156,966 182,232 233,392 426,245 280,175
Culcheth & Croft 120,000 200,180 162,474 237,056 386,500 279,484
North West 86,792 119,015 121,494 156,323 245,000 172,124
East 64,004 92,035 108,858 156,773 227,879 152,230
Central 75,259 98,650 95,962 114,632 157,975 104,733
Overall 80,546 133,008 123,907 179,073 331,597 199,005

29
New Build property being marketed in Warrington December 2009

The new build pricing information was collated through on the ground (local area visits) and
desktop research. The local research involved travelling throughout the area to view new
developments as far as those were seen and, where on-site selling was occurring, speaking to
those sales agents wherever possible. Where this was not possible and we felt further information
was needed, we contacted house builders sales staff by telephone or email, or reviewed their
websites further, to supplement the information gathered where necessary.

In addition to speaking to on-site sales agents, Adams Integra also requested opinions from estate
agents in the Borough with regard to the local market; together with any comments on new build
schemes and sales values. In this instance the level of feedback was low but information collected
is shown below.

Information on new developments was also collected through desktop research using websites
such as www.rightmove.co.uk, www.primelocation.com and www.smartnewhomes.com.

This review of new build pricing - of all advertised available properties at the time of the study
research phase - helped us understand the various value levels (range of Value Points) to be
assumed for the variety of dwelling types applied within our appraisal modelling.

Notes to accompany the following new builds information table:

The price information obtained (at column 5) was usually an asking (marketing) price. This is in our
view currently represents the likely market sale price level plus 10% (assuming approximately 10%
gap between marketing and sale prices currently). This cannot be definitive.

That price level has been adjusted in columns 6, 7 and 8 to represent:

Less 20% (estimated current market less 10%) Column 6.
Less 10% (estimated current sale price; i.e. approximately marketing price less
10%) Column 7.
Plus 10% (estimated current market plus 20%; i.e. approximately marketing price
plus 10%) Column 8.

In this way, we can consider how pricing might vary as the market does. We develop a scale of
values which helps us to see how wide our range of Values Points could be.

In all cases the average prices expressed in s in this particular table should be treated with
caution high values properties have not been excluded from these calculations (like they were for
the overall resale dominated market data above).

We look at the per m pricing, which smoothes out distortions from property types and sizes more
effectively, and becomes a key driver for considering the Values Points. When reviewing the table
below, those per m figures and their range should be the focus.

30
Address Description Price
Size
(m2)
Price
per
m2
Less
20%
Less
10%
Plus
10%
Developer/
Agent
Incentives
Warrington Centre
Flats

Bewsey Street,
Warrington,
Cheshire

2 bed flat 125,500 Bridgfords
2 bed flat 109,950
2 bed flat 109,950
2 bed flat 85,000

2 bed flat
(Offers in the
region of)
85,000
2 bed flat
(Offers in the
region of)
85,000
2 bed flat
(Offers in the
region of)
85,000
Rylands Drive,
Warrington,
WA2
2 bed flat
(Offers in the
region of)
85,000
Fastmove
Properties
Ltd
HomeBuy
Direct
2 bed flat 105,950
2 bed flat 102,950 57.3 1,796 1,437 1,616 1,976
2 bed flat 102,950 61.9 1,662 1,330 1,496 1,828
2 bed flat 99,950
1 bed flat 99,950
1 bed flat 99,950 54.7 1,829 1,463 1,646 2,011
2 bed flat 99,950 40.3 2,478 1,983 2,230 2,726
Gladstone
Street,
Warrington,
WA2
1 bed flat 79,950 41.3 1,937 1,549 1,743 2,130
Ben Bailey
Homes
NewBuild
HomeBuy.
Part
Exchange
available.
5% Deposit
Paid. Stamp
Duty Paid
Lewis Court,
Victoria Street,
Warrington,
Cheshire, WA1
2 bed flat 114,000
Beresford
Adams

Averages 98,588 51.1 1,940 1,552 1,746 2,134
Houses
4 bed detached POA
4 bed town
house
(Offers in the
region of)
189,950
4 bed town
house
189,950
4 bed town
house
189,950
4 bed town
house
POA
3 bed town
house
179,950

4 bed semi
detached
POA
4 bed mews
house
POA
Fastmove
Properties
Ltd
HomeBuy
Direct
3 bed semi
detached
169,950
Beresford
Adams

Rylands Drive,
Warrington,
WA2
3 bed mews POA
Fastmove
Properties
Ltd
HomeBuy
Direct
Averages 183,950
31
Size
(m2)
Price
per
m2
Less
20%
Less
10%
Plus
10%
Developer/
Agent
Incentives
Bewsey
Flats
2 bed flat (from) 94,995 62.0 1,532 1,226 1,379 1,685
Bewsey Road,
Warrington,
WA5
1 bed flat (from) 79,995 49.4 1,619 1,295 1,457 1,781
Persimmon
Homes
5% deposit
paid. Home
Buy Direct.
Carpets.
1000 towards
legal fees
Longshaw
Street,
Warrington,
Cheshire, WA5
0DE
1 bed flat 74,995
Bovis
Homes

Averages 83,328 55.7 1,576 1,261 1,418 1,733
Houses
3 bed mews 122,995 61.3 2,006 1,605 1,806 2,207
Part
exchange.
Legal
package. Swift
Move. Interior
Design
Package.
Garden
Package
3 bed mews 129,995 65.8 1,974 1,580 1,777 2,172
Beaumont
Grange,
Bewsey Road,
Warrington,
WA5 OAF
4 bed mews
(from)
144,995 73.4 1,975 1,580 1,778 2,173
McInerney
Homes
Part
exchange.
Legal
package. Swift
Move. Interior
Design
Package.
Garden
Package
3 bed house
(from)
135,995
3 bed terrace
(from)
119,995
Bewsey Road,
Warrington,
WA5
1 bed house
(from)
89,995
Persimmon
Homes
5% deposit
paid. Home
Buy Direct.
Carpets.
1000 towards
legal fees
4 bed house 175,995
4 bed town
house
169,995
3 bed detached 169,995
4 bed town
house
152,995
4 bed house 149,995
Longshaw
Street,
Warrington,
Cheshire, WA5
0DE
Bovis
Homes

3 bed mews 128,000
Deal Close,
Bewsey,
Warrington
3 bed mews 128,000
Owen Knox
Estates
NewBuild
HomeBuy
Averages 140,281 66.8 1,985 1,588 1,787 2,184
Great Sankey
Flats
2 bed flat 160,950
2 bed flat 125,000
1 bed flat 105,000
Lingley House,
Lingley Court,
Great Sankey,
Warrington,
Cheshire 1 bed flat 105,000
Ashtons
Estate
Agency

Stockdale
Drive, Great
2 bed flat (from) 140,000
Charter
Homes
Part
Exchange
32
Size
(m2)
Price
per
m2
Less
20%
Less
10%
Plus
10%
Developer/
Agent
Incentives
Sankey,
Warrington,
Cheshire, WA5
2 bed flat (from) 139,950 91.2 1,535 1,228 1,381 1,688
available on
selected
plots
2 bed flat 108,100 57.3 1,885 1,508 1,697 2,074
2 bed flat 110,350 57.3 1,924 1,540 1,732 2,117
2 bed flat 112,850 57.3 1,968 1,574 1,771 2,165
Jefferson
Drive, Great
Sankey,
Warrington,
WA5 8GP 2 bed flat 114,400 57.3 1,995 1,596 1,796 2,195
Barratt
Homes

Lavender
Gardens,
Warrington,
WA5
1 bed flat (Offers
in the region of)
100,000
Fastmove
Properties
Ltd

Averages 120,145 64.1 1,861 1,489 1,675 2,048
Chicago Place,
Great Sankey
2 bed flat 48,000
Owen Knox
Estates
NewBuild
HomeBuy
Houses
6 bed detached
(from)
275,000
5 bed semi
detached (from)
250,000
4 bed semi
detached (from)
239,950
Stockdale
Drive, Great
Sankey,
Warrington,
Cheshire, WA5
5 bed semi
detached (from)
230,000
Charter
Homes
Part
Exchange
available on
selected
plots
4 bed town
house
220,000
4 bed town
house
210,000
4 bed town
house
210,000
4 bed town
house
195,000
Part
exchange
4 bed town
house
195,000
4 bed town
house
195,000

3 bed town
house
170,000
3 bed town
house
170,000
3 bed town
house
165,000
3 bed town
house
160,000
Lingley Court,
Great Sankey,
Warrington,
Cheshire
3 bed town
house
150,000
Ashtons
Estate
Agency
Part
exchange
Jefferson
Drive, Great
Sankey,
Warrington,
WA5 8GP
4 bed detached 216,700 152.95 1,417 1,133 1,275 1,558
Barratt
Homes

Averages 203,228
Monks Hall
Houses

5 bed detached
(Offers in the
region of)
205,950
Saxon Park,
Warrington,
WA5
4 bed town
house
172,950
Fastmove
Properties
Ltd
5% Deposit
Paid. Free
carpets
33
Size
(m2)
Price
per
m2
Less
20%
Less
10%
Plus
10%
Developer/
Agent
Incentives
3 bed town
house
172,000
3 bed town
house (Offers in
excess of)
121,000
Averages 182,370
Chapelford Urban Village
Flats
2 bed flat 106,995 65.0 1,647 1,318 1,483 1,812
2 bed flat 107,995 65.0 1,663 1,330 1,496 1,829
2 bed flat 107,995
Portland Road,
Great Sankey,
Warrington,
WA5 8DJ
2 bed flat 109,995
David
Wilson
Homes

1 bed flat 114,995
2 bed flat 109,995
2 bed flat 107,995
2 bed flat 107,995
Burtonwood
Road,
Warrington,
WA5
2 bed flat 106,995
David
Wilson
Homes

Boston
Boulevard,
Chapelford Ph
9, Warrington,
WA5 6AB
1 bed flat 114,995 45.9 2,505 2,004 2,255 2,756
David
Wilson
Homes

Averages 109,595 58.6 1,938 1,551 1,745 2,132
Chicago Place,
Gt Sankey,
Warrington
2 bed flat 48,000
Owen Knox
Estates
NewBuild
HomeBuy
Houses
5 bed detached
(from)
334,995
Washington
Drive, Great
Sankey,
Warrington,
WA5
4 bed detached
(from)
279,995
Persimmon
Homes
Part
Exchange .
Stamp Duty
Paid.
Mortgage
Subsidy.
Carpets
Houston
Gardens,
Great Sankey,
Warrington,
WA5
3 bed semi
detached
184,950
Fastmove
Properties
Ltd

3 bed terrace 189,995
4 bed semi
detached
199,995 99.1 2,017 1,614 1,816 2,219
3 bed semi
detached
199,995
Portland Road,
Great Sankey,
Warrington,
WA5 8DJ
3 bed house 219,995 124.7 1,765 1,412 1,588 1,941
David
Wilson
Homes

Chapelford
Village,
Warrington,
Cheshire, WA5
David
Wilson
Homes

34
Size
(m2)
Price
per
m2
Less
20%
Less
10%
Plus
10%
Developer/
Agent
Incentives
3 bed end
terrace
219,995
3 bed end
terrace
199,995
3 bed semi
detached
194,995
Hartford Place,
Warrington
David
Wilson
Homes

Averages 248,187 111.9 1,891 1,513 1,702 2,080
3 bed mews
house
77,500
Phoenix Place,
Great Sankey,
Warrington,
Cheshire
3 bed semi
detached
77,500
Owen Knox
Estates
NewBuild
HomeBuy
The
Boulevard,
Chapelford,
Great Sankey,
Warrington
3 bed mews
house
75,000
Owen Knox
Estates
NewBuild
HomeBuy
Howley
Flats
Lewis Court,
Victoria Street,
Warrington,
Cheshire, WA1
2 bed flat 114,000
Beresford
Adams

Paddington
Houses
4 bed mews
house
215,000
4 bed mews
house
199,000
3 bed town
house
170,000
3 bed town
house
160,000
Bridgfords
5% Deposit
Paid. Stamp
duty paid.
Legal fees
paid. Carpets
included.
Assisted sales
plan
4 bed mews
house
199,000
Westbridge
Mews,
Greenway,
Paddington,
Warrington,
WA1
4 bed mews
house
199,000
Beresford
Adams

Averages 190,333
Longbarn
Houses
Longfield
Road,
Warrington,
WA2
4 bed detached
(Offers in the
region of)
249,000
Fastmove
Properties
Ltd

35
Size
(m2)
Price
per
m2
Less
20%
Less
10%
Plus
10%
Developer/
Agent
Incentives
4 bed semi
detached
154,950
Urban Space,
Warrington
4 bed semi
detached
154,950
Miller
Homes
HomeBuy
Direct (Plot
Specific)
Averages 174,713
Culcheth
Flats
Gilbert Court,
Ellesmere
Road,
Warrington
1 bed flat 85,000 Bridgfords
Part
exchange
considered
Houses
York Avenue,
Culcheth,
Warrington
3 bed semi
detached
175,000 Bridgfords
Hollins Green
Houses
4 bed house 255,000 160.5 1,589 1,271 1,430 1,748
Hollins Green,
Manchester
Road, Rixton,
WA3
4 bed house
(from)
250,000 160.5 1,558 1,246 1,402 1,714
August
Blake

Averages 252,500 160.5 1,574 1,259 1,416 1,731
Latchford
Flats
Williams
Wharf,
Thelwall Lane,
Warrington,
WA4 1LJ
1 & 2 bed flats
99,995-
118,300

McInerney
Homes

Egremont
Court,
Wilderspool
Causeway,
Warrington,
Cheshire, WA4
2 bed flat (Offers
in excess of)
129,950
Beresford
Adams

Houses
4 bed detached
(from)
348,750
3 bed mews
(from)
170,750
Thelwall Lane,
Warrington,
WA4
3 bed mews
(from)
169,750
Morris
Homes

Averages 229,750
Grappenhall
Houses
4 bed detached 279,950 86.6 3,233 2,586 2,909 3,556
Thelwall New
Road,
Grappenhall,
Warrington,
WA4
4 bed detached 234,950 81.8 2,874 2,299 2,586 3,161
Wainhomes
(North
West)
Limited

5% Deposit
Paid and
Carpets Or
Part
Exchange
Available.
Shared
Equity
Available
36
Size
(m2)
Price
per
m2
Less
20%
Less
10%
Plus
10%
Developer/
Agent
Incentives
With Deposit
4 bed mews
house
274,950 131.2 2,096 1,677 1,887 2,306
5% Deposit
Paid and
Carpets Or
Part
Exchange
Available.
Averages 263,283 99.8 2,734 2,187 2,461 3,008
Lymm
Flats
Chaise
Meadow,
Lymm, WA13
1 bed flat (Offers
in the Region of)
139,950
Fastmove
Properties
Ltd

Newarth Drive,
Lymm,
Cheshire
2 bed flat 120,000
Owen Knox
Estates
NewBuild
HomeBuy
Averages 129,975
The Seasons
Development,
Lymm,
Warrington
1 bed flat (from) 75,000
Owen Knox
Estates
NewBuild
HomeBuy
Houses
5 bed detached
(from)
639,950 211.5 3,025 2,420 2,723 3,328
5 bed detached
(from)
539,950
5 bed detached
(from)
499,950 141.1 3,543 2,835 3,189 3,898
4 bed detached
(from)
449,950
Newarth Drive,
Lymm,
Cheshire,
WA13
3 bed semi
detached (from)
274,950
Bryant
Homes

Chaise
Meadow,
Lymm, WA13
9UP
5 bed detached
(Offers over)
450,000 214.0 2,103 1,683 1,893 2,314
Ridgeway
Residential
Estate
Agent

Averages 475,792 188.9 2,891 2,313 2,602 3,180
3 bed mews
house
170,000
3 bed mews
house
165,500
3 bed mews
house
165,000
2 bed semi
detached
155,000
3 bed semi
detached
150,000
Sandmoor
Place, Lymm,
Warrington
3 bed mews
house
127,500
Owen Knox
Estates
NewBuild
HomeBuy

37
Further local research Agents and developers sales office comments:
Estate Agent Conversations:

Bridgford Countrywide
No information provided.

Miller Rourke Properties
Not obtainable.

Edward Grounds Ltd
They have no new build properties.

Ashtons Estate Agents
Mentioned that there are a number of sites in Warrington which are Brownfield sites. The market
has dived and Warrington Borough Council is putting pressure on builders to do affordable housing
schemes. There is not much building done under Section 106. Location is extremely important in
Warrington as property prices can double form one side of the road to another. In North Warrington
there is an estate Winwick Park where a 2 bed property will go for 200k 500 meters away the
same property will sell for 90k. There is a motorway between these two areas. In South
Warrington, e.g., Stockton Heath, a 2 bed terrace sells for 150k across the water (Manchester
Ship Canal) is 60k for the same property type.

The reduced prices are generally where there are ex-corporation estates or rows of ex-corporation
houses. In these areas prices are hit hard. Ex-corporation houses have a specific look.

On new build estates where there are some corporation houses, most of them are for affordable
rent. There is very little shared ownership/shared equity.

Carrington Park they cannot sell the houses on this estate. If the corporation did shared
ownership/shared equity it would help on the estates.

The property that is currently being built is inappropriate, developers are building 4 bed houses
which are not what the market is looking for. Need property for first time buyers - more 2 bed
houses, and more variety. 2 bed houses built in early 1990s are selling very quickly when they
come on their books.

The larger houses are getting down valued by mortgage providers especially by the Nationwide.

There is a requirement for more affordable housing shared equity. There are a lot of empty flats
in Warrington - they are not selling. There are some blocks of flats where individual flats were
purchased for investment @ 130k each which is now on the market for 60k.

There is a 2 year waiting list for a property there is not enough being built.

With regard to land sales:
Planning will only be given on Brownfield and must be regeneration. Land cost depends on where
it is. Mentioned a plot for 1 house approx. 60 sq ft seller wants 60k. The land is quite expensive,
as the build would cost approx. 80k giving a cost of 140k for the land and build, and this ignores
all additional costs on top. Greenbelt land is going for 10k per acre.
38

Average build cost in the area is 800 per sqm (unknown on what basis and what this includes).

Brooklands Estate Agents
No information provided.

Land availability:

Review of the following websites carried out:
UK Land Directory; Selfbuildabc.co.uk; Development land for sale; greenbelt land; UK land and
farms; selfbuildland.co.uk; perfectplot.co.uk; vantage land; land watch.

The only land found on any site was 5 miles from Warrington in neighbouring Halton Borough
Council.
8 acres site Delp Cottage, Daresbury. 3 bed cottage set in 8 acres amenity and grazing land with
outbuildings Guide price 575,000.

Commercial property:

Web search:

4 commercial properties for sale on findaproperty.com:
Thriving pub in Warrington detached - 700,000
Off licence plus 3 bed apartment in Thewall Lane Warrington - 185,000
Double fronted property in Fothergill Street Warrington - 210,000
Ex convenient store in Wash Lane Warrington - 220,000

Morganwilliams.com:
Location Existing Use/Planning Permission
Site Size
(Ha)
Asking
Price
Knutsford Road
Warrington
4 storey offices with parking outline planning. 0.0366 250,000
Hall lane
Stretton
Land used by landscape contractor with storage
buildings no planning permission.
1.02 under offer
Land off Farrell
Street
Development site with planning to relocate access
road across the middle of the site.
0.7284
offers
invited
Withington
Avenue
Warrington
Block of a high school constructed in 1990's. 0.4
private
treaty
Wilderspool
Causeway
Warrington
Planning for 2 x 1 bed and 2 x 2 bed flats. 0.0233
offers
invited

Mellerbraggins.com
The Police
House Tarporley
Planning permission for 4 flats. Unknown 250,000
741/743
Knutsford Road
Latchford
Currently car sales site but could be for
alternative use subject to planning.
Unknown 350,000

39

Summary and Outcomes

The results of the values research led to the formation of 7 Value Points. We consider that, when
viewed overall, these points cover the range within which most new build values are seen
currently, and would be likely to be seen given foreseeable future market movements. As most
areas have a variety of property values, the results of this research can be used independently of
location where approximate sales values can be estimated so that the variations within the
overall range might be seen through scheme type and/or location and/or with time.

The Value Points are based on our dwelling type and size assumptions, but can also be applied to
other dwelling types/sizes through use of the overall range of per m values. Intermediate points,
between Value Points, can also be considered through viewing appraisal outcomes for the points
either side.

Considering all the information our judgements resulted in the following range of Value Points
being settled and used in the appraisals for this study:

Values
Value
Point
1-Bed
Flats
2-Bed
Flats
2-Bed
Houses
3-Bed
Houses
4-Bed
Houses
/sq m
Houses
1 70,000 93,800 105,000 119,000 140,000 1,400
2 84,000 112,560 126,000 142,800 168,000 1,680
3 100,800 135,072 151,200 171,360 201,600 2,016
4 120,960 162,086 181,440 205,632 241,920 2,419
5 145,152 194,504 217,728 246,758 290,304 2,903
6 174,182 233,404 261,274 296,110 348,365 3,484
7 209,019 280,085 313,528 355,332 418,038 4,180

Acknowledgement:
Adams Integra would like to thank those companies and individuals who have taken the time to
respond to us, help with our enquiries and provide information greatly appreciated.

Warrington Borough Council Property Values Report - Appendix III - ends

Appendix IV

Appendix IV

Warrington Borough Council - Affordable Housing Viability Assessment Judgements on Assumptions

Assistance is sought with information to help with views on assumptions, as below, please together with any comments.

(NB: Any clarification needed with planning policy/obligations assumptions are being provided by the Council)

Base development appraisal assumptions to be used in the study (for comment). If you wish to suggest alternatives please state
either a range of alternatives in absolute (value/, etc) or % terms (where a factor of another appraisal element) and the reasons for
the variance. We are not going into every area of detail here, but aim to seek views on those which the outcomes are likely to be
most sensitive to.

Sales Values - TBC - views sought on typical new build values across the Borough and any variations by location, bearing in
mind that we have to make an overview and consider how varying market conditions might affect values and thus viability as
we move forward.

Build costs (based on GIA including externals and prelims - but no abnormals as those affect our ability to compare outcomes
> site specifics and dealt with below).
o Houses - 1,000/m
o Apartments - 1,100/m (assuming low rise development no more than 3 storey)
(In every area costs vary, and from site to site, but any universal issues, etc, with local materials/typical sites?)

Professional Fees, Contingencies and Insurances - 12.5% of build cost.

Legal Fees on Sale - 400 per unit.

Sales Fees - 1.5% of sales values.

Finance - 7.0%.

Legal fees on land purchase - 0.5% of land value.

Stamp Duty Land Tax between 0% and 4% depending on land value.

Code for Sustainable Homes uplift in build costs:
o Level 3 - base plus 50/m
o Level 4 - base plus 100/m

Lifetime Homes - views sought on this please. At present we allow 545 per unit average in above base costs. Top end of the
range of likely costs as set out by www.lifetimehomes.org.uk (Habinteg Housing Association). In practice, site-by-site, a wide
range of views and experiences exists.

Developer Profit - between 15% and 20% of gross development value for private units; 6% on affordable units.

Survey costs - variable depending on site size and type being appraised. Any locally relevant issues/examples please?

Other assumptions where views are sought (no particular order):

Experiences/examples of land values (sales) for different types of sites (residential, commercial, industrial, etc).

Grant availability - on a per person basis what levels of grant have been achieved?

Development typologies - common/predominant development types across the Borough (e.g. family housing, apartments,
townhouses, occurrence of large/high value properties, etc) and where they are likely to occur (e.g. Brownfield/Greenfield,
etc). Adams Integra likely to be appraising site typologies in the range 1-100 units of varying sizes and unit mixes.

Commonly experienced abnormal issues/cost?

Market conditions Borough-wide, any local distinctions - areas picking up more/sooner than others? Gaps between asking
and sales prices? Levels and value of incentives being offered?

Current experiences with affordable tenure models and tenure mixes?

In the first instance please send all correspondence to Garry Legg at Warrington Borough Council.

Notes: Please note that no specifics or individual company details will be quoted - this is for background use and information only.
The sensitivities are respected. Any pointers and assistance or comments/part responses are much appreciated and will be treated
in confidence.

This is a strategic study and your comments/views on appraisal assumptions will be taken into account in making sure the
development appraisal modelling for this study reasonably reflects the development scenario(s) locally. We are aware though that
every party will have a different view on certain elements of this study. We have to maintain an independent view when testing the
viability of affordable housing policies, and look for an appropriately judged balance between the acute pressure of housing needs
and the likely deliverability of schemes. It has to be a strategic piece of work, in line with the LDF process, and will not be a
substitute for the second layer of site-specific discussions that are likely to be needed in many cases. When commenting on the
assumptions please have regard to the fact that this study is looking at this overview and covering site typologies (notional site
types). The methodology is based on the premise of residual land valuation and that land does not have a fixed price, it is the key
variable once all the other cost burdens are placed upon a development scheme and weighed up against the value that can be
created on scheme completion. To test the impact of affordable housing (proportion, tenure mix, thresholds) and other related

policies, we need to fix as many of the other assumptions as we can. This provides base outcomes from which we start to see
trends. We then carry out sensitivity testing some of the other key assumptions (such as property values, build costs, profits, other
planning obligations costs, Code for Sustainable Homes, etc) to investigate what impact those have on residential development
viability in tandem with the affordable housing policies.

Many thanks

Adams Integra, on behalf of Warrington Borough Council.

Appendix V

Appendix V

Appendix V

WARRINGTON BOROUGH COUNCIL

AFFORDABLE HOUSING
FINANCIAL VIABILITY ASSESSMENT

GLOSSARY OF TERMS
(The scope of this glossary is restricted to terms used in the study)

A

Abnormal Development Costs - Costs that are not allowed for specifically within
normal development costs. These can include costs associated with unusual ground
conditions, contamination, etc.

Affordable Housing (also see Intermediate Affordable Housing and Social Rented
Housing) - PPS3 Housing (November 2006) defines affordable housing as
housing that includes social rented and intermediate housing, provided to specified
eligible households whose needs are not met by the market. Affordable housing
should:

Meet the needs of eligible households including availability at a cost
low enough for them to afford, determined with regard to local incomes
and local house prices.

Include provision for the home to remain at an affordable price for
future eligible households or, if these restrictions are lifted, for the
subsidy to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision.

Affordable Rented Housing/Homes - distinct from Intermediate or wider affordable
housing provision, this is most often the priority need see Social Rented Housing.
Note that we also use the term General Needs Rented (GNR) for appraisal
summary information referring to this tenure type we mean the same (as opposed
to affordable rented homes that are to meet a special need).

B

Base Build Costs - for construction only (excluding fees, contingencies and extras) as
explained in the study.

BH/BF - preceded by a number abbreviations used to indicate how many bedrooms
a dwelling has.

Appendix V

C

Cascade Mechanism/Principle - A Cascade is a mechanism which enables the form
and/or quantum of affordable housing provision to be varied according to the
availability of grant funding, thus ensuring that at least a base level of need-related
accommodation is provided without compromising overall scheme viability. The
approach aids delivery of both the market and affordable tenures by providing
adaptability where needed, thus avoiding the need to renegotiate Section 106
agreements with the time delays and cost issues that process brings.

Code for Sustainable Homes (CfSH, CSH or Code) - CLG is proposing to
gradually tighten building regulations to increase the energy efficiency of new homes
and thus reduce their carbon impact. In parallel with these changes to the building
regulations, the CfSH has been introduced as a tool to encourage house builders to
create more sustainable dwellings, and to inform buyers/occupiers about the green
credentials of new housing. CfSH compliance, to levels over those generally
operated in the market, is also compulsory for all public (HCA) funded affordable
housing development. The Code is intended to provide a route map, signalling the
direction of change towards low carbon sustainable homes that will become
mandatory under the building regulations. The Code, again in parallel with building
regulations and other initiatives, also covers a wider range of sustainability
requirements beyond lower carbon.

Commuted Sum - See Payment in lieu below.

Core Strategy - The key Development Plan Document (DPD) through which a local
authority sets out its strategic planning approach for its area. Accompanied by other
DPDs, usually dealing with aspects such as site allocations or regeneration areas,
and in some cases covering particular topics such as affordable housing (see below
for other definitions).

D

Density (Indicative Density) - Represents the intensity of use of a site by way of how
many dwellings (or in some cases other measures such as habitable rooms) are
provided on it. Usually described by reference to dwellings per hectare (DPH).

Developer Appraisal - An appraisal carried out by a developer to determine the
approximate value of land in order that an offer can be made to a landowner. The
appraisal(s) would normally look to determine an approximate Residual Land Value
(RLV). Assuming a developer has already reached the initial conclusion that, in
principle, a site is likely to be suitable and viable for development, an appraisal is
then carried out to fine tune scheme feasibility and discover what sum they can afford
to pay for the site. This would normally be subject to a range of caveats and clauses
based on circumstances unknown to the developer at the time of making an offer. As
an example, an offer could be subject to the granting of planning permission or
subject to no abnormal conditions existing, etc.
Appendix V

Development Plan Document (DPD) - Spatial planning documents that are subject to
independent examination, and together with the relevant Regional Spatial Strategy
(RSS), will inform the planning policies for a local authority. They include a Core
Strategy and also often cover site-specific allocations of land, area action plans and
generic development control policies.

Developer Payment (Type) - The sums applied to the appraisals in terms of payment
to the developer in return for completed affordable units. The form modelled is based
on the Mortgage Funded by Rental Stream. The Mortgage Funded by Rental Stream
subsidy only pays the developer a sum per unit that is equivalent to the RSLs ability
to fund the units through capitalisation of the (affordable) net rental stream from
those units. The rental flows for this are based on Homes and Communities Agency
Target Rents, after e.g. management, maintenance costs and voids allowances. In
this regard see also Payment Table. The study refers also to this payment as the
affordable housing unit transfer.

Developers Profit - The developers reward for risk taken in pursuing and running the
project, required to secure project funding. This is the gross profit, before tax. It will
usually cover an element of overheads, but varies. The profit element used in these
appraisals is profit expressed as a percentage of Gross Development Value (the
most commonly expressed way) although developers will sometimes use other
methods, for example a certain return on capital employed (ROCE).

Development Cost - This is the cost associated with the development of a scheme
and includes professional fees (engineering, design, project management),
contingencies, sale agency fees, legal fees on unit sales and of course build costs
(materials, labour, etc).

Development Plan (Plan) - The statutory plan through which a local authority
determines planning policy for its area over the life of the plan (plan period). While a
local authority is moving towards their LDF (see below), which will become the new
development plan basis, the previous (adopted) Local Plan or Unitary Development
Plan remains the relevant development plan basis for the area.

Development Viability (or Viability) - The viability of the development (in this case a
market-led housing scheme) meaning its health in financial terms. A viable
development would normally be one which proceeds (or at least there is no financial
reason for it not to proceed) it would show the correct relationship between GDV
(see below) and Development Cost. There would be a sufficient gap between the
GDV and Development Cost to support a sufficient return (developers profit) for the
risk taken by the developer in pursuing the scheme (and possibly in this connection
to support funding requirements), and a sufficiently attractive land value for the
landowner. An un-viable scheme is one where a poor relationship exists between
GDV and Development Cost, so that insufficient profit rewards and/or land value can
be generated.

Dwellings per Hectare (DPH) see Density.
Appendix V

E

F

Finance - Costs associated with financing the development cost. Varying views are
taken on the length of the relevant construction projects as to how long these costs
need to be carried for on each occasion.

Financial Contribution - see Payment in lieu.

G
Gross Internal Area (GIA) - Broadly speaking GIA is the whole enclosed area of a
building within the external walls taking each floor into account and excluding the
thickness of the external walls. GIA will include: Areas occupied by internal walls
(whether structural or not) and partitions; service accommodation such as WCs,
showers, changing rooms and the like; columns, piers, whether free standing or
projecting inwards from an external wall, chimney breasts, lift wells, stairwells etc; lift
rooms, plant rooms, tank rooms, fuel stores, whether or not above roof level; open-
sided covered areas.

Gross Development Value (GDV) - The amount the developer ultimately receives on
completion or sale of the scheme whether through open market sales alone or a
combination of those and the receipt from a RSL for completed affordable housing
units - before all costs are subtracted.

H

Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) - The Governments Agency charged with
delivering the national affordable housing (investment) programme (NAHP) and the
vehicle through which public funs in the form of Social Housing Grant (SHG) are
allocated, where available and where the HCAs investment criteria are met, for
affordable housing development. The HCA is relatively new was formed from a
merger of English Partnerships and relevant function areas of The Housing
Corporation.

I

Intermediate Affordable Housing (Intermediate Tenure) - PPS3 Housing defines
intermediate affordable housing as Housing at prices and rents above those of social
rent, but below market price or rents, and which meet the criteria set out above.
These can include shared equity products (e.g. HomeBuy), other low cost homes for
sale; and intermediate rent (property made available to rent, usually at no more than
80% of open market rental prices).

J

Appendix V

K

L

Land Costs - Costs associated with securing the land and bringing it forward
activities which precede the construction phase, and, therefore, costs which are
usually borne for a longer period than the construction phase (a lead in period). They
include financing the land acquisition and associated costs such as land surveys,
planning application and sometimes infrastructure costs, land acquisition expenses
and stamp duty land tax.

Land Residual as a percentage (%) of GDV - The amount left for land purchase
expressed as a percentage of the Gross Development Value. A common guideline
used in the development industry. Readers may be familiar with the rule of thumb
that upwards of approximately one third of development value is comprised of land
value. In practice this has always varied, but with increasing burdens on land value
from a range of planning infrastructure requirements (including affordable housing)
traditional views on where land values lie are having to be revised.

Local Development Framework (LDF) - A non-statutory term used to describe a
folder of documents, which includes all the local planning authority's local
development documents. An LDF is comprised of:

Development Plan Documents (which form part of the statutory development
plan).
Supplementary Planning Documents.
The local development framework will also comprise:
The Statement of Community Involvement (SCI).
The Local Development Scheme (LDS).
The Annual Monitoring Report (AMR).
Any Local Development Orders or Simplified Planning Zones that may have
been added.
M

N

O

Open Market Value (OMV) the value of a property on the basis that it is offered for
sale on the open market the usual measure of value in this study context. Used
here to build up the development schemes GDV and also to distinguish between this
level of value and the lower level of receipt usually associated with the affordable
dwellings (see Developer Payment).

Appendix V

P

Payment in lieu - A financial payment made by a developer or landowners instead of
providing the planning-led affordable housing requirement on the site of the market
(private sale) housing scheme (see also Commuted Sum/Financial Contribution).

Payment Table - This is normally referred to where a local authority prescribes or
guides as to the levels of receipt the developer will get for selling completed
affordable housing units of set types and sizes to a Housing Association. In this
context it normally relates to an approach which assumes nil grant and is based on
what the Housing Association can afford to pay through finance raised (mortgage
funded) against the rental or shared ownership income flow. See also Developer
Payment. It is sometimes used in a looser context, for example in the setting out of
financial contribution levels for payments in lieu of on-site affordable housing
provision.

Percentage (%) Reduction in Residual Land Value (RLV) - The percentage by which
the residual land value falls as a result of the impacts from the range of affordable
housing policy options. This is expressed as the fall in residual land value compared
to a site that previously required zero affordable housing or a site that was required
to provide affordable housing previously, but at a lower percentage.

Planning Infrastructure - We refer to this because affordable housing is one of a set
of requirements which usually need to be met by new housing developments, and
are secured through obligations set out within Section 106 agreements. The terms
planning obligations, planning gain, infrastructure tend to be used to describe the
same. Also covers a wide range of community requirements needed to support
development highways, education, open space, public art, and the like.

Planning-led Affordable Housing - Affordable housing required on new market
(private sale) housing developments of certain types (which are set locally see
Threshold and Proportion below) as set out by PPS3.

Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (PPS3) - National statement of the
Governments planning policy on Housing including the planning-led affordable
housing we consider here.

Proportion (or percentage/%) of Affordable Housing - The percentage or proportion of
affordable housing sought on site. The appraisals model a range of scenarios across
the Value Points investigating the impact of a range of proportions of affordable
housing on scheme viability, for example from 10% to 50%, depending on local
circumstances. Each scenario usually also investigates the no affordable housing
(0%) position as a benchmark.

Q

Appendix V

R

Recycled Capital Grant (RCG) - An internal fund within the accounts of an RSL used
to recycle SHG in accordance with Homes and Communities Agency policies and
procedures.

Renewable Energy/Renewal Energy Measures - Measures which are required for
developments to ensure that a proportion (often expressed as a % target) of total
energy needs of the scheme are supplied through renewable sources (for example
solar, wind, ground heat, biomass, etc) rather than through conventional energy
supply means. Usually in the context of this study we are referring to small scale on-
site measures or equipment that will supply a proportion of the developments needs.
Increasingly, there are also moves to investigate the potential for larger
developments or groups of developments to benefit from similar principles but
through group/combined/communal schemes usually involving significant plant
installations.

Residual Valuation - The process by which Residual Land Value (RLV) is estimated.
So called because it starts with the GDV at the top of the calculation and deducts all
Development Costs and Developers Profit so as to indicate the amount left
remaining (hence residual) for land purchase including land value.

Residual Land Value (RLV) - The amount left for land purchase once all
development, finance and land costs have been deducted from the GDV, normally
expressed in monetary terms (). This acknowledges the sum subtracted for
affordable housing and other infrastructure payments/requirements where applicable.
It is relevant to calculate land value in this way as land value is a direct result of what
scheme type specifically can be created on a site, the issues that have to be dealt
with to create it and costs associated with those.

Registered Social Landlord (RSL) - A housing association or a not-for-profit company
registered by the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) to provide social housing.

Regional Spatial Plan (RSS) - The spatial plan for a region, promoted and managed
by the relevant regional assembly, and in the case of London the Mayors London
Plan. It comprises higher level guidance which sub-regional and local authority level
planning needs to take account of as a part of delivering strategic objectives for an
area.

S

Saved Policies - former development plan (e.g. Local Plan) policies whose life has
been extended pending the replacement plan (within the LDF) being in place. A
formal direction is required in order for policies to be saved.

Scheme Type - The scheme (development project) types modelled in the appraisals
consist of either entirely flatted or housing schemes or schemes with a mix of houses
Appendix V

and flats. They are notional, rather than actual, scheme types consistent with the
strategic overview the study needs to make.

Section 106 (S106) - (of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990). The legally
binding planning agreement which runs with the interest in the land and requires the
landowner (noting that ultimately the developer usually becomes the landowner)
through covenants to agree to meet the various planning obligations once they
implement the planning permission to which the S106 agreement relates. It usually
sets out the principal affordable housing obligations, and is the usual tool by which
planning-led affordable housing is secured by the Local Planning Authority. Section
106 of this Act refers to agreements regulating development or use of land. These
agreements often cover a range of planning obligations as well as affordable housing
(see planning infrastructure). There is a related type of agreement borne out of the
same requirements and legislation whereby a developer unilaterally offers a similar
set of obligations, often in appeal or similar set of circumstances where a quick route
to confirming a commitment to a set of obligations may be needed (a Unilateral
Undertaking a term not used in this study).

Shared Ownership - Shared ownership is a way of buying a stake in a property
where the purchaser cannot afford to buy it outright. They have sole occupancy
rights.
Shared ownership properties are usually offered for sale by housing associations or
RSLs (not-for-profit organisation). The purchaser buys a share of a property and
pays rent to the housing association for the remainder. The monthly outgoings will
include repayments on any mortgage taken out, plus rent on the part of the property
retained by the housing association. Later, as the purchasers financial
circumstances change, they may be able to increase their share until they own the
whole property (see stair-casing below).

Sliding Scale - Refers in this context to a set of affordable housing policies which
require a lower proportion on the smallest sites, increased with site size to graduate
the requirements and, therefore, the viability impacts, particularly as such sites often
fall within the thresholds for the first time.

Social Rented Housing - PPS3 Housing defines social rented housing as rented
housing owned and managed by local authorities and registered social landlords, for
which guideline target rents are determined through the national rent regime. The
proposals set out in the Three Year Review of Rent Restructuring (July 2004) were
implemented as policy in April 2006. It may also include rented housing owned or
managed by other persons and provided under equivalent rental arrangements to the
above, as agreed with the local authority or with the Homes and Communities
Agency (HCA) as a condition of grant. Social rented housing is often referred to as
Affordable Rented.

Stair-casing Receipt - Payment a RSL receives when a shared ownership
leaseholder (shared owner) acquires additional equity (a further share of the
freehold) in a dwelling.

Appendix V

Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) - Provides supplementary information in
respect of the policies in Development Plan Documents, and their more detailed
application. These do not form part of the development plan and are not subject to
independent examination.

T

Tenure/Tenure Type the mode of occupation of a property normally used in the
context of varying affordable housing tenure types in essence includes buying part
or whole, and renting; although there are now many tenure models and variations
which also include elements of buying and renting.

Tenure Mix - The tenure types of affordable housing provided on a site refers to the
balance between, for example, affordable rented accommodation and shared
ownership or other Intermediate tenure.

Threshold - Affordable housing threshold i.e. the point (development scheme and/or
site size) at which the local authority determines that affordable housing provision
should be sought, or in this study context the potential points at which the local
authority wishes to test viability with a view to considering and selecting future policy
or policy options.

U

V

Valuation Office Agency (VOA) - The Valuation Office Agency (VOA) is an executive
agency of HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC). Their main functions are to compile and
maintain the business rating and council tax valuation lists for England and Wales;
value property in England, Wales and Scotland for the purposes of taxes
administered by the HM Revenue & Customs; provide statutory and non-statutory
property valuation services in England, Wales and Scotland; give policy advice to
Ministers on property valuation matters. The VOA publishes twice-yearly Property
Market Reports that include data on residential and commercial property, and land
values.

Value Point(s) (VPs) - Adams Integras usual viability study methodology is to make
judgements on a range of new build property values which represent typically found
prices for ordinary new developments in the Borough at the time of the study
research.

Viability - See Development Viability.

X

Y

Z

Affordable Housing Viability Assessment Sept 2010

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Affordable Housing Viability Assessment Sept 2010

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Warrington Borough Council

Você também pode gostar