Radstone Fields S. Northamptonshire 1,000 units Greenfield location on edge of market town Overall build out period = 10 years (3 phases) Essential to 5 year land supply Brackley Masterplan (adopted Jan 11) - identified as area for housing growth - extensive guidance on policy objectives

Radstone Fields S. Northamptonshire Policy context: – 40% affordable housing, – CSH level 3 – high quality design & premium product – Town fund – New primary school – Other contributions: public transport; leisure; biodiversity; allotments; health; waste; libraries; police; staff/monitoring costs – Total cost S106 and design £20m, infrastructure £20m (£40,000 per dwelling)

Radstone Fields S. Northamptonshire The process: Viability discussions commenced Nov 2011 Model used = Three Dragons toolkit Researched and agreed individual inputs Established a baseline position Agreed a series of different scenarios for consideration by elected members Resolution to Grant (May 2012) Appropriate legal agreements (October 2012)

Radstone Fields S. Northamptonshire Inputs & Baseline Position – Revenues: House numbers/types Majority of dwellings: 2, 3 & 4 bedroom houses A few 5 bedroom houses, 1 & 2 bed flats & 2 bed bungalows Market housing mix checked by Connells (Land & Planning) Maximises revenue, realistic & appropriate for current/future Brackley housing market

Radstone Fields S. Northamptonshire Inputs & Baseline Position – Revenues: House Prices TW/Barratts supplied house price information SNC Housing view = some prices too low Connells (Land & Planning) produced revised house price information (which increased revenues) Connells data approved by TW/Barratts & landowners and used in modelling

Radstone Fields S. Northamptonshire Inputs & Baseline Position – Revenues: Affordable Housing Current planning policy: developments over 25 required to provide 40% affordable housing. Preferred mix: Brackley HNS; waiting list; operational team knowledge Type: 1 & 2 bed flats; 2 bed houses; 3 bed houses; 4 bed houses; 2 bed bungalows Tenure: social rent; affordable rent; shared ownership Affordable housing: level of risk? housing need v. maximised revenue

Radstone Fields S. Northamptonshire Inputs & Baseline Position – Costs: Development Costs What should these be? National comparators Advice from cost consultants: EC Harris (TW); KMCS (SNC)

Radstone Fields S. Northamptonshire Inputs & Baseline Position – Costs: Base build costs Comparable with BCIS and verified by KMCS Abnormal Foundations Revised figure from developer on recommendation by KMCS CSH Figure mutually agreed by cost consultants Infrastructure Costs Figure mutually agreed by cost consultants Design Code Costs Verified by KMCS

Radstone Fields S. Northamptonshire Inputs & Baseline Position – Costs Development Costs * Based on total build cost Professional Fees * Below toolkit default Internal Overheads * Set at toolkit default Finance * Below toolkit default Marketing Fees Set at toolkit default Developers Return Above default Contractors Return Set at toolkit default

Radstone Fields S. Northamptonshire Land Value CLG research (Turner Morum) states land value should be times agricultural value South Northants = £ k per hectare Option Agreement – 2006 for 20 years Minimum land value within option agreement at top end of range

Radstone Fields S. Northamptonshire Results £13.5 million shortfall Savings need to be achieved – members need to make informed choices. Possible Areas for Savings: -Design code (some or all) -Affordable housing -Other planning obligations

Radstone Fields S. Northamptonshire National policy context – NPPF LAs should meet the FULL assessed needs for affordable housing in their housing market area LAs should use design codes where they can help deliver high quality outcomes however these should avoid unnecessary prescription & detail Consider viability in decision-taking Local policy context Preserve: environmental well-being - influence design of major developments Preserve: social well-being - deliver affordable housing which results in balanced communities

Radstone Fields S. Northamptonshire Design Code v. Affordable Housing Design Stone to 32 dwelling plots; community building; school Material & elevation upgrades to dwellings Public realm improvements Housing Need 1804 households on waiting list 377 selecting Brackley for re-housing 2011/12 – 66 homeless households Housing need & homelessness increasing

How it worked out The deal 22% Affordable Housing Affordable rent & shared ownership Full Design Code S106 with phased review All uplift in RV goes to local authority as additional affordable housing on site or as commuted sum Phased review encourages early start on site Why it worked Willing and informed landowner and developer Political will Officers actively involved in viability appraisal The right size of development with no punitive infrastructure requirements In the right place – would it have worked elsewhere in E Midlands?

Lessons Learnt Local Authority Knowledge sharing with planners - capacity building within organisation Raise corporate awareness of viability issues Better informed elected members Developer Consideration of viability much earlier Submitting viability information with planning application Adopting open & transparent dialogue with LAs re: revenues & costs Competing sites – viability increasingly more important issue Both Development of S106 agreement