Planning Appeal & Public Inquiry decisions
Appeal
Appeal case
date
no
07/06/05 APP/G2625/A/
04/1154768
Address
Application
Issue
Decision
Remarks
St Anne’s
Wharf, Norwich
Purchase price
reflecting s106 & AH
obligations
10-20 Dock St,
London E1
26/10/06 APP/Y3615/A/
06/2016787
Hayward
depot, Dorking
Rd, Chilworth
EUV rejected as being
inappropriate in this case.
Purchase price should reflect
known obligations.
Toolkit considered suitable as
an appraisal toolkit without
cross checking other toolkits.
Accepted developer approachmore substantiated.
Lead case on requirement for land
value to reflect known policy
obligations.
13/12/05 APP/E5900/A/
04/1168750
AH viability:
Mixed use
dev. 437
dwlgs
AH viability:
Mixed use
dev. 95 dwlgs.
AH viability:
Appropriate
value at
purchase
12/12/07 APP/P0119/A/
07/20508675
Southmead Rd
& Gloucester
Rd, Filton
Sheltered
housing.
Commuted
sum viability.
23/04/08 APP/U5360/A/
07/2059530
Lesney factory,
Homerton Rd,
London E9
Mixed dev
with 222
dwlgs.
Purchase price.
Too much paid for land
knowing planning obligations.
01/08/08 APP/R3650/A/
08/2063055
Flambard Way,
Godalming
Mixed
commercial
and res dev
Current viabilityfuture growth
considered for
viability.
Inspector allowed, SoS
dismissed. SoS confirmed
approach of present market
values
12/08/08 APP/G3110/A/
08/2070447
Jericho
Canalside,
Oxford
54 dwlg res
dev with canal
facilities.
AH viability:
Relevance of
purchase price in
assessment.
Price paid 9 months before
appeal taken in to account in
assessing affordability
(Therefore considered
sufficiently recent for
comparison approach. Earlier
appeal (2005) concluded lower
Suitability of 3
Dragons Toolkit
Applicant did viability
based on purchase
price, including EUV.
LA evidence weak- no
comps.
Methodology for
assessing commuted
sum.
Assessed based on perceived
market evidence of land
values.
This decision is unlikely now to be
upheld in view of the number of
criticisms of the toolkit.
High EUV affected decision, but
no comment on whether sale
value disregarded planning
requirements. Contrasts St Annes
Wharf Norwich decision.
LA argument that land value
evidence reflected obligation for
AH provision and so should be
inflated to allow 100% market
housing value was rejected.
Important decision: Confirms
that purchase price can be
disregarded if too high a price
paid.
Important decision: Confirmed
current values/ costs as being
appropriate. Question mark about
whether an out turn approach is
suitable.
Widely quoted: Sold by tender,
and other bidders close to
purchase price. Appeal dismissed
so no judicial review possible.
DVS expert for OCC.
Superceded by Clay/ Glebe
Farm & Gun Wharf, Bow cases.
19/08/08 APP/P0119/A/
08/2069226
67-73 Bath Rd,
Longwell
Green, Bristol
27/08/08 APP/F5540/A/
08/2073381
1 Ivy Lane,
Hounslow
11/02/09 APP/C3810/A/
08/2086867
Fitzalan Rd, &
Church St,
Littlehampton
26/02/09 APP/G1580/A/
08/2084559
Maunsell
House, 154 160 Croydon
Road,
Beckenham
189 Streatham
Rd, Mitcham
02/03/09 APP/T5720/A/
08/2087666
Sheltered
housing.
Commuted
sum viability.
AH viability:
Res dev 18
flats
Purchase price v
current values/ costs
Sheltered
housing.
Commuted
sum viability.
New
residential
development
Date of viability
review.
Mixed deve
with 14 dwlgs.
Date of assessment
Emerging AH & S106
policy affecting
viability.
Uplift in site value
above MV in existing
use.
AH provision was reasonabletaken in to account.
Explicitly approves
methodology of current sales,
costs and land values using
appraisal toolkit.
Because of incorrect advice
given, impact of this should be
taken in to account in
assessing viability.
Taken as June/ Aug 2008after original planning
application and purchase date,
but not at date of appeal.
Inspector accepted the
principle of uplift in MV over
existing (Offices) use to
incentivise land owner to bring
site forward.
Taken as being current use
value, using values at date of
appeal.
30/04/09 APP/E2001/V/
08/1203215
Land N of
Flemingate,
Beverley
Multi phase
mixed
development
Viability approach on
multi-phase schemes
Assessment of viability on
multi-phases should be made
as they come forward for
detailed planning, not at the
initial overall outline stage.
19/07/09 APP/J4423/E/0
9/2096569
Norton Church
Hall, Sheffield
New res
development
New LA SPD to be
taken in to account at
appeal.
05/08/09 APP/K5600/A/
09/2097458
41-43 Beaufort
Gardens,
Conversion of
hotel to 9 flats
Build costs- day 1.
Inspector accepted that new
SPD adopted after planning
application should be taken in
to account in appeal
consideration.
Build costs specifically
identified as being assessed at
Toolkit used was HC/ Grimley
model. Purchase price not
considered.
Purchaser misled by LA on policy
requirement, resulting in overpayment for site. Limited impact
because of unusual
circumstances.
Neither party updated appraisal to
appeal date, and not commented
by inspector. Limited application.
Important decision: Inspector
considered 20% uplift on a site
value of ~£2m was reasonable in
this case.
Decision considers need to be
pragmatic in current depressed
market conditions to get
development underway.
Important decision: SoS review.
Multi-phase scheme. Viability on
schemes in the future should be
addressed at that time when
market conditions prevailing may
differ to the current market.
SPD related to AH requirement.
Appeal allowed. Inspector
reluctant to agree whose evidence
London SW1
06/10/09 APP/P165/A/0
8/2082407
Land at Lydney
Bypass,
Lydney
Large
strategic dev
site
Whether an out-turn
approach is the
correct method
11/12/09 High Court
hearing
Wakefield DC
LDP viability
assessment
Viability approach
25/02/10 APP/Q0505/A/
09/2103599
Clay Farm &
Glebe Farm,
Shelford Rd,
Cambridge
Multi phase
strategic res
dev site
Viability methodology.
Use of price paid for
land.
26/05/10 APP/N1215/A/
09/2117195
Former Royal
Hotel,
Newbury,
Gillingham
Viability
Methodology
10/03/10 APP/C1950/A/
09/2113786
Roche
buildings,
Broadwater
Road, Welwyn
Garden City
Viability
Land valuation date &
escalator mechanism
30/06/10 APP/G1630/A/
09/2097181
West of
Multi phase
Innsworth Lane strategic res
Viability reviews
deferred if AH amount
day 1, not mid point. Insp
preferred Savills house sales
evidence as based on Estate
Agency knowledge
Confirms that in multi-phase
strategic sites developable
over many years an out-turn
approach is reasonable
Barratts challenged report as
being too optimistic based on
current viability, showing 30%
AH viability over the cycle of
LDP period.
Land price paid is irrelevant, as
is developer’s accountancy
method. Risk reflects market
uncertainty and AH should not
be the “flex”. Insp took account
of economic cycle argument
even though this was not
raised by either expert.
he preferred.
Important decision: Specifically
contrasted approach at Flambards
Way, Godalming. Supported by
SoS, Ct of Appeal & High Court.
Case dismissed. The policy
adopted did pay due regard to
national policy
Important decision: dealing with
viability approach, use of land
price paid etc. SoS decisiondiffered from PINS re use of
Supplementary Planning
Obligation to deal with delivery
mechanics for AH. Considers
delivery a short term problem and
can be ignored in this case.
LA argued discounts of
LA sought discount of build cost,
defaults because of “in house”
prof fees, profit & interest cost.
services available to developer. Insp preferred industry
Arguments rejected by insp,
“standards” in the absence of
who preferred HCA EAT &
good alternative evidence.
BCIS data.
Appellant argued land value as Insp reiterated the existing land
purchase price to ensure
value is correct approach.
Developer carries risk not LA.
delivery, and proposed
escalator mechanism for
commuted sum in lieu of
AH/s106. Insp rejected bothLA should not carry the risk.
Case supports the Beverley, lydney
Similar arguments as Lydney.
and HCA documents requirement to
Insp did not appear to
revisit viability in long phased
& North of A40,
Innsworth,
Gloucester
Gun Wharf,
241 Old Ford
Road, London
dev site
is inadequate.
understand IRR approach on
multi-phase developments
schemes
Viability
Methodology for site
value
Appellant sought to adopt write
down from 2007 purchase
price. LA argued policy
compliant RLV basis
03/12/10 APP/G2713/A/
10/2127485
1 Leeming
Lane, Leeming
Bar,
Northallerton
Viability
Market evidence &
profit levels
P Lee (DVS) housing sales
evidence felt to be more robust
than that of Savills. Profit level
at 15% based on market
evidence accepted. PL used a
% of GDV for interest
Insp confirmed Clay Farm & Welwyn
Garden City appeals approach was
correct- RLV. Regard only to
purchase price in contextual
information.
Appeal dismissed. Worth noting the
preference of our evidence over
Savills- in contrast to appeal
inspector at 41-45 Beaufort Gardens
12/04/11 APP/V5570/E/
10/2127802
Carlton
Cinema, 161
Essex, London
Enabling
development.
Approach to
assessing viability
Requirement for the appellant to
demonstrate:
1. A business case for works.
2. That alternative options had
been fully considered.
3. That the works proposed should
not aim to recover original
purchase price, but be sufficient to
pay for the restoration works.
4. Use of the building will ensure
future sustainability of the building.
5. That the development would be
deliverable.
03/11/10 APP/E5900/A/
10/2127467
Appeal dismissed. Appellant’s expert
adopted a future growth approachNo comment made about this. Main
concern was that the enabling works
would not be done ‘til after the
funding development had been
completed- Lack of certainty and risk
of enabling works being done
because of this.