Greenwich Council adopts new viability assessment requirements

The Council has adopted a new list of criteria, the local information requirements list, which sets out the information that the Council requires in order to "register, assess and determine planning applications." Within this list, applicants now have to provide a "full un-redacted viability assessment" if their proposal does not meet the Council's 35% affordable housing target.

Previously, applicants who submitted a viability assessment could request for this to be kept confidential. However, now the report will be published alongside other documents submitted with the planning application.

The Council said that it aims to provide greater transparency and accountability by publishing an un-redacted report. If a development does not meet policy targets then the publication of the viability assessment will make the reasons behind this decision clear, it said.

A public consultation took place last year on the proposal. According to the Council's cabinet report, this new requirement was "fully supported by residents associations and individuals, who felt it was necessary in order to ensure transparency and allow residents the opportunity to consider the economic viability of developments."

"However, a number of respondents, mainly developers and their agents, felt that this approach was unjustified because viability assessments contain commercially sensitive information that could prejudice a company’s commercial interest if published." Some respondents also argued that this new requirement "was not in line with the Environmental Information Regulations."

The Council has considered the concerns raised and "maintain the requirement to submit a fully un-redacted viability assessment".

The Council has agreed to review the list in one year's time.

Planning expert Victoria Lindsay of Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law.com said: "this is a defiant stance taken by Greenwich Council and comes in the context of a number of ICO rulings and case law gradually eroding the extent to which viability reports can remain partially or wholly redacted and confidential on commercial sensitivity grounds."

"Applicants will need to balance the repercussions of releasing potentially commercial sensitive information that puts them at a commercial disadvantage against the feasibility of accepting the 35% affordable housing requirement and the risk that it could make the whole scheme unviable. It will be interesting to see whether other local planning authorities follow suit", Lindsay said.

"To suggest that a planning application is 'invalid' or incomplete unless supported by a full un-redacted viability assessment is unhelpful" said Marcus Bate, another planning expert at Pinsent Masons. "Greenwich's proposals are as controversial on the issue of timing as they are on the issue of commercial confidentiality. Good planning involves ongoing and constructive discussions throughout the planning application process and invariably involves submission of additional information post-submission.  It is counter-productive to front-load the planning application process so heavily and create yet more delay to delivery of new development."