Out-Law / Your Daily Need-To-Know

Out-Law News 1 min. read

Inspector reduces affordable homes requirement for Leicestershire scheme


A planning inspector has decided that the affordable homes requirement in a planning obligation for a residential development in northern Leicestershire should be reduced by almost half, after finding that the original requirement rendered the scheme economically unviable.

Planning permission was granted in 2012 for developer Bloor Homes' plans for a development of up to 75 homes on land in Shepshed, Leicestershire. A planning agreement relating to the planning permission required at least 30% of the new homes to be affordable in a mix of 70% for rent and 30% intermediate housing.

The Growth and Infrastructure Act introduced a procedure enabling developers to apply for affordable housing requirements in planning obligations to be modified, removed or replaced where they render a development economically unviable. Bloor applied to Charnwood Borough Council to reduce the required provision under the new procedure in June 2014, and appealed to the Planning Inspectorate when the Council refused the application.

In a decision dated 18 December, (10-page / 109 KB PDF), planning inspector Stephen Roscoe allowed the appeal, ordering that the planning obligation be modified to require 12 affordable homes, representing 17.1% of the 70 homes planned for the site. The inspector decided that 66.6% of the affordable homes should be rented and 33.3% intermediate.

In coming to his decision, the inspector considered two viability appraisals produced by Bloor, one considering provision of 30% and one 14% affordable housing. The inspector agreed that the existing 30% requirement "makes the scheme unviable in current market conditions due to a shortfall of residual value against land costs".

The inspector said that the values provided by Bloor in its assessment of 14% provision should be increased, noting that certain units at a nearby development site had achieved a value £14 per square foot higher than that projected by Bloor for similar properties. However, Roscoe did not agree with the Council that it would be reasonable to require 20% provision.

Roscoe said he believed "a modification to 12 units would not set any dangerous precedent" and noted that "there would still appear to be potential for higher proportions of affordable housing in the higher value areas of the borough".

We are processing your request. \n Thank you for your patience. An error occurred. This could be due to inactivity on the page - please try again.